Should this book be banned?

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Tink&SquirtsMom
Did Bush serve honorably having spent no time in Vietnam? Did the current soldier who reported the misconduct at Abu Gharib serve honorably even though by telling what was going on he was exposing the war crimes of fellow solidiers? Would you dare tell a soldier coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan today with nothing more then "superficial wounds" that they had not served honorably?

Did John Kerry tell all those soldiers still fighting in Vietnam after he came home that they were serving honorably?

 

[Tink&SquirtsMom]

Did John Kerry tell all those soldiers still fighting in Vietnam after he came home that they were serving honorably?

I don't believe that he said anything contrary to that they were serving honorably. From what I've read of his statements he said there were atrocities occuring (there were), some soldiers were participating in violations of human rights (they were) and changes needed to be made (they did) to better protect our soldiers. No where have I read that he expressed that soldiers were not serving honorably. When he did talk about war crimes it was expressed that this was not the majority of soldiers serving who were acting in this manner, and the ones who were, were reacting out of the horrible situation they were placed in. In fact he cared about all the soldiers and wanted to get them out of an unwinnable situation.

But I take by the dodging of my questions and the question you posed back, that you do believe that someone who reports the war crimes of a fellow soldier is not serving honorably, which ironically would mean the people who reported the prison misconduct scandals in Iraq are not the heros the Bush administration has said they are (and that I believe they are).

If indeed he did tell all of the soldiers they were not serving honorably why did so many of the people in the SBVT ads continue to support him as recently as 2003 (see article posted earlier). I saw on tv this morning a news clip which had Lonsdale standing right next to Kerry in 1996 helping him campaign and talking about how heroic Kerry was in Vietnam.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Tink&SquirtsMom
I don't believe that he said anything contrary to that they were serving honorably. From what I've read of his statements he said there were atrocities occuring (there were), some soldiers were participating in violations of human rights (they were) and changes needed to be made (they did) to better protect our soldiers. No where have I read that he expressed that soldiers were not serving honorably. When he did talk about war crimes it was expressed that this was not the majority of soldiers serving who were acting in this manner, and the ones who were, were reacting out of the horrible situation they were placed in. In fact he cared about all the soldiers and wanted to get them out of an unwinnable situation.

But I take by the dodging of my questions and the question you posed back, that you do believe that someone who reports the war crimes of a fellow soldier is not serving honorably, which ironically would mean the people who reported the prison misconduct scandals in Iraq are not the heros the Bush administration has said they are (and that I believe they are).

If indeed he did tell all of the soldiers they were not serving honorably why did so many of the people in the SBVT ads continue to support him as recently as 2003 (see article posted earlier). I saw on tv this morning a news clip which had Lonsdale standing right next to Kerry in 1996 helping him campaign and talking about how heroic Kerry was in Vietnam.

No, your take is wrong. I do not believe that just because someone reports a war crime that they are not serving honorably. That is not what Kerry did. His accusations were on a much grander scale than that. If you haven't already done so, I suggest you go back and read the transcripts again, of his Senate testimony and the other interviews he gave back in those days.

The vets who stood up for him in the 1996 campaign did so specifically because Kerry was being smeared in that campaign as having committed war crimes. It appears they take exception to anyone throwing that term around loosely, even though that's what Kerry did to them.

 

[bsnyder]

From the Swiftvets website:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.


and

It is a matter of public record that John Kerry lied before Congress when he falsely portrayed his fellow service personnel in Vietnam as rapists and baby killers. John Kerry claimed that American troops were guilty of “crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command,” and that we “personally raped” and otherwise brutalized innocent civilians. Kerry specifically accused Swift boat personnel of “showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks” and “butchering a lot of innocent people.” None of that is true.

We believe Senator Kerry’s irresponsible accusations damaged the U.S. war effort. Whether his testimony was designed to advance a political or personal agenda, we do believe that testimony endangered our prisoners of war, dishonored those injured and killed in action and did irreparable harm to the reputation of servicemen who served honorably in Vietnam only to return home to unwarranted ridicule and abuse.

Drawing on the credibility of a tour of duty in Vietnam, however abbreviated, John Kerry shaped a false, slanderous image of U.S. military personnel as violent, vicious and brutal. U.S. military personnel, Senator Kerry told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, are collectively “a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence.” That is untrue. As with military men and women today, U.S. military personnel in Vietnam went out of their way to safeguard innocent life, often taking casualties themselves rather than putting civilians at risk.

Having lied to the world about his former comrades, it is our view that Senator Kerry is unfit to command our sons and daughters as Commander-in-Chief.

 

[Tink&SquirtsMom]

Maybe it is you who should go back and reread the transcripts. When Kerry was talking about the "personally raped" and brutality comments he was speaking specifically about a group of 150 soldiers who had admitted on the own recognazince (sp) personally committing those actions. None of those accusations were made against any of the SBVT or against soldiers at large.

As far as the monster quote, here it is in full:

The country doesn’t know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

To me there is nothing untrue in this statement. I was a modern history major in college and took a course on the Vietnam war, taught by a Vietnam vet. I've read extensively on the subject of the war, books by outsiders, vets, protesters and Vietnamese. I have many vets in my family. In no account have I ever heard has it not been described in a way such as this. The fact is the people over did deal in day to day violence, they did question why they were there, they did feel betrayed by their country, and they were angry. The country did feel the effects of this "monster." If these SBVT want to claim this isn't true far be it from me to say that wasn't their experience, but if it really wasn't I would say they were in the vast minority of people there.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Tink&SquirtsMom
Maybe it is you who should go back and reread the transcripts. When Kerry was talking about the "personally raped" and brutality comments he was speaking specifically about a group of 150 soldiers who had admitted on the own recognazince (sp) personally committing those actions. None of those accusations were made against any of the SBVT or against soldiers at large.

As far as the monster quote, here it is in full:



To me there is nothing untrue in this statement. I was a modern history major in college and took a course on the Vietnam war, taught by a Vietnam vet. I've read extensively on the subject of the war, books by outsiders, vets, protesters and Vietnamese. I have many vets in my family. In no account have I ever heard has it not been described in a way such as this. The fact is the people over did deal in day to day violence, they did question why they were there, they did feel betrayed by their country, and they were angry. The country did feel the effects of this "monster." If these SBVT want to claim this isn't true far be it from me to say that wasn't their experience, but if it really wasn't I would say they were in the vast minority of people there.

I too am a history buff (and was at one time a history major), and have read extensively on the subject of Vietnam and war, and have many vets in my family, including a cousin who was KIA in Vietnam at the age of 19.

John Kerry has already gone on the record saying he regrets the use of his "over the top" language. That's at least an admission that he exagerated, don't you think?

I don't think his puny regrets now, 30 years later, are enough for the men he slandered.

 

[bsnyder]

Since you've study the history, I'm sure you'll recall this quote from Jane Fonda, one of Kerry's comrades back in his anti-war protestor days:

April, 1973 -- Jane Fonda calls the freed American prisoners "hypocrites and pawns," insisting that, "Tortured men do not march smartly off planes, salute the flag, and kiss their wives. They are liars. I also want to say that these men are not heroes."

 

[peachgirl]

Does he have secret access to the records Kerry has failed to produced, that might shed additional light on what the truth really is?

I doubt it. Maybe he's as smart of some like to claim, or at least smart enough to know a liar when he sees one. I sure hope he's at least that intelligent.

Or, perhaps he's smart enough to know that the documents that are availalble are plenty enough evidience to prove that Kerry's version, which happens to be the version of every man who was on that boat but one, is true.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
The Oregon Bar is investigating a swift boat liar for making a false affidavit. See http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=70418

Good! They need to be held accountable for their lies.

 

[jennyanydots]

exactly, peachgirl.

to put a negative spin on something is quite different from lying.

 

[jennyanydots]

William Calley.

My Lai.

ring any bells?

I'm sure Calley wasn't the only one. he was just the one who got caught.


I am sure most of the men sent to Vietnam served honorably. but obviously not all.

Kerry said that he'd been told of atrocities. he never said he witnessed them.


obviously there were atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam.

 

[bsnyder]

Yes, there were atrocities. There are atrocities in every war, including the one we're in now (the prison scandal).

But that's a far cry from Kerry's testimony, which was that those atrocities were widespread and condoned as routine policy all the way up the chain of command.

He, along with Jane Fonda and others, succeeded in branding the typical Vietnam vet as Lt. Calley.

Then he has the nerve to salute at the Democratic convention and trot out all of his medals and play the war hero.

If he stands behind all his anti-war activities and his Senate testimony from 1971, if he's proud of the way he conducted himself after he came home from Vietnam, why didn't we hear one word about that part of his history at the Convention?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Because they are willing to trash a fellow veteran, who by all available RECORDS, including their own, earned every medal he got, all because they didn't like what he said when he returned home.

Sorry for not reading all the way through this and if this has been responded to.

Isn't that what Kerry did at the Senate hearing in '71?

Are you ok with and do you fully believe what Kerry said in that hearing and those two TV shows? All of it? Some of it?

 

[bsnyder]

Rich Lowry - Editor of the The National Review

Kerry refuses to admit that he burst onto the national scene by telling a shameful falsehood about American servicemen. In his testimony, he even traded on the notion that the vets had been made into war-damaged freaks -- the country has created "a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence." Kerry is perfectly happy to stand with members of this monstrous body of war criminals, victims and misfits now that they suit his political purposes. As for those vets who don't, they are "liars." The Swift Boat veterans seem unfazed by the charge, since they, after all, have been called worse by John Kerry.

Kerry is taking an enormous risk in basing his Swift Boat defense on a lie -- that the Swift Boat veterans are an arm of the Bush campaign. This is a civil war between Vietnam vets, one group of which is not going to forget what Kerry said about them 35 years ago. In 1971, Kerry said, "We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service [in Vietnam]." He owes the country an explanation of why, sometime between then and his need for footage for a campaign biography film, he changed his mind.

 

[Saffron]

Who cares if Bush condemns the SBVT ads or not? John McCane does! Not only was he a Vietnam Veteran (unlike Bush), he is a former POW.

Who believes these swiftboat lying guys? I understand believing them when they first appeared on the sceen, but now?

I feel sorry for the Vietnam Veterans who strongly disagree with Kerry and the things Kerry and the thousands of other V V A W veterans did and said after the war, who want to express their feelings. Those Vietnam Veterans don't have to lie, exaggerate or try to vilify and dishonor a fellow Vietnam Veteran to be heard and understood how they feel about Kerry and the other members of the V V W A. Look at McCane. Too bad the swifties have to lose all credibility by making up the smear campaign they did. And I feel sorry for the members of the V V W A who have to be villified and seen as "baby killers" (as posted here on the DIS) once again.

There's been no other time in our history before or since the Civil War, where brother and brother, soldier and soldier, were so torn apart by opposing points of views as they were during the Vietnam War and shortly thereafter. This country didn't know if it would ever heal. But it did, in a huge part because of The Wall. And soldier and soldier, brother and brother, healed together. Now these swifties have to try to cause that division again by lying and deceit. Why? Why not vocalize their feelings without lying and trying to dishonor another man's service to this country?

Is there anybody here that thinks of any Vietnam Vet as a Lt. Calley or ever has!? Does anyone think that the American people could not think for themselves, that they did not know their own men that they sent off to the Vietnam War, who came back from Vietnam? Does anyone hold any individual soldier who served their country, the way their country wanted them to serve, in contempt? Does anyone NOT hold the Johnson and Nixon admistrations accountable for some of the things they ordered during that war?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Saffron

There's been no other time in our history before or since the Civil War, where brother and brother, soldier and soldier, were so torn apart by opposing points of views as they were during the Vietnam War and shortly thereafter. This country didn't know if it would ever heal. But it did, in a huge part because of The Wall. And soldier and soldier, brother and brother, healed together.

I couldn't agree more!!!

Now these swifties have to try to cause that division again by lying and deceit. Why? Why not vocalize their feelings without lying and trying to dishonor another man's service to this country?

The only person who's to blame is John Kerry himself. When he stood up and saluted at the DNC Convention, when he made his 4 month service the centerpiece of his qualification to be Commander in Chief, when he refused to run on the issues, and rely on his 20 year record in the US Senate, he ripped the wound open and now it's a gaping hole again.

Why? Why did he have to do that?

 

[Saffron]

No he didn't. This was coming on long before that day. Those ads and people just didn't surface in a matter of 10 days. And even if they did, why? why do they have to lie like that and inadvertently dishonor all Vietnam Vets when they were only aiming for one.

 

[bsnyder]

The War Rages....

MSNBC reporting that Moveon.org today debuted 14 new anti-Bush ads.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by bsnyder
The War Rages....

MSNBC reporting that Moveon.org today debuted 14 new anti-Bush ads.

And I heard that the networks wil run them (all?) but not carry some keynote speakers at the RNC. Did they show all of the DNC keynote speakers?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Saffron
No he didn't. This was coming on long before that day. Those ads and people just didn't surface in a matter of 10 days. And even if they did, why? why do they have to lie like that and inadvertently dishonor all Vietnam Vets when they were only aiming for one.

Well, I agree they didn't just surface in the last ten days. The group actually formed in April, after it was clear John Kerry would be the nominee. But the set peice that was the Democratic convention was like waving a bloody shirt in front of these people.

As for why, I blame the biased mainstream media, for not shining the same glaring spotlight on Kerry's record that they did George W. Bush's. At the very least, his role in the anti-war movement should have been covered and discussed at length, given the fact that he's pushed his role as a Vietnam hero so hard. The American people deserve to see the whole picture, don't you think?