Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.

[bsnyder]

Why is that ironic? The claims are very, very recent, and they haven't been investigated yet. Why are you afraid to have them investigated? If they're proven libelous, that HELPS your candidate.

And did you see my thread on campaign finance reform? I'd be interested to know your opinion.

 

[bsnyder]

Some Veterans Still Bitter at Talk of Crimes
Senator's Activism Made A Lasting Impression

By Josh White and Brian Faler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 21, 2004; Page A01

William Ferris was confined to a bed in a military hospital, his severed sciatic nerve reminding him of the attack on his Navy Swift boat in a Vietnamese river. A shot from a recoilless rifle had pierced the boat's pilothouse and then Ferris's body, leaving him in constant agony.

But it was what appeared on Ferris's television that really pained him. John F. Kerry, a decorated fellow Swift boat driver, was testifying before Congress about atrocities in Vietnam, throwing his medals away, speaking at antiwar rallies. Ferris, who was trying to rehabilitate himself back to active duty, felt betrayed.

"I was livid," Ferris, 57, of Long Island, N.Y., said yesterday, recalling how his dislike for the presidential candidate began in the early 1970s. "I said to myself at the time, this is someone who is using his experience for his own purposes, and this was long before he ever ran for office. I thought he was using, actually manipulating, what he had done in Vietnam. Just like he's doing now."

Ferris is one of 250 Swift boat veterans who in May signed an open letter to the Massachusetts senator asking for full disclosure of his military records, specifically focusing on events during a four-month tour in Vietnam for which Kerry was awarded medals for bravery in combat. The veterans group -- Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- has criticized Kerry for using his military experience as a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, arguing that the Democrat has exaggerated his experiences at war for political gain.

"I thought he was just another hot dog just trying to build his reputation," said Wayland Holloway of Searcy, Ark., who says he crossed paths with Kerry in 1969, one day before the future presidential candidate pulled Jim Rassmann from a river. "The first time I met John Kerry, frankly, I thought he was a very disingenuous person."

But while the group appears to be rooted in Republican politics and big money, several veterans who signed the letter said in interviews yesterday that they are casually into politics and generally are not convinced that Kerry is lying, but they do not like the candidate because of his polarizing speeches in the 1970s.

James Zumwalt, who attended the group's first news conference in May, said he joined the group solely to set the record straight about the allegations of war crimes included in "Tour of Duty," a Douglas Brinkley book about Kerry's Vietnam service. Now, Zumwalt says, "I kind of have mixed feelings" about the tone of the group's attacks. "I would not try to question the awards given to him or his service."

Many of the veterans, scattered across the country, learned about the anti-Kerry group through friends, at reunions for Swift boat vets or on the Internet, and most have limited their involvement to signing the single letter to Kerry. Some say they voted for Al Gore in the last election but are still deeply hurt by what Kerry did when he returned from battle.

Kenneth Knipple of Erie, Mich., who served three years in Vietnam, backed Gore in 2000 but joined the anti-Kerry movement after leaning about it from a fellow vet. "For him to be wounded that many times and lie as many times as he did, I don't want him to be president," said Knipple, who served on Swift boats, but never with Kerry.

"I wasn't there at the time that happened," said Tony Gisclair, a veteran from Poplarville, Miss., who signed the letter, referring to Kerry's combat in Vietnam. "But look at what the man said about us when he came back."

Tony Snesko, a veteran in Washington, D.C., said he was "devastated" by Kerry's antiwar efforts, prompting him to sign on to the group's anti-Kerry message.

Snesko said to see Kerry elected would give credence to the senator's claims that those who fought in Vietnam were reckless baby-killers: "At the point that he might possibly take over this country as president -- it would validate everything that he said about us and would make it appear true."

The effort has gained momentum in the past month, as the veterans group began airing a controversial television commercial questioning Kerry's version of his service and asking him to disclose his military records. The Kerry camp has been attacking Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, calling it a front for President Bush's reelection efforts.

The May 4 letter arose out of a broader effort coordinated by a longtime Kerry foe and Republican supporter, Texas lawyer John E. O'Neill, also a Swift boat veteran. At the behest of the Nixon White House in 1971, O'Neill debated Kerry on television about the war.

O'Neill, who co-wrote "Unfit for Command," an anti-Kerry book published this week, gathered other Swift boat veterans to start the group and allowed word to spread. The group's core membership -- which has met three times and has had several conference calls -- includes a seven-member steering committee and about 10 other members.

"We really got this thing going in the hopes the Democratic Party would listen to us and perhaps nominate someone else," said Bill Lannom of Grinnell, Iowa, whom O'Neill recruited onto the steering committee. Lannom bristles at the thought of Kerry being elected to the presidency. "He's lying, and he's betraying us," Lannom said. "He's telling untruths about us and his character. He's talking about atrocities that didn't happen. And then he's using that same experience to promote himself. He can't have it both ways."

Unlike casual participants, the most committed members say they are driven by desire to expose Kerry as a fraud who doctored his record to win medals and an early release from Vietnam. But they are a minority in the larger group.

John L. Kipp of Brown County, Ind., said he learned about the letter to Kerry while surfing the Web and added his signature because he does not believe that Kerry is telling the whole truth. Kipp, who commanded a Swift boat in Vietnam, doubts that Kerry would have left his boat to attack an enemy, as he has asserted. "It really bothered me when he started to ballyhoo his war record," said Kipp, 62. "You don't turn on your comrades and say these terrible, awful things that I know I had never seen. There's something about keeping faith with those you served with."

Don Hammer, a veteran from Bloomington, Ill., said he admires Kerry. Hammer also said he believes Kerry was within his rights to speak out against the war. But still, Hammer has questions. "My goal is to tell Mr. Kerry to open up his service record," he said. "I don't know what happened. Nobody else knows what happened."

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Why is that ironic? The claims are very, very recent, and they haven't been investigated yet. Why are you afraid to have them investigated? If they're proven libelous, that HELPS your candidate.

And did you see my thread on campaign finance reform? I'd be interested to know your opinion.

The problem is that you claim investigating the claims is somehow different from investigating the men making the claims, and that just isn't true. By looking at the accusers, you are, in fact, also looking into their accusations.

Take the liar...excuse me, the "accuser"...that just this week was exposed as having the EXACT same medal with EXACTLY the same account on it as Kerry. That man's commendation did, in fact, refute his recent comments, despite his desperate attempts to deny it on every right wing talk show he could manage to get on. How is that not "investigating the claims" ? The man had documented proof that what he was saying was false, yet he claims that he never looked at it ?

If a group of men....say, former business partners of Dubya's...brought out accusations against him that said he cheated the IRS out of millions and had numerous shady business dealings before he got into politics, and that group was shown to be fully financed by a prominent member of the democrtic party, are you seriously suggesting that you would take offense at NEWS organizations pointing that fact out ? Is it not proper to investigate an accuser's motives in trying to determine the veracity of their accusations ? If not, then every court of law in our country has got major problems.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by TXTink
Keep posting Rokkitsci! The only reason this might be considered a non political thread is if your position is disagreed with. I thought the retorts to your most eloquent posts were just as silly as you did.

The truth cannot be argued with.

Thanks for joining the DIS Rokkitsci.

Silly is as silly does. For the record, I pointed out that the
BOARD was not a political one but that the THREAD

 

[Saffron]

Bet? Why don't the men in the article you posted read Kerry's records? Here, link them to Find Law! I also found Kerry's "spot" reports, or after reports at another site, but I don't know how to link them since they are in PDF form.

I don't know if all of his records have been released or not, but I'm sure when Bush does, Kerry will too, if he hasn't already. And here's an article you might like. It's an OP-Ed piece written by a Republican.

Jim Rassmann: Swift-boat accusers insult all Vietnam vets


Jim Rassmann

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift-boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam.

I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a U.S. Navy Southeast Asia Lake, Ocean, River, Delta Strategy (SEA LORDS) operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat.

Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river.

Fearing the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river.

I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire, and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed.

Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck.

But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target.

John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third-highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor.

The citation for this award, signed by the commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lt. (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

To this day, I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby.

But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join Kerry's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years, I have largely voted for Republicans.

I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth are suddenly lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam. They are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam.

Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against Kerry at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971.

But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records.

This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against McCain.

In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry.

Texas Republican donors with close ties to Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad.

Their new charges are false. Their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the U.S. Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud.

Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform.

Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth should hang their heads in shame.

Jim Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69. This article first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by TXTink
Keep posting Rokkitsci! The only reason this might be considered a non political thread is if your position is disagreed with. I thought the retorts to your most eloquent posts were just as silly as you did.

The truth cannot be argued with.

Thanks for joining the DIS Rokkitsci.

just for the record my Texas friend, I told Rokkitsci that the
BOARD was not political but that the THREAD he/she had posted on was political. I wanted the poster to understand the reason
so many of us use humor and smileys because she/he seemed
to think it wasn't ok.
We all know it is ok and now he/she does too!
Thanks for your post and reading mine!

 

[Saffron]

Oh! And yes! I can vouch for Bet! Up until this point she hasn't questioned Kerry's record and made the same statement Bush made about not questioning it.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
The problem is that you claim investigating the claims is somehow different from investigating the men making the claims, and that just isn't true. By looking at the accusers, you are, in fact, also looking into their accusations.

Take the liar...excuse me, the "accuser"...that just this week was exposed as having the EXACT same medal with EXACTLY the same account on it as Kerry. That man's commendation did, in fact, refute his recent comments, despite his desperate attempts to deny it on every right wing talk show he could manage to get on. How is that not "investigating the claims" ? The man had documented proof that what he was saying was false, yet he claims that he never looked at it ?

If a group of men....say, former business partners of Dubya's...brought out accusations against him that said he cheated the IRS out of millions and had numerous shady business dealings before he got into politics, and that group was shown to be fully financed by a prominent member of the democrtic party, are you seriously suggesting that you would take offense at NEWS organizations pointing that fact out ? Is it not proper to investigate an accuser's motives in trying to determine the veracity of their accusations ? If not, then every court of law in our country has got major problems.

I have no problem with the motives of the "accusers" being investigated and taken into account. But that's the only investigation that has happened here.

There are a number of inconsistencies in John Kerry's record. The Christmas in Cambodia claim is one, but there are many others.

He has not released all his military records, by signing the appropriate form that would do so. Were you even aware of that fact? I wasn't, until a few weeks ago. I wrongly assumed that if he hadn't released on the documents, the mainstream press would be acting like bloodhounds and reporting that fact. How naive of me to assume they'd apply the same standard to all the candidates.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
I have no problem with the motives of the "accusers" being investigated and taken into account. But that's the only investigation that has happened here.

Again, that's simply not true. The documentation has proven not only the one man to be a liar, but also the doctor that "treated" Kerry for his first purple heart injury (a shrapnel wound), despite the fact that his name appears nowhere on the paperwork. The actual witnesses have shown that another of the vets is lying when he says he was there on one mission, as only three people were on the boat and he wasnt one of them. At every turn, these men have been shown to be LYING about what happened in Vietnam, right down to the fact that several of them, as can be seen earlier in this thread, have praised Kerry in the past, both recent and Vietnam era. These men have NO evidence that what they claim is true, while EVERY piece of available evidence (official Navy records) points to them being nothing more than cheap attack artists, and not very good ones.
T

Originally posted by bsnyder
here are a number of inconsistencies in John Kerry's record. The Christmas in Cambodia claim is one, but there are many others.

If I'm talking about being in Disney World for Christmas 2004, does that make me a liar, since I'm actually going to be there a week before then ? Kerry, as far as I know, still says that he was in Cambodia around that time. If you really want to quibble, yes, I guess you could say that he was wrong about that (just as I am technically wrong in my above statement). So ?

Originally posted by bsnyder
He has not released all his military records, by signing the appropriate form that would do so. Were you even aware of that fact? I wasn't, until a few weeks ago. I wrongly assumed that if he hadn't released on the documents, the mainstream press would be acting like bloodhounds and reporting that fact. How naive of me to assume they'd apply the same standard to all the candidates.

He has released all his relevant records, but it's patently absurd to be upset about a decorated war vet not releasing every detail of his service when the president, who's war "duty" was considerably less valorous, refuses to release all of his. I'm sorry, but that shows nothing but pure partisanship on your part. Cambodia or not, we KNOW Kerry was in Southeast Asia during that time period, as even these attack dogs will concede. Where was Bush during that time period, and if he was so diligent in performing his duty to his country, why was he grounded from flying and why can't anyone seem to remember him showing up for duty ?

 

[Saffron]

Well ... let's look at what's been released so far, you can read all of these at Find Law:

Military Records of First Lieutenant George W. Bush for (*6 years of*) National Guard Service Between 1972 and 1973:

Jan. 6, 1973 USAF Dental Exam Record for 1st Lt. George W. Bush (HTML) [PDF version] Released by White House on Feb. 11, 2004

Memorandum of Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, Jr. (Ret.) (HTML) [PDF version] (Analysis of Military Payroll Records for George W. Bush for service from 1972 to 1973) Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004

USAF Reserve Personnel Record Card for 1st Lt. George W. Bush (HTML) [PDF version] (Covers period from 27 May 1972 to 26 May 1973) Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004

ARF 1st Statement of Points Earned by 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1972-1973) (HTML) [PDF version] Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004

ARF 2nd Statement of Points Earned by 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1973) (HTML) [PDF version] Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004

Military Payroll Records of 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1972-1973) (HTML) [PDF version] Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004


Military Records of Lieutenant (Junior Grade) John F. Kerry for (*2 years* ) U.S. Navy Military Service During The Vietnam War, 1968 -1969 Note: Kerry was promoted to (Full) Lieutenant on Jan. 1, 1970 prior to requesting a discharge

Purple Heart Awards (3) (PDF) For wounds received in action on Dec. 2, 1968, Feb. 20, 1969, and Mar. 17, 1969

Silver Star (PDF) For displaying "courage under fire, outstanding leadership, and exemplary professionalism" while acting as the Officer in Charge of a Tactical Command on Feb. 28, 1969.

Bronze Star (PDF) For "professionalism, great personal courage under fire, and complete dedication to duty" in rescuing, while wounded, a man overboard following a mine explosion, directing his gunners to provide supporting fire for the rescue, and towing a damaged boat to safety under enemy fire on March 13, 1969

Acceptance of Discharge Naval Reserve (PDF) July 13, 1978

Background Information (PDF) Feb. 1, 1966

Bupers Orders to Gridley (PDF) Nov. 17, 1966

Change of Duty (PDF) July 8, 1968

DD214 (PDF)

Duty Recommendations (PDF)

Emergency Data (PDF) Sept. 12, 1967

Enlistment Contract (PDF) Feb. 18, 1966

Enlistment Photo (PDF) Dec. 16, 1966

Fitness Reports (PDF) Apr. 12, 1967

Honorable Discharge from Reserve (PDF) Feb. 16, 1978

Leave Record (PDF)

National Defense Service Medal (PDF)

Naval Messages (PDF) Dec. 8, 1969

Naval OCS Report (PDF)

Nuclear Weapons Training Certificate (PDF) For training from May 8 - 11, 1967

Office Order Memos (PDF) Dec. 5, 1969

Officer Candidate Agreement (PDF) Feb. 18, 1966

Order to Officer Candidate (PDF) July 14, 1966

Pay Entry Base Date (PDF) Listed as Feb. 18, 1966

Personnel Casualty Report (PDF)

Presidential Unit Citation (PDF) "For Extraordinary Herosim" from Dec. 6, 1968 to Mar. 31, 1969

Qualifying Questionnaire (PDF) Oct. 16, 1970

Recommendations for Next (PDF) Nov. 24, 1969

Record of Discharge (PDF)

Release From Active Duty (PDF) Jan. 2, 1970

Report of Home of Record (PDF) Dec. 1966

Request for History of Service (PDF) May 24, 1986

Request for Swiftboat Duty (PDF) Feb. 10, 1968

Research Sheet F4-15 (PDF) June 21, 1967

Reserve Office Appointment (PDF) Dec. 16, 1966

Security Clearances (PDF) Dec. 16, 1966

Service Record (PDF) Prepared Jan. 25, 1985

Serviceman's Life Insurance (PDF) Dec. 8-9, 1968

Statement of Service (PDF) June 21, 1967

Thrice Wounded Reassignment (PDF) March 17, 1969

Top Secret Clearance (PDF) April 28, 1969

Training School Record (PDF) Feb. 18, 1968

Transfer to Standby Reserve (PDF) March 1, 1972

Travel Payment Order (PDF) Undated

Vietnam Service Medal (PDF) April 8, 1968

And as I said earlier, I found 2 PDF files of his "spot" or "after action" reports also. If all of Kerry's records have not been released, many of them have, for two years of service.

Wow, 6 years of service and that's all Bush has released. Or are there more, I just haven't found them?

I'm all for full disclosure of both candidate's records! Or, leave it as is for both candidates!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Saffron

As far as war crimes, I didn't read anywhere on this thread that Kerry had admitted to war crimes until *I* read and posted the second page of Dick Cavett's interview with O'Neil and Kerry, up til then I only read that he had admitted to committing "atrocities". So I stand corrected. He has charged himself with committing war crimes. I REFUSE to indict him or the thousands and thousands of men who did the same US government sanctioned and ordered things, knowingly or unknowingly. I didn't fight in the war. I will not make any accusations against anybody who lived through that hellish experience. If Kerry wants to, as a man who served honorably and valiantly according to all records, accuse himself, then so be it. It's on his head. And I stand behind him 100%, his accounts of his actions are his for life. If that's how how he feels about his service and what he knows to be true, who am I to try to take that away from him? And I will not charge or accuse any American soldier as a liar who said they did NOT do the things Kerry claims he did.

Are you saying that you back a (very likely if he participated in free-fire zones) wartime murderer? Is that how I'm to interpret your comments?

I hate to do this then but I'll add a little redirection. Since you were opposed to this war, how do you feel about the soldiers that are accused of the mistreatment of the prisoners at Abu Grabhi? What about the soldier that threw the hand grenade into the tent of his fellow soldiers at the beginning of the war?

Do they get a pass because you feel they were fighting in just as an unnecessary war (as VN was) and they (not I think not proved yet) were supposedly following orders as well?

 

[Saffron]

Can someone link me to the actual transcript of the speech Kerry gave on the Senate floor in 1986 claiming to have spent Christmas in Cambodia. All I can find are Right winged sites claiming to debunk the story, but I can't find the actual story! Thanks!

If he's lying about it, than he's a liar about it. But I'd like to read what he ACTUALLY said, not what someone said he said.

 

[Saffron]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Are you saying that you back a (very likely if he participated in free-fire zones) wartime murderer? Is that how I'm to interpret your comments?

Wow! He's a murderer now! He said he fired in free zones (I think, I have to go back and read the transcript), but I don't recall him EVER saying he murdered anyone there!

I hate to do this then but I'll add a little redirection. Since you were opposed to this war, how do you feel about the soldiers that are accused of the mistreatment of the prisoners at Abu Grabhi?
Why? So you can compare my feelings about the Vietnam War to the prison abuse at Abu Grahib? Why don't we compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, instead of oranges to apples. I can compare my feelings about the Vietnam War with my feelings about Iraq war, or my feelings about American and Vietnamese POW abuse ( I can't recall any prison abuse in Vietnam ) to Abu Grahib.

What about the soldier that threw the hand grenade into the tent of his fellow soldiers at the beginning of the war?
What about him?

Do they get a pass because you feel they were fighting in just as an unnecessary war (as VN was) and they (not I think not proved yet) were supposedly following orders as well?

Sorry, I don't understand this part.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Are you saying that you back a (very likely if he participated in free-fire zones) wartime murderer? Is that how I'm to interpret your comments?


Wow! He's a murderer now! He said he fired in free zones (I think, I have to go back and read the transcript), but I don't recall him EVER saying he murdered anyone there!

Well, what do you consider someone who's admittedly done such things? IMO, a soldier that kills others while following the laws and rules of warfare is not a murderer. One that kills innocents on purpose (with or without orders) is. Or do you not agree with this? That's what I'm getting at.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to do this then but I'll add a little redirection. Since you were opposed to this war, how do you feel about the soldiers that are accused of the mistreatment of the prisoners at Abu Grabhi?


Why? So you can compare my feelings about the Vietnam War to the prison abuse at Abu Grahib? Why don't we compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, instead of oranges to apples. I can compare my feelings about the Vietnam War with my feelings about Iraq war, or my feelings about American and Vietnamese POW abuse ( I can't recall any prison abuse in Vietnam ) to Abu Grahib.

Am I right in assuming that you feel that both the VN and Iraq war were unnecessary? If so, then I am comparing apples to apples. The "apple" is the idea that you cannot label a soldier that committed atrocities while under orders. The only difference is the time and location.

I'm looking for consistency. If you feel that soldiers in VN who committed such acts (under orders) should not be labeled as war criminals because of the circumstances that put them in that position, then I can only assume that you feel the same way about the prison guards (if the allegations they were following orders is true).


Do they get a pass because you feel they were fighting in just as an unnecessary war (as VN was) and they (not I think not proved yet) were supposedly following orders as well?



Sorry, I don't understand this part.

Sorry for making the assumption when you say you REFUSE to indict any soldier for their actions while following orders is the same as getting a pass.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take back the comment about the soldier who threw the grenade. It was irrelevant. Sorry.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Saffron]

ACK! Huge thunderstorm heading my way! I'm in North Wales, so it should be to you soon Elwood! I'll post when it's over!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Saffron
ACK! Huge thunderstorm heading my way! I'm in North Wales, so it should be to you soon Elwood! I'll post when it's over!

Saffron, I'm too far from you (about 15 miles due north) and one just rolled through here about 20 minutes ago. It's over now.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Saffron
Can someone link me to the actual transcript of the speech Kerry gave on the Senate floor in 1986 claiming to have spent Christmas in Cambodia. All I can find are Right winged sites claiming to debunk the story, but I can't find the actual story! Thanks!

If he's lying about it, than he's a liar about it. But I'd like to read what he ACTUALLY said, not what someone said he said.

You can't find the "actual" story because the mainstream press has, so far, refused to cover it. However, the blogosphere has been actively investigating for a couple of weeks now. One blogger, Glen Reynolds, actually went to a law library, with his digital camera.

This site has a photo of the exact page of the Congressional Record. The relevant quote by Kerry starts on the third paragraph of the far right column.

http://instapundit.com/images/kerrycambfull.jpg

If you have trouble reading, because the picture is a little grainy, the exact quote is blown up in this picture:

http://instapundit.com/archives/week_2004_08_08.php

Hard to imagine how he could be so wrong about a memory that was "seared-seared" into him.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by bsnyder

Hard to imagine how he could be so wrong about a memory that was "seared-seared" into him.

Hmm... I suppose then he must have had a brain fart.

 

[Saffron]

Well that wasn't too bad! It's still raining, but the lightening is over, but it looks like it's going to be a stormy day. Back to debating, arguing, whatever the heck this is!

Originally posted by Elwood Blues

Well, what do you consider someone who's admittedly done such things? IMO, a soldier that kills others while following the laws and rules of warfare is not a murderer. One that kills innocents on purpose (with or without orders) is. Or do you not agree with this? That's what I'm getting at.

I apologize! I could have sworn you were trying to say that Kerry was an admitted wartime murderer! I didn't realize you meant just any ol' soldier, I thought for sure you meant Kerry! But just in case, before I go on ... you do know that Kerry never admitted any such thing, right? So to answer you, yes. I think anyone who intentionally kills another human being, and they are not defending their own life or the life of someone else, is a murderer, war or no war. Now, don't EVEN try to twist my post and say I meant something I didn't. If you have any questions about my post or you want me to clarify something, just ask and I will, but don't try to twist anything.

Am I right in assuming that you feel that both the VN and Iraq war were unnecessary? If so, then I am comparing apples to apples.
Well yeah, now you are comparing apples to apples, but before you were comparing the Vietnam War to Abu Grahib prison abuse, big difference. Now you’re comparing a war to a war.

This time your assumption about me and my feelings about whether the Vietnam War or the Iraq War were/are necessary or not, are correct. But I'm not sure if necessary is the correct word. I'll have to think about that.

The "apple" is the idea that you cannot label a soldier that committed atrocities while under orders. The only difference is the time and location.
Sorry, I don’t understand this part, can you clarify.

I'm looking for consistency. If you feel that soldiers in VN who committed such acts (under orders) should not be labeled as war criminals because of the circumstances that put them in that position, then I can only assume that you feel the same way about the prison guards (if the allegations they were following orders is true).

Once again, apples and oranges ... soldiers fighting in a war, and prison guards committing prison abuse. Let’s compare soldiers fighting in a war, to soldiers fighting in a war, and prisoner abuse to prisoner abuse. But ... to stop belaboring this, let me put it this way ...

Anyone who would do the things to the prisoners in Iraq, that the American guards did, military of civilian, are going to be tried and if found guilty, convicted ... hopefully all the way up the chain of command, even if that goes all the way up to Rumsfeld, to get to the person or persons who ordered or knew about and condoned the abuse. I feel the same about the guards/soldiers who abused John McCain and other POW's while they were held prisoner in Vietnam.

In the same breath, you can’t put anyone on trial who isn’t charged with a crime. Why am I saying that? Because I get the feeling that what you might be trying to get at, is that Kerry should be charged as a war criminal, but I could be wrong. Anyway ... should he? I don't know. If anyone wants to charge Kerry with a crime for firing in a free-fire zone, do it! But ... charge O'Neil and all those other swiftboat vets (even those "swifties") too! Don't just stop at Kerry! And don't just stop at Kerry's military level. Go allllllllllllllllll the way up the command, to those who approved and ordered free-fire zones, from those who burned hooches to those who ordered the hooches burned, to those in the military or US government who condoned such actions. I REFUSE to accuse any soldier or judge any soldier or indict any soldier who fought in Vietnam, for their service in Vietnam, if they have not been charged with a crime. Let the military charge them, let the military put them ALL on trial, not just one or two, and I will then.

Do they get a pass because you feel they were fighting in just as an unnecessary war (as VN was) and they (not I think not proved yet) were supposedly following orders as well?

Oh! I understand what you are getting at now! "They" meaning the prison guards at Abu Grahib, right? Free pass meaning they should get away with it, right? It has nothing to do with my feelings on the war. They are prison guards, some military, some civilian. Some of the guards have been charged with crimes and some more charges may be coming soon. I don't care if it happened in Iraq or at Bucks County prison. I look at each individual and the charges against them. Suppose Lindy England got away with what she did, then 2 years later after her honorable discharge she showed her pictures to Congress and said, "Look what my commanding officers made me do." Would I feel about her the way I feel about Kerry? Yes. They would either have to charge her, or not, but I wouldn't. I have no idea what went on. Now, as it is, she has been charged with crimes and I do pass judgement on her! I just hope that they DO NOT stop there! I hold every person up that chain of command who condoned or ordered the abuse, responsible.

Sorry for making the assumption when you say you REFUSE to indict any soldier for their actions while following orders is the same as getting a pass.

I'm still not sure what you mean, but I'll guess at it. I REFUSE to indict any particular individual who served this country in Vietnam, unless that man has/was charged with a crime. I will not sit in judgement of a Vietnam Vet, who feels they, as an individual, did the right thing or who feels they, as an idividual, did the wrong thing, unless they were officially charged with a crime. Maybe that clarifies things, maybe not.

 

[Saffron]

Looks like Kerry might be lying about the "Christmas in Cambodia" stuff, but I want to read the transcript for myself, you know why? The paragraphs before and following the "Christmas in Cambodia" stuff is cut off. And that's what the SBVT do. Only take a little bit of info and add their slant to it.

It's the SBVT that has opened this story up. It's also the SBVT that claim Kerry was speaking for every Vet who served in Vietnam and calling them all war criminals, when he addressed Congress in 1971. And you know what they do? The use part of the transcipt, a couple of entries down, when Kerry begins to speak of atrocities committed in Vietnam, but they leave out the part where he states he is only representing those who have given him their stories, and the V V WA. So if they can conveniently leave out that info to make false charges against him, they can leave out other info. I want to read the paragraphs before those photographed, to make sure he wasn't once again repeating someone else's story.

Otherwise, if it's true, if he was giving a false account before the senate of something that didn't happen, he's lying and has some explaining to do.

The rest of the "swiftie" stuff is a bunch of crap though.