Former POW Resigns From Bush Campaign - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-24-2004, 01:01 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora


I don't know. I've not only read about, but met, some Vietnam vets who seem to meet this description awfully well. Just because Kerry said what no one wants to hear doesn't mean it isn't true.
Just because Kerry said things that the liberal anti-war crowd love to hear, does not make it true. The fact is that the vast majority of the 2.5 million veterans who served in Vietnam, served honorably and did not commit war crimes as Kerry charges. My father and his friends who all served in Vietnam find Kerry's testimony to be inaccurate and absurd.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 01:15 AM   #32
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 11:02 AM
STING, did he say everyone serving in Vietnam committed war crimes?

And we in the anti-war crowd don't love to hear those things. Who would enjoy hearing that? It's terrible.

And to extend yours and pax's logic, just because your dad and his buddies believe it to be false doesn't make it so. I would think that you caould reach an opinion on the matter on your own. Like it or not, there are many vets who feel this way.
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 09:59 AM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 02:02 PM
I believe he has said he regrets some things he said all those years ago. I give him the benefit of the doubt on that. In hindsight perhaps he would have said some things differently.

What he said doesn't change my respect for those who served - I would never judge all of them because of what some may have done there. Not in Iraq either.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 10:13 AM   #34
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The fact is that the vast majority of the 2.5 million veterans who served in Vietnam, served honorably and did not commit war crimes as Kerry charges.
if Kery did indeed state that a majority of the Vietnam vets committed war crimes then he is an idiot

would he have stated that no war crimes were committed or at least without the knowledge of direct superiors then I would also doubt his intelligence since we have many, many, many accounts of vets stating the same
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 12:14 PM   #35
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Interesting article about Kerry

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/op...brooks.html?th

Quote:
I'm launching a major investigation into whether the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization is being secretly financed by the Kerry campaign. For today that organization begins airing ads drawing attention to John Kerry's 1971 testimony against the Vietnam War.
If voters see that testimony, they will see a young man arguing passionately for a cause. They will see a young man willing to take risks and boldly state his beliefs. Whether they agree or not, they will see in John Kerry a man of conviction.

Many young people, who don't have an emotional investment in endlessly refighting the conflicts of the late 1960's, might take a look at that man and decide they like him. They might not realize that man no longer exists.

That conviction politician was still visible as late as the 1980's. When Senator Kerry opposed aid to the contras, or took on Oliver North, he did it with the same forthright fire.

...

Kerry's speeches in the 1990's read nothing like that 1971 testimony. The passion is gone. The pompous prevaricator is in. You read them and you see a man so cautiously calculating not to put a foot wrong that he envelops himself in a fog of caveats and equivocations. You see a man losing the ability to think like a normal human being and starting instead to think like an embassy.

...



All this is odd for a person who is such a child of the 1960's. "Authenticity" was such a big concept then. Nobody would accuse the current John Kerry of that. In fact, the Democratic convention dwelt obsessively on the period in his life when Kerry was authentic, so it could evade the last 20 years of rising inautheticity.

In short, he's not the flaming liberal the Republicans sometimes try to portray. He's not flaming anything. If today's Kerry had been called before that 1971 Senate committee, he would have prudently told the throngs that he was for the goals of the war but against the implementation, for the idea but against the timing, for the troops but against this nuance and that nuance and the other one.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 12:34 PM   #36
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 11:02 AM
More Op/Ed from the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/op...rugman.html?hp

Quote:
Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.

But recent attacks on John Kerry have surpassed even my expectations. There's no mystery why. Mr. Kerry isn't just a Democrat who might win: his life story challenges Mr. Bush's attempts to confuse tough-guy poses with heroism, and bombast with patriotism.

One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.

How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichs of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.

After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.

As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam.

All the credible evidence, from military records to the testimony of those who served with Mr. Kerry, confirms his wartime heroism. Why, then, are some veterans willing to join the smear campaign? Because they are angry about his later statements against the war. Yet making those statements was itself a heroic act - and what he said then rings truer than ever.

The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude." Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"

Mr. Kerry also spoke of the moral cost of an ill-conceived war - of the atrocities soldiers find themselves committing when they can't tell friend from foe. Two words: Abu Ghraib.

Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies - initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee - leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice count for nothing.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 01:11 PM   #37
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 03:02 PM
I'm not saying *everyone* in Vietnam committed war crimes. But I cannot get past the fact that in war, particularly in Vietnam, some things were done that went beyond collateral damage, if you will, or beyond the usual "costs of war." Killing in war is, after all, still killing. It might be out of self-defense or defense of one's comrade and/or country, but it is still killing, and to suggest that large numbers of people might be scarred by that is not exactly a ludicrous or offensive statement.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 05:19 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 07:02 PM
On meet the press a couple of months ago kerry said that the language he used in his statements before congress in '71 was too strong. He was young and angry, and if he could he would have used less offensive terms.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 08:35 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
STING, did he say everyone serving in Vietnam committed war crimes?

And we in the anti-war crowd don't love to hear those things. Who would enjoy hearing that? It's terrible.

And to extend yours and pax's logic, just because your dad and his buddies believe it to be false doesn't make it so. I would think that you caould reach an opinion on the matter on your own. Like it or not, there are many vets who feel this way.
"not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day to day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command"

That quote speaks for itself.

Many in the Anti-War crowd in the 70s enjoyed having rallies where they would talk about how the US Military were a bunch of baby killers and other bullshit, and would then go and burn down the Campus ROTC building. Military personal were harrassed and my father and others were advised to not wear their uniforms on certain trips. The treatment and unsubstantiated allegations by many in the anti-war crowd in the 1960s and 1970s was disgusting. All veterans from that time period deserve an apology from those that committed these acts.

If one thinks most Veterans as John Kerry says, were in some ways war criminals, it is incumbent upon that person to prove that point. My father and his friends didn't accuse other veterans of unsubstantiated brutality, John Kerry did.

The fact is, you can point to some actions that were out of line in all wars, and there is no evidence that greater brutality happened in Vietnam proportionally than in many other wars before or since.

John Kerry's testimony was inaccurate, offensive and disgusting!


Also, no member of the forum needs you to tell them: "I would think that you caould reach an opinion on the matter on your own."
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 08:44 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
I'm not saying *everyone* in Vietnam committed war crimes. But I cannot get past the fact that in war, particularly in Vietnam, some things were done that went beyond collateral damage, if you will, or beyond the usual "costs of war." Killing in war is, after all, still killing. It might be out of self-defense or defense of one's comrade and/or country, but it is still killing, and to suggest that large numbers of people might be scarred by that is not exactly a ludicrous or offensive statement.
What evidence do you have that the cost of war in Vietnam was any different than World War I, World War II or Korea etc.?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 11:41 PM   #41
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 33
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
Here's another account of the day

This is what I saw that day'
Feb. 28, 1969: On the Dong Cung River
Chicago Tribune

by William B. Rood

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago--three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

...
Great so we can now retrie the red herring "if you didn't serve on John's boat, then you didn't serve with him..." Right?
__________________
SouthPark(R) is offline  
Old 08-25-2004, 02:11 AM   #42
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


"not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day to day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command"

That quote speaks for itself.

Many in the Anti-War crowd in the 70s enjoyed having rallies where they would talk about how the US Military were a bunch of baby killers and other bullshit, and would then go and burn down the Campus ROTC building. Military personal were harrassed and my father and others were advised to not wear their uniforms on certain trips. The treatment and unsubstantiated allegations by many in the anti-war crowd in the 1960s and 1970s was disgusting. All veterans from that time period deserve an apology from those that committed these acts.

If one thinks most Veterans as John Kerry says, were in some ways war criminals, it is incumbent upon that person to prove that point. My father and his friends didn't accuse other veterans of unsubstantiated brutality, John Kerry did.

The fact is, you can point to some actions that were out of line in all wars, and there is no evidence that greater brutality happened in Vietnam proportionally than in many other wars before or since.

John Kerry's testimony was inaccurate, offensive and disgusting!


Also, no member of the forum needs you to tell them: "I would think that you caould reach an opinion on the matter on your own."
First of all, let me apologize for the snarky comment. It was rude and out of line, and I am sorry.

Secondly, I find it interesting that you accuse Kerry of painting all soldiers in Vietnam with a braod brush, and then do the same thing yourself regarding anti-war protesters. I really doubt that many protesters burned down ROTC buildings, etc. Do you see how in the heat of the moment, when you're talking about something that you have strong feelings about, it's easy to cast the net a bit too wide?

John Kerry was testifying as a representative to a group of soldiers. He was testifying to what he and the other soldiers claimed to have seen while in Vietnam. If that contradicts what your father and his friends saw, that's fine. Unless they were in very senior positions I don't see how it would be possible for anyone involved in the war to have a complete picture of it.

You're right, John Kerry had no evidence, just the testimony of dozens of soldiers. I honestly don't see how it would be possible for him to have provided any hard evidence to the committee. To say that he should not have testified without evidence may be a valid point. But, what if the Abu Ghraib whistleblower hadn't had any evidence? Should he still have come forward? Would you have believed him without the pictures?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-25-2004, 08:07 AM   #43
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:02 PM
This was also reported by ABC news this morning.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_5108.shtml

The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry's swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics.
The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.

The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it "an enemy initiated firefight" that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry's.

Task Force 115 was commanded at the time by retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the founder of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been running ads challenging Kerry's account of the episode.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-25-2004, 08:46 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:02 AM
Quote:
Washington - In a reversal of their staunch defense of John Kerrys military service record, Kerry campaign officials were quoted by Fox News saying that it was indeed possible that John Kerrys first Purple Heart commendation was the result of an, unintentional, self-inflicted wound.

GARRETT: And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2, 1968. But in Kerrys own journal written nine days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, hadnt been shot at yet, unquote. Kerrys campaign has said it is possible this first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional self-inflicted wound Brit. (Special Report with Brit Hume Aug.23, 2004)
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/artic...40824130358175

Interesting that the Kerry campaign is doing some backtracking here. And ThatGuy, comparing John Kerry giving testimony about observing and commiting atrocities is on par with the Abu Ghraib wistleblower, wtf?

Admitting later on that you hadnt actually seen any atrocities - that doesn't add up. Painting your "Band of Brothers" as war criminals and then 30 years later trotting yourself out as Eisenhower, Wellington and Alexander the Great combined based on 4 months in Vietnam means that you should be prepared for scrutiny and that you have nothing to hide. Now if the charges are totally groundless its easy to dismiss them using records however as it stands the SBV have raised some very serious charges and have provided some evidence for them, it is up to the Kerry campaign to defend against those charges and make their case rather than use legal handywork to silence and character assassinate those making said charges.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-25-2004, 09:31 AM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 02:02 PM
Some surprising things about O'Neill in this article. (he claims he voted for Gore!) He does seem to have a deep personal grudge against Kerry..

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...till_run_deep/



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com