NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE TO MODS: Yes, I wrote this. No, it doesn't need a "source" other than me.

NOTE TO PENNSYLVANIANS: Copy and redistribute this ( or not ) as you see fit.


An Open Letter to the People of Pennsylvania


I am a former resident of the great State of Pennsylvania.

From the age of 12, I lived in a small town named Beaver, just North of Pittsburgh. I graduated from a local college, then after an unhappy encounter with law school, joined the US Army and wound up in Vietnam for two years.

I, like many other veterans, was spit on when I returned through an airport in California. Someone I had never met called me a “baby-killer.”

But when I got back home to Pennsylvania, several people stopped me on the street to thank me for my service. When I went to a local bar, no one would let me pay for my drinks.

The State of Pennsylvania actually paid me a bonus for my service, one of a handful of States who did this for their returning veterans. I finally felt appreciated. I finally felt as though I had come home.

And yet there is one wound which has never healed.

Most people remember Jane Fonda visiting Hanoi and her support of the same people I had been expected to fight. But until the recent election campaign for President began, few people except Vietnam veterans could have named a sailor who had turned against his former comrades, accusing them of having committed the most horrible atrocities on a daily basis. His words were used to torture our Prisoners Of War.

This former sailor then met with the leaders of those we fought against, and is now enshrined in a “Hall Of Fame” dedicated to “Heroes Of The Revolution” in Hanoi.

This is the wound which has never healed.

Now this former sailor is running for President of the United States and Commander In Chief of America’s armed forces.

My question to you, the people of a State I remember with great fondness, is this: do you truly believe that someone amoral enough to place political ambition above the truth about your sons and daughters is worthy of being elected President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces?

When I lived with you, I witnessed time and time again the essential goodness and patriotism you consistently exhibited. In my heart I still call Pennsylvania home because of you. Now, as an “expatriate son,” I call upon you to set the ghosts which haunt me and my fellow veterans to rest. I beg of you to help prevent us from once again being crucified upon this cross of betrayal.

Please, please search your hearts and decide that we, your sons and daughters, are more important to you than this amoral opportunist.

No one prompted me to write this letter. I wrote it from my heart to a people I learned to trust at a very early age.

With great love for you, and great trust in your judgment,

Forrest Lee Horn, Sr.
CPT, INF, USA
( Retired/Disabled )
Vietnam, 1967-1969

Can you lend me $60?

Can you lend me $60?

For??

Hmm let's see... dumb chimp who created the greatest surge in world wide terrorism and anti-Americanism vs a peace-loving hippie "political opportunist"... hmm.. difficult choice, really.

This is a serious question. Will people voting against Kerry really "set the ghosts which haunt me and my fellow veterans to rest"? While you undoubtedly carry the emotional and physical scars, can you honestly say that one vote in one election is all it takes to heal those wounds?

Anyone have change fpr a quid?

For??

Porn. What else?

Anyone have change for a quid?

Anyone have change for a quid?

I have two twenties and a ten.

Nice work GOP campaign team. As if I didnt see enough of these fake letters. Bugger off. :upyours:

Oh, and the issue at hand isnt that complex either. Warcrimes where commited in WW2, in Korea in Vietnam and are commited now in Iraq ... why be hypocritical about that?

Anyone have 50P?

Porn. What else?

Nope.

Nope.

Is it cos I is Black?

Nice work GOP campaign team. As if I didnt see enough of these fake letters. Bugger off. :upyours:

Oh, and the issue at hand isnt that complex either. Warcrimes where commited in WW2, in Korea in Vietnam and are commited now in Iraq ... why be hypocritical about that?

Nope. No "GOP campaign team" here. Just one old Vietnam veteran who thinks Kerry is an amoral opportunist. Don't believe me? ( SHRUG )

Eutrusca, please answer my question.

Is it cos I is Black?

Nope. It's 'cos yer stoopid. Plus, I need what little money I have, unless someone else is suffering for lack of $60, then I might have been persuaded to help, but NOT for "porn." :D

My dad, too, is a retired Vietnam vet and he couldn't care less about what Kerry did over there and when he came back here. All he cares about is today and the future, not what anyone did in the past.

Why can't you all just focus on today instead of making yourself look ignorant by trying to defame his character through his fundamental right to say what he wants?

I don't see anyone DISPROVING his claims that Vietnam vets killed babies, raped women, and the like; I also don't see anyone PROVING his claims of the same charges.

So, just get on with life, and stop bitching about how one man might tarnish your character. If you truly are the soliders you say you are, you shouldn't really care what he says about you, because he doesn't know you and the people around you that matter know that.

Nope. It's 'cos yer stoopid. Plus, I need what little money I have, unless someone else is suffering for lack of $60, then I might have been persuaded to help, but NOT for "porn." :D

How is it that I is stoopid? That's repression that is!

This is a serious question. Will people voting against Kerry really "set the ghosts which haunt me and my fellow veterans to rest"? While you undoubtedly carry the emotional and physical scars, can you honestly say that one vote in one election is all it takes to heal those wounds?

Perhaps not completely, but it would go a long way toward helping do so. You truly do not comprehend just what a terrible thing it was that Kerry did, and how great an impact it had on his former comrades. Actually, I don't think very many at all could, except for other Vietnam veterans.

So McNamera said all these things, condemning himself and his actions, out of pure alzheimer sickness... I see.

Perhaps not completely, but it would go a long way toward helping do so. You truly do not comprehend just what a terrible thing it was that Kerry did, and how great an impact it had on his former comrades. Actually, I don't think very many at all could, except for other Vietnam veterans.

So a vote against Kerry will change the fact that people called you a baby-killer on your return? While I don't question the depth of your anguish, I do question your rhetorical use of that and others' anguish to justify a vote that has very little to do with what truly caused you pain. Additionally, you imply that all Vietnam veterans feel the same as you, which is undoubtedly not true. It's misleading, and I would hope that you would qualify your statements to remain factually correct and not let your emotional involvement in this issue cloud your integrity.

Additionally, invoking Jane Fonda's name when it has nothing to do with Kerry seems to be yet another psychological ploy to smear Kerry's name.

My dad, too, is a retired Vietnam vet and he couldn't care less about what Kerry did over there and when he came back here. All he cares about is today and the future, not what anyone did in the past.

Why can't you all just focus on today instead of making yourself look ignorant by trying to defame his character through his fundamental right to say what he wants?

I don't see anyone DISPROVING his claims that Vietnam vets killed babies, raped women, and the like; I also don't see anyone PROVING his claims of the same charges.

So, just get on with life, and stop bitching about how one man might tarnish your character. If you truly are the soliders you say you are, you shouldn't really care what he says about you, because he doesn't know you and the people around you that matter know that.

This IS about today, and about the future. Kerry IS running for President right now, or was there some question about that???

And it's not a matter of my character being tarnished. My character is quite intact, thank you. It's about Kerry having told mostrous lies about ALL Veitnam veterans, repeatedly. And it's about his having given aid and comfort to the enemy. And it's about the terrible consequences of having such a man as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces.

If you cannot understand my position, and the position of many, many other Vietnam veterans on this, then there's no way I can adequately explain it to you so you will understand.

This IS about today, and about the future. Kerry IS running for President right now, or was there some question about that???

And it's not a matter of my character being tarnished. My character is quite intact, thank you. It's about Kerry having told mostrous lies about ALL Veitnam veterans, repeatedly. And it's about his having given aid and comfort to the enemy. And it's about the terrible consequences of having such a man as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces.

If you cannot understand my position, and the position of many, many other Vietnam veterans on this, then there's no way I can adequately explain it to you so you will understand.
So nothing of the sort Kerry claimed did happen? No atrocities or human rights violations by US troops in Vietnam? Remember back in the 70s we did not have the Internet, so such info could much easier be covered up. Iraq (Abu Ghraib) and Guantanamo Bay are the first atrocities in the history of the US?

This IS about today, and about the future. Kerry IS running for President right now, or was there some question about that???

And it's not a matter of my character being tarnished. My character is quite intact, thank you. It's about Kerry having told mostrous lies about ALL Veitnam veterans, repeatedly. And it's about his having given aid and comfort to the enemy. And it's about the terrible consequences of having such a man as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces.

If you cannot understand my position, and the position of many, many other Vietnam veterans on this, then there's no way I can adequately explain it to you so you will understand.

What positions did the men have in vietnam?

So nothing of the sort Kerry claimed did happen? No atrocities or human rights violations by US troops in Vietnam? Remember back in the 70s we did not have the Internet, so such info could much easier be covered up. Iraq (Abu Ghraib) and Guantanamo Bay are the first atrocities in the history of the US?

Ever heard of the 'ear-cutters'?

So nothing of the sort Kerry claimed did happen? No atrocities or human rights violations by US troops in Vietnam? Remember back in the 70s we did not have the Internet, so such info could much easier be covered up. Iraq (Abu Ghraib) and Guantanamo Bay are the first atrocities in the history of the US?

Sigh. I have never even attempted to allege that NO violations of the Geneva Conventions happened in Vietnam, only that they were not even close to the scale Kerry claimed: "on a daily basis."

Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay were not "atrocities," and you know it. Sorry, but the US has not violated the Geneva Convention during the current conflict. If you think we have, prove it, as so many of the radical left have been at great pains to point out to me.

What the heck??
I think you should go to a mental doctor! You don NOT consider those things that happend ad Abu-Ghraib atrocities? :confused: :mad: :confused:
That is the worst thing I've ever heard.

Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay were not "atrocities," and you know it. Sorry, but the US has not violated the Geneva Convention during the current conflict. If you think we have, prove it, as so many of the radical left have been at great pains to point out to me.


Uh...torture of civilians and or non-combatants is not a violation of the Geneva Convention?

What the heck??
I think you should go to a mental doctor! You don NOT consider those things that happend ad Abu-Ghraib atrocities? :confused: :mad: :confused:
That is the worst thing I've ever heard.

After reading this response, I rest my case about most so-called "liberals" having been so divorced from reality that they think an atrocity is not being allowed to watch TV 24/7.

Uh...torture of civilians and or non-combatants is not a violation of the Geneva Convention?

What torture? I'm serious about this. I really would love to know what you consider to be "torture."

After reading this response, I rest my case about most so-called "liberals" having been so divorced from reality that they think an atrocity is not being allowed to watch TV 24/7.

Are you sure that you can't lend me just $30?

After reading this response, I rest my case about most so-called "liberals" having been so divorced from reality that they think an atrocity is not being allowed to watch TV 24/7.

This is baseless. And you didn't address my second post yet.

Abu Ghraib.. not violating the geneva conventions? Guantanamo Bay ditto? My god, do you live in Disneyland or what???

What torture? I'm serious about this. I really would love to know what you consider to be "torture."

Torture is defined as something causing severe pain or anguish either physically or psychologically. Look at the freakin' photos and tell me what our troops did to those people wasn't torture. If you can honestly say it isn't, you need to have your head examined.

NOTE TO PENNSYLVANIANS
Why just us? Is it down to good ole PA this time around? What about the other swing states?
But until the recent election campaign for President began, few people except Vietnam veterans could have named a sailor who had turned against his former comrades, accusing them of having committed the most horrible atrocities on a daily basis. His words were used to torture our Prisoners Of War.
I keep hearing stuff along this line, but I've never been smacked in the face with facts that tell me POWs suffered as a direct result of his testimony.
It's about Kerry having told mostrous lies about ALL Veitnam veterans, repeatedly. And it's about his having given aid and comfort to the enemy. And it's about the terrible consequences of having such a man as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces.
Aid and comfort to the enemy? Again, from the albeit limited information I have on the subject, all I can see is that a man summoned the courage to speak out against what he came to believe was an unjust and unneccesarily brutal war. Kinda like, hmmm... kinda like how a lot of people feel about Iraq.
I hold you in pretty high respect, Eutrusca, but let me ask you, how do you and your Vietnam buddies feel about the fact that George Bush Junior wussed out by doing the National Guard thing? Because I'll tell you what, all this nonsense about Bush not serving his Guard duty and Dan Rather and lies and whatnot, I couldn' give a rat's ass if he had an impeccable Guard record or not, what concerns me is that he shirked his *Vietman* duty. I can't fathom how a Veteran would be so supportive of a guy who is basically a half step up from an outright Draft Dodger!

I welcome any sources you can lead me to that will enlighten me on this issue, and not hearsay, mind you, but transcripts of the testimony Kerry gave and real factual evidence that what he did was nothing more than following his conscience. Please TG me with that as I will not be returning to this thread.

But until the recent election campaign for President began, few people except Vietnam veterans could have named a sailor who had turned against his former comrades, accusing them of having committed the most horrible atrocities on a daily basis.

My question to you, the people of a State I remember with great fondness, is this: do you truly believe that someone amoral enough to place political ambition above the truth about your sons and daughters is worthy of being elected President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces?
It was good of Kerry to expose the atrocities. It was the moral thing to do, and he risked political suicide to do so. Just because American soldiers committed the torture and massacres, it doesn't mean that they should be covered up.

I think George Bush is a good one to "place political ambition above the truth about your sons and daughters". Anyone remember the primaries in 2000? "John McCain fathered an illegitimate daughter." :rolleyes:

Hmm let's see... dumb chimp who created the greatest surge in world wide terrorism and anti-Americanism vs a peace-loving hippie "political opportunist"... hmm.. difficult choice, really.
Speaking of dumb chimps...thanks for posting. :p

Aside from your baseless claims of poorly-based claims Kerry made, do you really think anyone cares more about morality and decency than they do about money?

HEINZ ketchup, like Theresa HEINZ Kerry, are burghers. Plus, we're a heavily unionized city. You wasted your time thanks to your petty, idealistic views.

But until the recent election campaign for President began, few people except Vietnam veterans could have named a sailor who had turned against his former comrades, accusing them of having committed the most horrible atrocities on a daily basis. His words were used to torture our Prisoners Of War.

That's not even remotely true, and I'm terribly sorry, but I'll take John McCain's word on the matter before yours.

More lies from the GOPers...typical.

Soldier: "Some of the soldiers in Iraq tortured prisoners, piled them up in naked body piles, stuck broom sticks up their anuses, and hooked electrodes to their penises."

Etrusca: "TRAITOR!!! HOW DARE YOU TREAT ALL OF OUR SOLDIERS THAT WAY!!!!"

This IS about today, and about the future. Kerry IS running for President right now, or was there some question about that???

And it's not a matter of my character being tarnished. My character is quite intact, thank you. It's about Kerry having told mostrous lies about ALL Veitnam veterans, repeatedly. And it's about his having given aid and comfort to the enemy. And it's about the terrible consequences of having such a man as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces.

If you cannot understand my position, and the position of many, many other Vietnam veterans on this, then there's no way I can adequately explain it to you so you will understand.
I was waiting for that. And now I can say, without question, that you're a liar and that you're so bound up in your partisan hatred that you'll go to any lengths to slander a better man than you.

This whole thing makes me sad, because instead of phrasing your letter in such a way as to promote your political view honestly and openly, you've managed to engage in partisan rhetoric, capitalize on the suffering of all Vietnam vets, and sway people with disingenuous rhetoric, all because the latest polls show Kerry having a fairly strong lead in Pennsylvania. It seems that if you truly believed Kerry had dishonored Vietnam vets by making false statements about them, you'd work very hard to make sure your statements were 100% accurate. They're not.

This whole thing makes me sad, because instead of phrasing your letter in such a way as to promote your political view honestly and openly, you've managed to engage in partisan rhetoric, capitalize on the suffering of all Vietnam vets, and sway people with disingenuous rhetoric, all because the latest polls show Kerry having a fairly strong lead in Pennsylvania. It seems that if you truly believed Kerry had dishonored Vietnam vets by making false statements about them, you'd work very hard to make sure your statements were 100% accurate. They're not.
Living in Pennsylvania, I want to know what "fairly strong" leads you're talking about. 2%?

Living in Pennsylvania, I want to know what "fairly strong" leads you're talking about. 2%?

WHYY/West Chester University Poll. Oct. 1-4, 2004. N=600 likely voters statewide. MoE ± 4:

Bush 43%
Kerry 50%
Nader 1%
Unsure 6%


Strategic Vision (R). Sept. 26-29, 2004. N=801 likely voters statewide. MoE ± 3:

Bush 48%
Kerry 45%
Nader 1%
Unsure 6%


Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Sept. 27-28, 2004. N=625 likely voters statewide. MoE ± 4:

Bush 44%
Kerry 45%
Nader 2%
Unsure 9%


Quinnipiac University Poll. Sept. 22-26, 2004. N=726 likely voters (MoE ± 3.6):

Bush 42%
Kerry 46%
Nader 4%
Unsure/Wouldn't Vote 8%


FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 21-22, 2004. N=800 likely voters statewide. MoE ± 3.5:

Bush 45%
Kerry 48%
Nader 1%
Unsure 6%

With the exception of the Strategic Vision poll, Kerry leads/led in all of them. And Kerry's lead is up to 7% in the latest one. Hence, you now have my definition of fairly strong.

An average of 2.4% over all 5 of them. Ok.

I'm getting really tired of people bringing in Kerry and Bush's war records. They are practically irrelevant to any current issues. Sure, they both made mistakes in the past, but you know what, "hindsight is 20/20" and they probably realized their mistakes. That was thirty years ago. People change, they reflect on their lives, and they make themselves better for it. You learn from the past so you don't repeat it.

Frankly, I'm voting on what the candidates are going to do about current issues, not what they did 30 years ago.

And they're done in chronological order. Look at the first one, cause it's the most recent, hence, the motivation for trying to sway people now in Pennsylvania.

Aside from your baseless claims of poorly-based claims Kerry made, do you really think anyone cares more about morality and decency than they do about money?

I do.

Torture is defined as something causing severe pain or anguish either physically or psychologically. Look at the freakin' photos and tell me what our troops did to those people wasn't torture. If you can honestly say it isn't, you need to have your head examined.
Torture to me is seeing your children shot in front of you, splinters driven underneath your nails, having your head sawed off, flaying...but being naked and made fun of? Not so much.

That's not even remotely true, and I'm terribly sorry, but I'll take John McCain's word on the matter before yours.

More lies from the GOPers...typical.

( shrug ) Call me what you will, I happen to be telling the truth. Here it is in Kerry's own words: http://freekerrybook.com/

Torture to me is seeing your children shot in front of you, splinters driven underneath your nails, having your head sawed off, flaying...but being naked and made fun of? Not so much.

If there's no blood, if there are no wounds, bruises, broken bones, abraded flesh, missing limbs, missing fingers or toes, if there are no physical injuries, if there has been no physical pain inflicted, then there has been no "torture."

Think of Toquemanda and the Inquisition, or Hitler's death camps, or Saddam's torture chambers. That is what I mean by torture.

If there's no blood, if there are no wounds, bruises, broken bones, abraded flesh, missing limbs, missing fingers or toes, if there are no physical injuries, if there has been no physical pain inflicted, then there has been no "torture."

Think of Toquemanda and the Inquisition, or Hitler's death camps, or Saddam's torture chambers. That is what I mean by torture.
Exactly. Tell a survivor of a death camp about Iraqi "torture" and you'd get laughed it.

I was waiting for that. And now I can say, without question, that you're a liar and that you're so bound up in your partisan hatred that you'll go to any lengths to slander a better man than you.

( shrug ) It sounds as if you're the "better man" since you know that I'm a "liar" and that I'm "bound up in my hatred." So where have I lied? Tell me and be specific, please. And just whom do I "hate?" Names, please.

And they're done in chronological order. Look at the first one, cause it's the most recent, hence, the motivation for trying to sway people now in Pennsylvania.

I don't understand your post, which isn't unusual. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what you mean by "the first one." The "first one" what? This is the very first open letter I have written to anyone. The only reason I wrote to the people of Pennsylvania is because I lived there for many years and I have a great fondness for them, as I stated in the text of the letter. Are you suggesting that I not be allowed to openly present my thoughts and feelings?

I'm getting really tired of people bringing in Kerry and Bush's war records. They are practically irrelevant to any current issues. Sure, they both made mistakes in the past, but you know what, "hindsight is 20/20" and they probably realized their mistakes. That was thirty years ago. People change, they reflect on their lives, and they make themselves better for it. You learn from the past so you don't repeat it.

Frankly, I'm voting on what the candidates are going to do about current issues, not what they did 30 years ago.

Anyone can promise anything, especially politicians. What a man has been and done in his life is the primary indication of what he will be and what he will continue to do. Kerry is an amoral opportunist as his past amply demostrates. The *logical* conclusion is that, regardless of all his promises, he will continue to be the same.

How can you reconcile saying that President Bush has always been [ insert your choice of characterization ] so he will always continue to be the same, and yet not admit of the same principle for Kerry?

John Kerry betrayed America, violated the Geneva Convention, Violated the US Constitution, Violated the UCMJ, and will do it again to win an election.


Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry record...
Mark Alexander


"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
--George Washington

It's no surprise that John Kerry has devoted so much time and energy questioning George W. Bush's record as commander-in-chief. Nor is it any surprise that he recently launched a campaign calling on Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld to resign after a handful of military personnel humiliated al-Qa'ida terrorists in Abu Ghraib prison while attempting to obtain actionable intelligence about their plans to kill more of our troops.

These political attacks are just the latest round on Kerry's long list of black-bag antics designed to undermine America's military strength and resolve.

Kerry, who fancies himself a war hero, has spent much of his political career denigrating American military personnel and the nation they defend. But his anti-American actions preceded his first campaign for Congress -- indeed, they were the platform from which he launched his political career.

Like his comrade "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and so many other Leftist protagonists from the Age of Aquarius, Kerry was a child of wealth and privilege. Today, he is the wealthiest member of Congress (the "F" stands for "Forbes," after all) but don't expect that to be a central theme of his "man of the people" campaign. (In fact, the top five wealthiest Senators are all Democrats.)

Kerry grew up hobnobbing with the Massachusetts Cape glitterati, a life of leisure including all the accoutrements -- the best schools, the best vacation homes, the best yachts, etc. He socialized with the rich and famous, especially the Kennedy clan elites, where he was taken under the wing of his future patron saint, Teddy. He attempted to emulate John Kennedy's PT-109 heroics by joining the Navy and using his connections to obtain an assignment for a short tour on a swiftboat in Vietnam. Kerry then went on to collect three Purple Hearts in just two months -- all of dubious merit, but requisite for a ticket home to pursue his political aspirations.

Unlike John F. Kennedy, however, when John F. Kerry got home, there was no hero's welcome. The nation was in turmoil over our continued role in Vietnam, the result of limited but well-publicized Leftist protests against the war. So Kerry, ever the opportunist, endeavored to become the Left's most "useful idiot" (as Lenin called Western apologists for Soviet propaganda), collaborating with Fonda, et al., and leading protests accusing his "brethren" in Vietnam of all manner of atrocities.

Kerry was (and remains) an effective spokesperson for his Leftist cadre. His anti-war protest period culminated with his 1971 congressional testimony, after which he told the press,

"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions...."

Regarding the substance -- and source -- of Kerry's claims, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, says:

"KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, 'our most significant success'."

As for the success of Kerry's anti-democracy protests and his leadership of the VVAW and association with Fonda's Winter Soldier Investigation, General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by such stateside protesters, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.

But the consequences of Kerry's actions should not stop with the fall of Saigon.

Kerry, by his own account, violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer, and he further stands in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution.

Upon entering the Navy in 1966, John Kerry signed a six-year contract (plus a six-month extension during wartime) and an Officer Candidate contract for five years of active duty and active Naval Reserve. This indicates that Kerry was clearly a commissioned officer at the time of his 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris -- in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent coddling of Communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article three, Section three, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. (As General Vo Nguyen Giap is his witness....)

Thus, we refer our readers to the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states,

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

It is for this reason -- for his record of giving aid and comfort to the enemy while a member of the U.S. Armed Forces in violation of his oath -- that we insist John Kerry resign his seat in the U.S. Senate. He has dishonored his family, dishonored his state and dishonored our nation. He is not fit for public office at any level of government, much less, the highest office in the land. John Kerry should resign.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20040625.shtml

If you cannot understand my position, and the position of many, many other Vietnam veterans on this, then there's no way I can adequately explain it to you so you will understand.

See, I do understand the position of Vietnam veterans, because my dad is one of them; what you don't understand is that Kerry's position is one that many Vets do hold in their heart, they're just afraid of vets like you who are going to try and destroy them for not being autonomous with your train of thought the US government and military want you to maintain to protect the seeming innocence of the US government.

See, I do understand the position of Vietnam veterans, because my dad is one of them; what you don't understand is that Kerry's position is one that many Vets do hold in their heart, they're just afraid of vets like you who are going to try and destroy them for not being autonomous with your train of thought the US government and military want you to maintain to protect the seeming innocence of the US government.

Oh? And just how, pray tell, am I "destroying" your father, or any other veteran for that matter? It's Kerry who did his best to "destroy" our self-respect, our devotion to our service and to each other.

If anyone, veteran or otherwise, wishes to support Kerry in whatever way, they are free to do so, just as I am free to tell the truth about him.

I suspect that not only are you not the offspring of an American veteran, but that you don't live in America at all. What do I base that on? Well, your use of the word "autonomous," for one thing, and the phraseology of your post in general for another. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Oh? And just how, pray tell, am I "destroying" your father, or any other veteran for that matter? It's Kerry who did his best to "destroy" our self-respect, our devotion to our service and to each other.

If anyone, veteran or otherwise, wishes to support Kerry in whatever way, they are free to do so, just as I am free to tell the truth about him.

I suspect that not only are you not the offspring of an American veteran, but that you don't live in America at all. What do I base that on? Well, your use of the word "autonomous," for one thing, and the phraseology of your post in general for another. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Eutrusca, I just want to say, as the son of a Vietnam vet, and as a memeber of the United States Army and a soldier for the last 12 years, thank you for your service.

I suspect that not only are you not the offspring of an American veteran, but that you don't live in America at all. What do I base that on? Well, your use of the word "autonomous," for one thing, and the phraseology of your post in general for another. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

I've already said I was the daughter of a Vietnam vet, and I'm done arguing with you, because this is suppose to be a debate about issues not where I do or do not live.

For the record, I live in Lancaster, PA by route of San Diego, CA, and was born and bred very much an American citizen.

Oh? And just how, pray tell, am I "destroying" your father, or any other veteran for that matter? It's Kerry who did his best to "destroy" our self-respect, our devotion to our service and to each other.

If anyone, veteran or otherwise, wishes to support Kerry in whatever way, they are free to do so, just as I am free to tell the truth about him.

I suspect that not only are you not the offspring of an American veteran, but that you don't live in America at all. What do I base that on? Well, your use of the word "autonomous," for one thing, and the phraseology of your post in general for another. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

My boss is an Italian American who was in Vietnam. He is very, very outspoken against Bush. He commends Kerry for being honest.

Once, a guy tried to start shit about Kerry being unpatriotic. My boss just stared at him and asked, very calmly (and in a lot lighter accent then he usually has too, oddly) if he was there. They guy answered with no, and my boss just shook his head and told him to get out. When the guy asked why, my boss told him it was because he refused to serve anyone who spat on the graves of anyone who fought in the war, and dishonored them by pretending it was a rosie walk in the forest.

Oh, and other then cases like this, he doesn't talk about the war. At all.

( shrug ) It sounds as if you're the "better man" since you know that I'm a "liar" and that I'm "bound up in my hatred." So where have I lied? Tell me and be specific, please. And just whom do I "hate?" Names, please.You've slandered John Kerry by claiming he did something that he most certainly did not do, and you did it in the post I originally quoted. I bolded it for you, so you could see it. You are a liar, sir, and apparently have no shame about it.

Eutrusca,

What happened on your return did suck. Complaining about 40 years later? Let it go. The person who said it probably has forgotton about it. Let it go.

Kerry's actions? If he is such an opportunist, why do you let it bother you? Offended? Why? If you have your honor, then the transgressions of an opportunist should not matter to you.

To suggest all Vets are against him, offended by him, etc. is misleading.

Time and time again I mention by buddy that was in the Rangers(here I go again).

Two tours and did some rather nasty fighting. Hand to hand more then once. As he once said you regrese to your base animal instincts when trying to kill another guy with a club, hands, or a blade.

He came home pretty fucked up. Still is to this day to some degree.

He says he does not hold it against Kerry.

I recently asked him if he would have gotten involved with groups like Kerry did. He said he might of but he came home so full of hate that he only wanted to live like a hermit for 5-10 years so he really didn't see the group or the news that much.

If your honor is intact, fuck what Kerry said or did. If your honor is intact, fuck what the public said.

Kerry not getting elected or apologising in not going to heal any ghosts.

So for the record, I am not a vet but an army brat. Almost born in Korea. Dad was a crap soldier. Both Granddads and their brothers were great soldiers. War has been a part of my family longer then we can remember.

I am the first to break the line. My granddad whom I worshipped made me promise to never join. Viet Nam offended him for some reason. He really never did give a clear indication of his reasonings. But that was he way.

Eutrusca,

What happened on your return did suck. Complaining about 40 years later? Let it go. The person who said it probably has forgotton about it. Let it go.

Kerry's actions? If he is such an opportunist, why do you let it bother you? Offended? Why? If you have your honor, then the transgressions of an opportunist should not matter to you.

To suggest all Vets are against him, offended by him, etc. is misleading.

Time and time again I mention by buddy that was in the Rangers(here I go again).

Two tours and did some rather nasty fighting. Hand to hand more then once. As he once said you regrese to your base animal instincts when trying to kill another guy with a club, hands, or a blade.

He came home pretty fucked up. Still is to this day to some degree.

He says he does not hold it against Kerry.

I recently asked him if he would have gotten involved with groups like Kerry did. He said he might of but he came home so full of hate that he only wanted to live like a hermit for 5-10 years so he really didn't see the group or the news that much.

If your honor is intact, fuck what Kerry said or did. If your honor is intact, fuck what the public said.

Kerry not getting elected or apologising in not going to heal any ghosts.


Thank you for the "what happened on your return sucked" comment. That's about as close as anyone on this board has come to agreeing with me on almost anything.

Um ... if your friend who was a Ranger in Vietnam is still "pretty fucked up" you should understand that it's not that easy to "let it go." Believe me, if I could just ignore it all, I would. I've tried that several times, with a modicum of success. I went for 20 years without any nightmares, but it seems now that was due to my being happily married for that period. As I indicated in the original post, when I'm under great stress as I am now, they come back.

They're really wierd ... images of my family all mixed in with Vietnam. :(

Thank God they are only once in awhile and for very short periods.

Anyway, tell your friend I said "Welcome home." God knows, almost no one else said it to any of us.

Thank you again for your post. It honestly means a lot to me.

You've slandered John Kerry by claiming he did something that he most certainly did not do, and you did it in the post I originally quoted. I bolded it for you, so you could see it. You are a liar, sir, and apparently have no shame about it.

( shrug ) You're entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else. Thank a veteran for that if you have any understanding at all.

As to the amoral opportunist ... everything I said about him is the absolute gospel truth. If you would like me to provide links to quote him, I can do so.

My boss is an Italian American who was in Vietnam. He is very, very outspoken against Bush. He commends Kerry for being honest.

Once, a guy tried to start shit about Kerry being unpatriotic. My boss just stared at him and asked, very calmly (and in a lot lighter accent then he usually has too, oddly) if he was there. They guy answered with no, and my boss just shook his head and told him to get out. When the guy asked why, my boss told him it was because he refused to serve anyone who spat on the graves of anyone who fought in the war, and dishonored them by pretending it was a rosie walk in the forest.

Oh, and other then cases like this, he doesn't talk about the war. At all.

Good for him. He's entitled to think and say anything he believes to be right. Tell him I said "Welcome home."

Eutrusca, I just want to say, as the son of a Vietnam vet, and as a memeber of the United States Army and a soldier for the last 12 years, thank you for your service.

Thank you, my friend. You have no idea how soothing those words are to those of us who served honorably and yet were never recognized for having done so. :)

yet were never recognized for having done so. :)

Whose fault is that?

NOTE TO MODS: Yes, I wrote this. No, it doesn't need a "source" other than me.

NOTE TO PENNSYLVANIANS: Copy and redistribute this ( or not ) as you see fit.


An Open Letter to the People of Pennsylvania


I am a former resident of the great State of Pennsylvania.

From the age of 12, I lived in a small town named Beaver, just North of Pittsburgh. I graduated from a local college, then after an unhappy encounter with law school, joined the US Army and wound up in Vietnam for two years.

I, like many other veterans, was spit on when I returned through an airport in California. Someone I had never met called me a “baby-killer.”

But when I got back home to Pennsylvania, several people stopped me on the street to thank me for my service. When I went to a local bar, no one would let me pay for my drinks.

The State of Pennsylvania actually paid me a bonus for my service, one of a handful of States who did this for their returning veterans. I finally felt appreciated. I finally felt as though I had come home.

And yet there is one wound which has never healed.

Most people remember Jane Fonda visiting Hanoi and her support of the same people I had been expected to fight. But until the recent election campaign for President began, few people except Vietnam veterans could have named a sailor who had turned against his former comrades, accusing them of having committed the most horrible atrocities on a daily basis. His words were used to torture our Prisoners Of War.

This former sailor then met with the leaders of those we fought against, and is now enshrined in a “Hall Of Fame” dedicated to “Heroes Of The Revolution” in Hanoi.

This is the wound which has never healed.

Now this former sailor is running for President of the United States and Commander In Chief of America’s armed forces.

My question to you, the people of a State I remember with great fondness, is this: do you truly believe that someone amoral enough to place political ambition above the truth about your sons and daughters is worthy of being elected President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces?

When I lived with you, I witnessed time and time again the essential goodness and patriotism you consistently exhibited. In my heart I still call Pennsylvania home because of you. Now, as an “expatriate son,” I call upon you to set the ghosts which haunt me and my fellow veterans to rest. I beg of you to help prevent us from once again being crucified upon this cross of betrayal.

Please, please search your hearts and decide that we, your sons and daughters, are more important to you than this amoral opportunist.

No one prompted me to write this letter. I wrote it from my heart to a people I learned to trust at a very early age.

With great love for you, and great trust in your judgment,

Forrest Lee Horn, Sr.
CPT, INF, USA
( Retired/Disabled )
Vietnam, 1967-1969


Whether anyone here believes me or not, I have a "relative" (My first wife's [who died of cancer to aleviate any smart ass comments] cousin) served in Vietnam, was wounded, and upon returning to the US was also spit upon, called a baby killer and all sorts of other fun things. I know a number of Vietnam vets who have told me the same type of story (I was 12 when the Vietnam war ended) as well as seeing that type of thing on TV when I was growing up.

I give you heartfelt thanks for your service to this country and wish you the best in your life.

One thing alot of the people who post here (US Citizens specifically but other countries as well) don't seem to understand is that it is people like you, the people you served with and the 100's of thousands that have died prior to and after the Vietnam war, have purchased them the right to bitch and complain and talk down the government of the US.

To all of these people, I say grow up and get some knowledge.

Whether anyone here believes me or not, I have a "relative" (My first wife's [who died of cancer to aleviate any smart ass comments] cousin) served in Vietnam, was wounded, and upon returning to the US was also spit upon, called a baby killer and all sorts of other fun things. I know a number of Vietnam vets who have told me the same type of story (I was 12 when the Vietnam war ended) as well as seeing that type of thing on TV when I was growing up.

I give you heartfelt thanks for your service to this country and wish you the best in your life.

One thing alot of the people who post here (US Citizens specifically but other countries as well) don't seem to understand is that it is people like you, the people you served with and the 100's of thousands that have died prior to and after the Vietnam war, have purchased them the right to bitch and complain and talk down the government of the US.

To all of these people, I say grow up and get some knowledge.

Couldn't have said it any better myself! THANK YOU! :D

( shrug ) You're entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else. Thank a veteran for that if you have any understanding at all.

As to the amoral opportunist ... everything I said about him is the absolute gospel truth. If you would like me to provide links to quote him, I can do so.
Oh, I've read his Senate testimony, which is why I can say without equivocation that you're a shameless liar. Quote him if you want to, but only if you're willing to admit that you're wrong after you do so. Kerry never accused all soldiers in Vietnam of committing atrocities--he recounted the actions of some soldiers which were indeed atrocious.

Not from Pennsylvania, but...

The political choice of the people is a hell of a lot more important than the memory of a dwindling band of old soldiers. Everyone has a vote, the veterans included. If they feel someone's betraying them, they can vote however they like, and quit bitching about the modern-day civilian electorate stabbing their dignity in the back. It's an individual choice, guys.

You've got my support, Eutrusca. Though I'm not a Pennsylvanian. I'm an Ohioan. But we're neighbors.

Not from Pennsylvania, but...

The political choice of the people is a hell of a lot more important than the memory of a dwindling band of old soldiers. Everyone has a vote, the veterans included. If they feel someone's betraying them, they can vote however they like, and quit bitching about the modern-day civilian electorate stabbing their dignity in the back. It's an individual choice, guys.

Yes its an individual choice, but that gives you no right to bad-mouth our nations Veterans. Would you be willing to go and fight for your home?

Not from Pennsylvania, but...

The political choice of the people is a hell of a lot more important than the memory of a dwindling band of old soldiers. Everyone has a vote, the veterans included. If they feel someone's betraying them, they can vote however they like, and quit bitching about the modern-day civilian electorate stabbing their dignity in the back. It's an individual choice, guys.

Never said it wasn't. Did you read the original post? Am I not allowed to exercise the freedom of speech I thought I was defending? I was under the, perhaps mistaken, belief that freedom of speech extended even to "a dwindling band of old soldiers." I suspect your contempt is showing.

You've got my support, Eutrusca. Though I'm not a Pennsylvanian. I'm an Ohioan. But we're neighbors.

Thank you! :D

What I got from that post is that the author is taking personally the idea that the people of some state are going to vote for someone whose alleged opinions on the war he dislikes. Which is pretty daft, whichever way I look at it. :rolleyes:

Yes its an individual choice, but that gives you no right to bad-mouth our nations Veterans. Would you be willing to go and fight for your home?
I would think that no one would have more of a right to question a war and the conduct of the soldiers in that war than a person who actually fought in that war, but that point seems to be lost on you and Eutrusca. And again--Kerry didn't badmouth the nation's veterans. He testified about what he was told about the situation in Vietnam, testimony that was borne out by other veterans and by journalists in country. Don't like the fact that some US soldiers were animals? Tough shit. Some of them were. If anyone is denigrating the sacrifice of the soldiers as a whole, it's the soldiers who committed the atrocities, not the soldiers who came back to the states and shone some light on what was going on over there.

I would think that no one would have more of a right to question a war and the conduct of the soldiers in that war than a person who actually fought in that war, but that point seems to be lost on you and Eutrusca. And again--Kerry didn't badmouth the nation's veterans. He testified about what he was told about the situation in Vietnam, testimony that was borne out by other veterans and by journalists in country. Don't like the fact that some US soldiers were animals? Tough shit. Some of them were. If anyone is denigrating the sacrifice of the soldiers as a whole, it's the soldiers who committed the atrocities, not the soldiers who came back to the states and shone some light on what was going on over there.

If you would have looked at my post and who I quoted, you woud see that I was not even talking about Kerry! I was replying to Tactical Grace. Please pay attention to posts before you jump down my neck.

If you would have looked at my post and who I quoted, you woud see that I was not even talking about Kerry! I was replying to Tactical Grace. Please pay attention to posts before you jump down my neck.
Pardon me, but you're talking about badmouthing the nation's veterans and that you support Eutrusca's point of view which charges Kerry with that very act. If I made a linkage that you didn't intend, then sorry, but I think my post was completely reasonable given the context of this thread.

Pardon me, but you're talking about badmouthing the nation's veterans and that you support Eutrusca's point of view which charges Kerry with that very act. If I made a linkage that you didn't intend, then sorry, but I think my post was completely reasonable given the context of this thread.

I'm not even saying that Kerry was bad-mouthing soldiers. I think he was bad-mouthing what they were doing, but not them. I can understand him being against the few soldiers that were commiting crimes.

But as I said, my comment about bad-mouthing veterans, was not Kerry-related. I was stating my disgust that Tctical Grace would bad mouth veterans who fought and died and he now just calls them "a dwindling band of old soldiers". Does he have no repsect for the men who were brave enough to to go out and fight. Those that volunteered and those that were conscripted.

I would think that no one would have more of a right to question a war and the conduct of the soldiers in that war than a person who actually fought in that war, but that point seems to be lost on you and Eutrusca. And again--Kerry didn't badmouth the nation's veterans. He testified about what he was told about the situation in Vietnam, testimony that was borne out by other veterans and by journalists in country. Don't like the fact that some US soldiers were animals? Tough shit. Some of them were. If anyone is denigrating the sacrifice of the soldiers as a whole, it's the soldiers who committed the atrocities, not the soldiers who came back to the states and shone some light on what was going on over there.

There's a vast, vast difference between coming back and shinning "some light on what was going on over there," and stating in a Congressional Hearing that "... many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

As if that weren't bad enough, Kerry later went on to say that veterans "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war"

All of this is a matter of public record and can be seen at numerous Websites, including C-Span ( http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp )

There's a vast, vast difference between coming back and shinning "some light on what was going on over there," and stating in a Congressional Hearing that "... many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

As if that weren't bad enough, Kerry later went on to say that veterans "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war"

All of this is a matter of public record and can be seen at numerous Websites, including C-Span ( http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp )
And where does any of this say that all soldiers were involved in this? It doesn't. There were 500,000 soldiers in Vietnam at one point in time--even if only one percent were committing atrocities, it's no stretch to say that atrocities were being committed daily by US soldiers. And what Kerry described being done by soldiers did actually happen. It's been verified by many others, both soldiers and journalists.

This is what bugs me about you, Eutrusca--you took Kerry's testimony and extrapolated it to cover every soldier in Vietnam when he clearly never said that everyone was doing it. Was it common? The history I've read seems to suggest it was way more common than anyone wanted to admit, but Kerry never said--no one has ever said--that all the soldiers were doing it. And even though this point has been made to you multiple times--more than once by me--you refuse to admit that maybe you've let your dislike for Kerry cloud your judgment on this matter.

And where does any of this say that all soldiers were involved in this? It doesn't. There were 500,000 soldiers in Vietnam at one point in time--even if only one percent were committing atrocities, it's no stretch to say that atrocities were being committed daily by US soldiers. And what Kerry described being done by soldiers did actually happen. It's been verified by many others, both soldiers and journalists.

This is what bugs me about you, Eutrusca--you took Kerry's testimony and extrapolated it to cover every soldier in Vietnam when he clearly never said that everyone was doing it. Was it common? The history I've read seems to suggest it was way more common than anyone wanted to admit, but Kerry never said--no one has ever said--that all the soldiers were doing it. And even though this point has been made to you multiple times--more than once by me--you refuse to admit that maybe you've let your dislike for Kerry cloud your judgment on this matter.

Sigh. Ok. I give up. I defer to your obviously greater knowledge and understanding of the entire Vietnam conflict. There's no way my measely 24 months in-country can compare with the four months Kerry spent there, and however many you spent there. Would you like me to sign a formal document of surrender, or will you just accept my word?

Sigh. Ok. I give up. I defer to your obviously greater knowledge and understanding of the entire Vietnam conflict. There's no way my measely 24 months in-country can compare with the four months Kerry spent there, and however many you spent there. Would you like me to sign a formal document of surrender, or will you just accept my word?I'd like you to quit lying about what Kerry said. That's all. Disagree with what he did--that's your right--but quit saying that he said something he didn't.

Eutrusca: can you answer my question?

Eutrusca: can you answer my question?

You mean this one?
Whose fault is that?

Sorry, I didn't see that one at first.

I take it you are referring to my statement that Vietnam veterans were never recognized for having served well during the war?

I'm not sure if "fault" can be assigned to anyone, although I suspect you intend to tell me. Perhaps the fault lies in ourselves [Vietnam veterans]; in the way we were so abusive to the poor, mistreated anti-war demonstrators.

I take it you are referring to my statement that Vietnam veterans were never recognized for having served well during the war?

I'm not sure if "fault" can be assigned to anyone, although I suspect you intend to tell me. Perhaps the fault lies in ourselves [Vietnam veterans]; in the way we were so abusive to the poor, mistreated anti-war demonstrators.

Interesting conclusion to draw. I was just curious.

Could you expand on that? Why did you feel unappreciated?

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]There's a vast, vast difference between coming back and shinning "some light on what was going on over there," and stating in a Congressional Hearing that "... many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

As if that weren't bad enough, Kerry later went on to say that veterans "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war"


The above Kerry quote does seem to implicate a very large portion of US soldiers and officers. I'm not sure that his detractors are asserting that he was implicating ALL soldiers.

Kerry is what he is...and that's a Grade-A panderer who is far more ambitious than principled . Not that I love GWB, since he has his thumbs in the eyes of American conservatism, applying pressure day by day.

Interesting conclusion to draw. I was just curious.

Could you expand on that? Why did you feel unappreciated?

Hmmm. Well being spit on might have been one clue. Being called a "baby-killer" might have been another. Having been glared at but mostly just ignored may have had something to do with it. Listening to John Kerry ( and others ) at the Congressional hearings was definitely one.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the people who took just a moment to let any of us know our service was appreciated, regardless of how they felt about the war. I don't think we expected parades or applause, but some sort of acknowlegement that we ( especially the draftees ) had served in spite of apparent public opposition to the war would have been nice, don't you think?

I was very gratified to see that returning soldiers from Gulf War I and the current conflict were honored, despite the noisy sometime protests against both. IMHO, despising soldiers who serve, even when the war is unpopular, is analogous to shooting the messenger who bears bad news.

Hmmm. Well being spit on might have been one clue. Being called a "baby-killer" might have been another. Having been glared at but mostly just ignored may have had something to do with it. Listening to John Kerry ( and others ) at the Congressional hearings was definitely one.




What does John Kerry have to do with anything?
Why single him out?
You have already admitted that some of the army types were slightly trigger-happy (understatement of the year), so why does John Kerry talking about it make you take it personally?
Kerry was there too.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the people who took just a moment to let any of us know our service was appreciated, regardless of how they felt about the war. I don't think we expected parades or applause, but some sort of acknowlegement that we ( especially the draftees ) had served in spite of apparent public opposition to the war would have been nice, don't you think?


While I agree that it must have been horrible to return to a torrent of verbal abuse, I think you must have been slightly naive about the situation. And that is not only the fault of the (then) government but also the army.

What does John Kerry have to do with anything? Why single him out? You have already admitted that some of the army types were slightly trigger-happy (understatement of the year), so why does John Kerry talking about it make you take it personally?

Um ... do you think it might have something to do with his currently being a candidate for President of the United States? Perhaps the fact that upon coming home he almost immediately joined VVAW and began making political hay out of denouncing other veterans?


Kerry was there too.

Yes, that is indisputably true. He was there for four months; just about long enough to accumulate three highly questionable Purple Hearts and submit a request to leave.


While I agree that it must have been horrible to return to a torrent of verbal abuse, I think you must have been slightly naive about the situation. And that is not only the fault of the (then) government but also the army.

"Naive?" Perhaps I was. I got over it. But how would any supposed naivete on my part be the fault of the Army, or for that matter, the government?

1)Um ... do you think it might have something to do with his currently being a candidate for President of the United States?

2)Perhaps the fact that upon coming home he almost immediately joined VVAW and began making political hay out of denouncing other veterans?

1)So what?
2)Some of the other veterans behaved disgracefully. Why shouldn't this be public knowledge?



Yes, that is indisputably true. He was there for four months; just about long enough to accumulate three highly questionable Purple Hearts and submit a request to leave.

What proof do you have that he didn't deserve them? Don't link me to a speculative news report. Give me proof. Did you personally see him not sustaining injuries?




"Naive?" Perhaps I was. I got over it. But how would any supposed naivete on my part be the fault of the Army, or for that matter, the government?

Do you believe it was a justified war?

If there's no blood, if there are no wounds, bruises, broken bones, abraded flesh, missing limbs, missing fingers or toes, if there are no physical injuries, if there has been no physical pain inflicted, then there has been no "torture."

Think of Toquemanda and the Inquisition, or Hitler's death camps, or Saddam's torture chambers. That is what I mean by torture.

Don't click this link if you are a minor.

Look at picture #2 (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444)

There's your blood.

Don't click this link if you are a minor.

Look at picture #2 (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444)

There's your blood.

Very interesting. It would have a lot more credibility if it wasn't from a far left organization with a stake in making the US look bad.

DO NOT MOCK EUTRUSCA!!!!

He is wrong about John Kerry, and making a foolish mistake by advocating Bush. But I will not have him mocked!

DO NOT MOCK EUTRUSCA!!!!

He is wrong about John Kerry, and making a foolish mistake by advocating Bush. But I will not have him mocked!

??? What brought that on? I appreciate it, but I assure you, I'm use to being mocked and can usually defend myself quite ably. :D

Eutrusca, was it really John Kerry's words that were used to torture POW's? I find it very hard to believe that the Vietnamese torturers would have recounted his words in a "fair and balanced" way.

If you read Kerry's actual testimony, you will see that he was actually speaking on the behalf of a large group of veterans that were recounting their personal experiences. Kerry states, quite clearly, that he was not speaking on his own behalf.

Now, since Kerry's anti-war speech was most likely twisted and used out of context, I would suggest that what the Vietnamese did amounted to the creation of propaganda. Are you honestly blaming Kerry for the Vietnamese's propaganda? Yes, I'm sure Kerry's words are forever tied together with torture in the minds of many POW's. This is the nature of things when horrific events occur simulteneously with another stimulus.

To make an analogy, Hitler used the words of the bible to spread a lot of his hate. Does that mean that the words of the bible automatically endorse Nazism? I'm not comparing Kerry to Jesus here, I'm merely saying that taking a man's words out of context to justify something completely at odds with the original intent should not stain the original speaker.

Read the original, unedited testimony on John Kerry, and then tell me if they were intended to harm any Americans.

Eutrusca, was it really John Kerry's words that were used to torture POW's? I find it very hard to believe that the Vietnamese torturers would have recounted his words in a "fair and balanced" way.

If you read Kerry's actual testimony, you will see that he was actually speaking on the behalf of a large group of veterans that were recounting their personal experiences. Kerry states, quite clearly, that he was not speaking on his own behalf.

Now, since Kerry's anti-war speech was most likely twisted and used out of context, I would suggest that what the Vietnamese did amounted to the creation of propaganda. Are you honestly blaming Kerry for the Vietnamese's propaganda? Yes, I'm sure Kerry's words are forever tied together with torture in the minds of many POW's. This is the nature of things when horrific events occur simulteneously with another stimulus.

To make an analogy, Hitler used the words of the bible to spread a lot of his hate. Does that mean that the words of the bible automatically endorse Nazism? I'm not comparing Kerry to Jesus here, I'm merely saying that taking a man's words out of context to justify something completely at odds with the original intent should not stain the original speaker.

Read the original, unedited testimony on John Kerry, and then tell me if they were intended to harm any Americans.

No, I don't think Kerry's intent was to harm any Americans. I think Kerry's intent was to kick-start Kerry's political career. He just either never gave any thought to the impact of his words on other veterans and POWs, or thought about it but just didn't care. Either way, he's still an amoral opportunist in my eyes, and always will be.

Very interesting. It would have a lot more credibility if it wasn't from a far left organization with a stake in making the US look bad.

The Washington Post?

No, I don't think Kerry's intent was to harm any Americans. I think Kerry's intent was to kick-start Kerry's political career. He just either never gave any thought to the impact of his words on other veterans and POWs, or thought about it but just didn't care. Either way, he's still an amoral opportunist in my eyes, and always will be.

No gray area? Like maybe he had political aspirations and an honest anti-war belief? Perhaps his anti-war zeal pushed him towards political aspirations, or at least motivated him more thoroughly?

The Washington Post?

The site I was taken to from your link was not The Washington Post. If The Post has a similar picture of the results of activities at Abu Gharib, I would definitely have to back off from my difinitive statement that I didn't view what happened at the prison as being torture.

This IS about today, and about the future. Kerry IS running for President right now, or was there some question about that???

And it's not a matter of my character being tarnished. My character is quite intact, thank you. It's about Kerry having told mostrous lies about ALL Veitnam veterans, repeatedly. And it's about his having given aid and comfort to the enemy. And it's about the terrible consequences of having such a man as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces.

If you cannot understand my position, and the position of many, many other Vietnam veterans on this, then there's no way I can adequately explain it to you so you will understand.

Why are you so sure that monstrous crimes weren't commited by American soldiers over there?

My Lai? etc...

The site I was taken to from your link was not The Washington Post. If The Post has a similar picture of the results of activities at Abu Gharib, I would definitely have to back off from my difinitive statement that I didn't view what happened at the prison as being torture.

It wasn't my link. The link did say that the pictures were ones released by the Washington Post. Now, feel free to disagree with the anti-war site, but to simply state that it's false without checking up on it yourself by looking at the site's cited source (say that three times fast,) the Washington Post, shows that you are automatically inclined to discount anything that you are predisposed to disagree with.

I'm just saying.

No gray area? Like maybe he had political aspirations and an honest anti-war belief? Perhaps his anti-war zeal pushed him towards political aspirations, or at least motivated him more thoroughly?

Perhaps, but I seriously doubt he had any other motivation than a political quick-start. This would be very difficult to prove either way, although I have seen information indicating his intent, even prior to going to Vietnam, was to serve in 'Nam for whatever time was necessary then return to the States and come out against the war to help start his political career.

One report alleaged that another soldier who knew Kerry before he left for Vietnam quoted him as saying just that. I have since lost the source for this, and as I recall, the source wasn't all that credible anyway, so this report could fall under the category of "disinformation."

Either way, he's still an amoral opportunist in my eyes, and always will be.
Many people would use this tag in reference to George W. Bush? :eek:

Why are you so sure that monstrous crimes weren't commited by American soldiers over there?

My Lai? etc...

I was stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina when LT Calley was being Court Martialed, so yes, I am aware of My Lai and other war crimes comitted by American soldiers. Those were, based on both my own anecdotal evidence and what statistical evidence I have found, the exception rather than the rule.

In the heat and stress of combat, there will always be some who stray beyond the bounds of the acceptable. This is a natural consequence of the nature of war. Wars should be outlawed, but until they are, this sort of thing will continue to happen and the best we can do is try our damndest to keep most of the genie in the bottle.

Perhaps, but I seriously doubt he had any other motivation than a political quick-start. This would be very difficult to prove either way, although I have seen information indicating his intent, even prior to going to Vietnam, was to serve in 'Nam for whatever time was necessary then return to the States and come out against the war to help start his political career.

One report alleaged that another soldier who knew Kerry before he left for Vietnam quoted him as saying just that. I have since lost the source for this, and as I recall, the source wasn't all that credible anyway, so this report could fall under the category of "disinformation."

So, one could say from this example, if true, that Kerry felt so strongly about the anti-war effort that he was willing to risk his life in order to put himself in a position to more effectively work against it. Dang, I have more and more respect for Kerry every day.

You would have to agree that if one is anti-war, that being willing to see it up close and personally, even for only 4 months, to make your case is more admirable than being pro-war but doing everything you can to avoid it personally?

Many people would use this tag in reference to George W. Bush? :eek:

I am well aware of that, having been told as much on here time and time again. As I have repeatedly stated, I am no great fan of GWB. I just happen to believe, based on what I know about him, that Kerry would be a disaster of monumental proportions for the US at this point in history. IMHO, we need a President who can ( not to put too fine a point on it ) kick ass and take names to prevent further terrorist attacks, and that is definitely NOT a description of John F. Kerry.

I am well aware of that, having been told as much on here time and time again. As I have repeatedly stated, I am no great fan of GWB. I just happen to believe, based on what I know about him, that Kerry would be a disaster of monumental proportions for the US at this point in history. IMHO, we need a President who can ( not to put too fine a point on it ) kick ass and take names to prevent further terrorist attacks, and that is definitely NOT a description of John F. Kerry.

Again, Kerry was willing to put himself in personal danger. By your estimation, it was only to further his political goals. Bush, on the other hand, was politically active at the same time, but was not willing to put himself personally in danger to support his claims. Any way you slice it, Kerry seems to exhibit the more intestinal fortitude.

So, one could say from this example, if true, that Kerry felt so strongly about the anti-war effort that he was willing to risk his life in order to put himself in a position to more effectively work against it. Dang, I have more and more respect for Kerry every day.

You would have to agree that if one is anti-war, that being willing to see it up close and personally, even for only 4 months, to make your case is more admirable than being pro-war but doing everything you can to avoid it personally?

Please let's not get started on whether or not Kerry "risked his life." I have some rather strong opinions to which almost all of you on here will take great exception. Let's just agree to disagree on that.

As to your second statement: I have seen combat medics sacrifice their own lives under fire to save the lives of others, some of whom would not carry a weapon because they were consciencious objectors. I have the utmost admiration for them. They not only practiced what they professed, they laid their lives on the line because of their beliefs.

Beyond that, I suspect this relatively sane discussion will most likely degenerate into a flame war. I depend on ChessSquares to provide that service for me, so it's not necessary to involve you in it. :D

I was stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina when LT Calley was being Court Martialed, so yes, I am aware of My Lai and other war crimes comitted by American soldiers. Those were, based on both my own anecdotal evidence and what statistical evidence I have found, the exception rather than the rule.

In the heat and stress of combat, there will always be some who stray beyond the bounds of the acceptable. This is a natural consequence of the nature of war. Wars should be outlawed, but until they are, this sort of thing will continue to happen and the best we can do is try our damndest to keep most of the genie in the bottle.

So if things like this did happen, then how can you be so certain that Kerry was lying?

Again, Kerry was willing to put himself in personal danger. By your estimation, it was only to further his political goals. Bush, on the other hand, was politically active at the same time, but was not willing to put himself personally in danger to support his claims. Any way you slice it, Kerry seems to exhibit the more intestinal fortitude.

( see my last post right above this one )

So if things like this did happen, then how can you be so certain that Kerry was lying?

"On a daily basis?" Hardly!

Please let's not get started on whether or not Kerry "risked his life." I have some rather strong opinions to which almost all of you on here will take great exception. Let's just agree to disagree on that.

As to your second statement: I have seen combat medics sacrifice their own lives under fire to save the lives of others, some of whom would not carry a weapon because they were consciencious objectors. I have the utmost admiration for them. They not only practiced what they professed, they laid their lives on the line because of their beliefs.

Beyond that, I suspect this relatively sane discussion will most likely degenerate into a flame war. I depend on ChessSquares to provide that service for me, so it's not necessary to involve you in it. :D

According to all the statistics I've seen, swift boat duty had a 70-80% casualty rate. Unless you have information to contradict this, then it has to be concluded that Kerry's life was indeed in danger. Maybe his wounds were superficial, but that does not mean his life wasn't in danger.

I am well aware of that, having been told as much on here time and time again. As I have repeatedly stated, I am no great fan of GWB. I just happen to believe, based on what I know about him, that Kerry would be a disaster of monumental proportions for the US at this point in history. IMHO, we need a President who can ( not to put too fine a point on it ) kick ass and take names to prevent further terrorist attacks, and that is definitely NOT a description of John F. Kerry.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Bush has not only failed in preventing terrorist attacks, and failed in his number one quest to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice, but he has succeeded in creating a terrorist hotbed in Iraq.

Iraq was no threat to the US, especially since their army was decimated, their air force in shambles, their anti-aircraft, and communications facilities pummeled almost daily, and their WMD programs and capabilities wiped out by UN sanctions and UN inspections. Yet Bush, in his infinite wisdom decided that Iraq was more important than terrorists in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

How many Iraqis were involved in 9/11? None.

How many Saudis were involved in 9/11? 15

Who was the mastermind of 9/11? Bin Laden/al-Queda

Who was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole?

Who was responsible for the first attack on the WTC?

Who was responsible for the US embassy bombings?

Name one Iraqi terrorist attack against US interests?

I believe as do countless millions of people around the world that Bush has "kicked ass", but the wrong ones.

well i for one will not be voting for him (kerry) Because it says alot of someone when they are accepted into a communist museum as a hero for the opposing side the one that killed the very soldiers he fought beside. Get mad at me for saying it or whatever you like, say it was in the past, dismiss it, do as you will. But the fact that it is true can not be denied, the fact that it says something of ones character can not be denied.

And now for my Joke of the day.
Vote Bush. Say no to FLIP-FLOPS.
And if you want to get mad at that ITS A JOKE PEOPLE.

well i for one will not be voting for him (kerry) Because it says alot of someone when they are accepted into a communist museum as a hero for the opposing side the one that killed the very soldiers he fought beside. Get mad at me for saying it or whatever you like, say it was in the past, dismiss it, do as you will. But the fact that it is true can not be denied, the fact that it says something of ones character can not be denied.

And now for my Joke of the day.
Vote Bush. Say no to FLIP-FLOPS.
And if you want to get mad at that ITS A JOKE PEOPLE.

Jesus was a hero to the Nazis. Down with Jesus!

"On a daily basis?" Hardly!
Why is it more difficult to picture a war-crime a day in Vietnam than in Yugoslavia?

Jesus was a hero to the Nazis. Down with Jesus!


lolol sorry you feel that way

According to all the statistics I've seen, swift boat duty had a 70-80% casualty rate. Unless you have information to contradict this, then it has to be concluded that Kerry's life was indeed in danger. Maybe his wounds were superficial, but that does not mean his life wasn't in danger.

Actually, you could make a good argument for the case that every American soldier who entered Vietnam being in danger of losing his or her life.

Very interesting. It would have a lot more credibility if it wasn't from a far left organization with a stake in making the US look bad.

Then do a freakin' Google search for the rest of the pictures, they're all there. That was the first link that popped up.

But let me guess, because it's from a far-left website the pictures are fake? :rolleyes:

Jesus was a hero to the Nazis. Down with Jesus!

Not quite, but that's another thread.

Why is it more difficult to picture a war-crime a day in Vietnam than in Yugoslavia?

I have no idea to what you are referring here. Please elaborate.

Then do a freakin' Google search for the rest of the pictures, they're all there. That was the first link that popped up.

But let me guess, because it's from a far-left website the pictures are fake? :rolleyes:

I didn't say the pictures were fake. I just indicated that the site wasn't exactly what I would call "unbiased."

Eut, I had no idea you were a veteran. My respect for you has gone up somewhat. Here's a copy of what I wrote on my thread. Perhaps I can convince you.

Please feel free to distribute this letter to anyone that you wish. Thank you.


My fellow Americans, my fellow Ohioans...in three weeks the nation heads to the polls to choose the next President of the United States. We stand at a crossroads the likes of which the country has never seen, and we must choose wisely the road we wish to tread. We stand at the very brink of catastrophe, and yet hope remains that America will make the right choice on Election Day.

Four years ago, I voted for Al Gore in the 2000 elections. Needless to say, I was disappointed that George W. Bush was victorious, but at the time I was not overly disturbed. Bush had seemed like a compassionate and moderate Republican, just like his father. Although I did not agree with his social and economic priorities, I DID give the Republican high marks on national security and international affairs. I advocated a strong hand to deal with the threats of the new century, and I believed that George Bush was the man do it.

After the 9-11 attacks, my convictions regarding George Bush's actions crystallized. I strongly supported his invasion of Afghanistan, and then his invasion of Iraq. When he told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I did not need any proof. When he told us that Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein were working together. The word of President George W. Bush was enough for me.

And then it all went horribly wrong.

I began to hear whispers and see small, telltale signs that Bush's actions did not entirely match his words. People were arrested under the authority of the Patriot Act and imprisoned without charge, without access to lawyers, without contact to the outside world, for however long the Bush government deemed it "necessary" to hold them. John Ashcroft, Bush's own Attorney General and the leader of the Justice Department, has been cited at least twice already for using the Patriot Act in ways that Congress had not authorized. Many of those detained were never charged with any crime at all, much less terrorism.

The war in Iraq began to go wrong. A top United States general who insisted that we needed more troops in Iraq was forced into retirement by the Bush Administration. Intelligence reports from the State Department surfaced suggesting that U.S. policy in Iraq was flawed....reports that President Bush ignored. I was horrified to hear that Bush had rushed into the war with Iraq -so- quickly that large numbers of U.S. soldiers did not even have body armor to protect them. Their parents had to go shopping on the internet to buy suitable armor and MAIL it to their sons and daughters serving over in the Middle East. And through it all, the Bush Administration kept assuring us that we were winning the war...even as terrorists launched attack after attack and allied nations began to leave the country. I continued to BELIEVE in President Bush's word on Iraq.

Then the reasons for going to war against Iraq began to change after the fact. First, we invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then, when we did not find any WMDs, we invaded because Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaida. When that claim was decisively disproven the new reason was, "To bring peace and freedom to the Iraqi people". 1,000 American fatalities later (not to mention the 10,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians who have so far been killed), large tracts of Iraq are no longer under U.S. control. Bandits roam freely creating a climate of lawlessness, and American soldiers are no longer the hunters....they are the hunted.

Do not mistake my purpose. The soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are some of America's best, and not even the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib can tarnish that completely. They fight for their nation even as their president flip-flops from one war rationale to another. They fight even though George W. Bush sent them in with insufficient equipment, intelligence, and numbers. It is not John Kerry who denigrates the soldiers in Iraq. but rather George Bush. Neither the President nor Dick Cheney are admitting the truth to the American public...either they can not or will not acknowledge the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Indeed, they will not recognize the situation for what it is anywhere else in the world, either. In Afghanistan, the "free" elections Bush trumpeted in his second debate on Friday have already suffered a major setback...most of the candidates running for office there have withdrawn from the race, citing massive election fraud. Al-Qaida and the Taliban remain active in the southern parts of the country. Bush's speech on Friday illustrated his ignorance regarding the situation when he claimed to have "killed or captured 75% of Al-Qaida's leadership". Al-Qaida has surely appointed NEW leaders to replace those who have been taken out. And in this lies the very heart of the problem with George W. Bush's War on Terror.

Bush is very good at finding and killing current terrorists. Yet, that is only half the game. Terrorism is not a physical object, it's an idea...and no force in the course of human history has ever been able to completely destroy an idea. Bush CANNOT win the War on Terror simply by dropping bombs. You must address the underlying problems that spawned terrorists in the first place...and George W. Bush has shown NO interest in doing that. Take for example Saudi Arabia; we buy tons of oil from that country every year to fuel our economy and our gas-guzzling SUVs. Would it surprise you, then, to know that some wealthy Saudis are helping to FUND terrorists? Indeed, Osama Bin Laden himself is a former Saudi citizen. Every time you drive over to the gas station and fill the tank, you may unwittingly and indirectly fund terrorists. And what has the Bush Administration done to fix this problem? Nothing. It fought tighter vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would have reduced our dependency on foreign oil. It has done nothing to rebuke Saudi Arabia for supporting those terrorist organizations. It has also done nothing to reduce our dependency on Saudi oil. This is not the liberal media attempting to deceive you, these are facts....policy statements made by the Bush Administration and a matter of public record.

Also a matter of public record is the growing anti-Americanism spreading over the globe. George Bush has, from the very beginning of his presidency (before AND after 9-11), consistently thumbed his nose up at the international community. He withdrew unilaterally from the Kyoto Treaty. He withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Nuclear Treaty. He invaded Iraq unilaterally. Bush claims to this day that he "worked with the UN" before going into Iraq. Yet, he would not have done so at all if it had not been for a large outcry both internationally and in Congress. Even the highly conservative Pat Buchanan noted, "America is not hated for what we are, but what we do." George W. Bush has consistently pushed away other nations (even our allies and friends) at the EXACT time he should have been working to form closer bonds in order to prosecute the War On Terror. The United States CANNOT be everywhere in the world at once hunting terrorists. In order to direct a truly comprehensive and effective strategy to win the War On Terror, we MUST have the cooperation of our allies and friends abroad. Former presidents, like Ronald Reagan and the FIRST President Bush understood this. They understood that in order to achieve the objective (whether it was defeating the Soviet Union, repelling Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, or fighting global terrorism) that you need the cooperation of other nations because the sheer scope of the problem defies the efforts of any single nation to solve it. The United States did not attempt to contain the Soviet Union alone...it forged powerful alliances like NATO to ensure victory in the Cold War. By extension, the United States should not try to fight the global war on terror alone, either.

This argument lies at the very heart of the case against President Bush. His mistakes in Iraq, combined with his earlier behavior on the world stage, have completely alienated the United States. Longtime allies are refusing to support us because they have extreme difficulty working with George Bush. He is unwilling to admit his mistakes, unable to devise a plan to correct them. President Bush's credibility around the world (and by extension the credibility of the United States) is at an all-time low. Bush claimed during the Friday debate that being President means that you have to make unpopular decisions sometimes. That's true, but a President also has to take responsibility for his decisions, both good and bad...and the fact is, there are no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had no links to Al-Qaida, and we are now saddled with a $200 billion dollar boondoggle in Iraq that has drained our military and financial strength to the point where we may not be able to prosecute the War On Terror. When Kerry has pointed this out, Bush has accused him of "wanting to leave Saddam in power" which he KNOWS is nonsense. Saddam Hussein is an evil, vile, rapacious man...this is beyond debate. BUT HE WAS NOT AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. The sanctions had effectively destroyed his ability to create weapons of mass destruction, as the final report to Congress regarding Iraq states. Even if Saddam still wanted to develop those weapons again once sanctions were gone, there were clearly other (and FAR less expensive) ways to keep him under control. Sanctions COULD have been reinforced by the United States. There are many tools available to the President other than the military with which to craft foreign policy. After 9-11 and before the Iraq War, Bush could have used the enormous worldwide goodwill to ask for new measures to contain and control Saddam Hussein short of war, thus leaving U.S. forces free for other anti-terrorist operations around the globe. But Bush didn't. He rushed into war for whatever reason, and now we are mired in Iraq with no clear exit strategy.

This isn't leadership. This is a mixture of George W. Bush's ignorance and impulsiveness coming home to roost. He has not made America more safe. In fact, he's made it LESS safe. He's made America less safe because: A.) He has wasted money and military strength in Iraq, leaving us unable to react to threats elsewhere. B.) He's inflamed anti-Americanism all over the world, creating vast new pools of potential recruits for terrorist organizations, and C.) He's severely damaged U.S. credibility and relations abroad which we NEED in order to fight the War On Terror. And worse yet, he's not trying to FIX these problems. He's instead attacking John Kerry, trying to paint him as a flip-flopping pacificst who would be worse at the job than Bush himself is. John Kerry may be many things, but he is NOT what Bush has tried to make him out to be. John Kerry is a Vietnam VOLUNTEER whose courage and determination is noted by both his commanding officers and his shipmates. John Kerry understands what is needed to win the War On Terror, and he understands that there is a difference between decisive leadership and plain old stubborness. This is why many former military commanders back his candidacy....it's because John Kerry has laid out a solid, cohesive, and logical plan for winning the War on Terror. George Bush has not. The ONLY reason Bush is not in deep trouble is because he's been running on 9-11. He can't exactly claim success on the economy...here in Ohio we've lost almost a quarter of a million jobs under him. He can't claim success in foreign relations...Nixon went to China, but Bush only goes to Crawford. In light of that, he claims "catastrophic success" in the War on Terror, tries to hide the details of what is going on from the American public, and wages a ceaseless smear campaign against Kerry/Edwards. It's NOT right! America deserves better than -this-. Even members of the President's own party in Congress have said that his performance in Iraq is, and I quote, "Pathetic". Bush has made the centerpiece of his campaign, "You don't change horses" in the middle of a war.

Let me tell you something. If MY horse is galloping over the edge of a cliff, I am gonna move my ass to a new one. Quickly. I urge the rest of you to seriously consider doing the same.

-Written by an Ohioan

Actually, you could make a good argument for the case that every American soldier who entered Vietnam being in danger of losing his or her life.

Excellent. So you concede that there's a good case for Kerry risking his life just by going to Vietnam. Risking your life seems a bit extreme to "jump-start" your political career.

And while I've been nothing but respectful of your personal experiences, I'm sure you would concede that plenty of people who served in Vietnam had very different experiences from you. Hence, there's no basis, other than your own gut-feeling that John Kerry isn't representing truthfully what was related to him by other servicemembers there.

Additionally, you seem to think that it's justified to displace your anger and hatred at the people who personally treated you badly onto a person who publically protested the war. You do this by citing things like how his testimony "aided and abetted" the enemy, and yet you fail to point out which parts of his testimony you're referring to. You also fail to answer any of the arguments others have made that indicate just because someone's words are twisted and misused doesn't mean that the speaker is wrong for having said them.

Your only answer to that is to claim that Kerry is motivated solely by politics, but if you are honest with yourself, you'll have to admit that your perceptions of that are certainly colored by 1. the stigma that attached itself to war protesters during Vietnam, 2. your own personal encounters with certain war protesters, and 3. the popular media and political portrayal of John Kerry.

Yes, you have the right to say all the things you said in the letter (well, excepting the potential libel claim in there, but I'm sure no one will ever call you on it). However, the more important thing is to use that right responsibly, and given how emotionally charged this issue is for you and the way that the campaigners have been spinning these stories, I would say that you've slipped some in that responsibility.

Now, you can get mad and yell at me about how I don't know what happened because I wasn't there. But I will again refer you to the above that states very clearly that I respect the pain and anguish you've undoubtedly suffered. But if that pain and anguish is causing you to lash out at someone unjustly, it's still unjust, whether you still hurt or not.

Then do a freakin' Google search for the rest of the pictures, they're all there. That was the first link that popped up.

But let me guess, because it's from a far-left website the pictures are fake? :rolleyes:
Jeez, don't you know that everything on this planet has a liberal bias, Google, photographs, the rotation of the earth......

It's the kind of head in the sand approach to the world that Eutrusca uses to avoid facing the things Here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=247) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=159) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=153) and here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147) and, for added measure and relavancy to this particular line of claptrap, here. (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=244.html)

But of course, Eutrusca refers to factcheck.org-that's factcheck.freakin' org! (http://factcheck.org/default.aspx.html) as "one man's lame attempt at refutation......."

But then, if there was any need to establish that Eutrusca was a paranoid freak, there would be this thread here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362859)

My favorite so far from this thread is when he accused someone of not being american for using the word 'autonomous.' Priceless.

You can't blame him, sand keeps his head warm.

Eut, I had no idea you were a veteran. My respect for you has gone up somewhat. Here's a copy of what I wrote on my thread. Perhaps I can convince you.

Please feel free to distribute this letter to anyone that you wish. Thank you.


My fellow Americans, my fellow Ohioans...in three weeks the nation heads to the polls to choose the next President of the United States. We stand at a crossroads the likes of which the country has never seen, and we must choose wisely the road we wish to tread. We stand at the very brink of catastrophe, and yet hope remains that America will make the right choice on Election Day.

Four years ago, I voted for Al Gore in the 2000 elections. Needless to say, I was disappointed that George W. Bush was victorious, but at the time I was not overly disturbed. Bush had seemed like a compassionate and moderate Republican, just like his father. Although I did not agree with his social and economic priorities, I DID give the Republican high marks on national security and international affairs. I advocated a strong hand to deal with the threats of the new century, and I believed that George Bush was the man do it.

After the 9-11 attacks, my convictions regarding George Bush's actions crystallized. I strongly supported his invasion of Afghanistan, and then his invasion of Iraq. When he told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I did not need any proof. When he told us that Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein were working together. The word of President George W. Bush was enough for me.

And then it all went horribly wrong.

I began to hear whispers and see small, telltale signs that Bush's actions did not entirely match his words. People were arrested under the authority of the Patriot Act and imprisoned without charge, without access to lawyers, without contact to the outside world, for however long the Bush government deemed it "necessary" to hold them. John Ashcroft, Bush's own Attorney General and the leader of the Justice Department, has been cited at least twice already for using the Patriot Act in ways that Congress had not authorized. Many of those detained were never charged with any crime at all, much less terrorism.

The war in Iraq began to go wrong. A top United States general who insisted that we needed more troops in Iraq was forced into retirement by the Bush Administration. Intelligence reports from the State Department surfaced suggesting that U.S. policy in Iraq was flawed....reports that President Bush ignored. I was horrified to hear that Bush had rushed into the war with Iraq -so- quickly that large numbers of U.S. soldiers did not even have body armor to protect them. Their parents had to go shopping on the internet to buy suitable armor and MAIL it to their sons and daughters serving over in the Middle East. And through it all, the Bush Administration kept assuring us that we were winning the war...even as terrorists launched attack after attack and allied nations began to leave the country. I continued to BELIEVE in President Bush's word on Iraq.

Then the reasons for going to war against Iraq began to change after the fact. First, we invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then, when we did not find any WMDs, we invaded because Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaida. When that claim was decisively disproven the new reason was, "To bring peace and freedom to the Iraqi people". 1,000 American fatalities later (not to mention the 10,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians who have so far been killed), large tracts of Iraq are no longer under U.S. control. Bandits roam freely creating a climate of lawlessness, and American soldiers are no longer the hunters....they are the hunted.

Do not mistake my purpose. The soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are some of America's best, and not even the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib can tarnish that completely. They fight for their nation even as their president flip-flops from one war rationale to another. They fight even though George W. Bush sent them in with insufficient equipment, intelligence, and numbers. It is not John Kerry who denigrates the soldiers in Iraq. but rather George Bush. Neither the President nor Dick Cheney are admitting the truth to the American public...either they can not or will not acknowledge the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Indeed, they will not recognize the situation for what it is anywhere else in the world, either. In Afghanistan, the "free" elections Bush trumpeted in his second debate on Friday have already suffered a major setback...most of the candidates running for office there have withdrawn from the race, citing massive election fraud. Al-Qaida and the Taliban remain active in the southern parts of the country. Bush's speech on Friday illustrated his ignorance regarding the situation when he claimed to have "killed or captured 75% of Al-Qaida's leadership". Al-Qaida has surely appointed NEW leaders to replace those who have been taken out. And in this lies the very heart of the problem with George W. Bush's War on Terror.

Bush is very good at finding and killing current terrorists. Yet, that is only half the game. Terrorism is not a physical object, it's an idea...and no force in the course of human history has ever been able to completely destroy an idea. Bush CANNOT win the War on Terror simply by dropping bombs. You must address the underlying problems that spawned terrorists in the first place...and George W. Bush has shown NO interest in doing that. Take for example Saudi Arabia; we buy tons of oil from that country every year to fuel our economy and our gas-guzzling SUVs. Would it surprise you, then, to know that some wealthy Saudis are helping to FUND terrorists? Indeed, Osama Bin Laden himself is a former Saudi citizen. Every time you drive over to the gas station and fill the tank, you may unwittingly and indirectly fund terrorists. And what has the Bush Administration done to fix this problem? Nothing. It fought tighter vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that would have reduced our dependency on foreign oil. It has done nothing to rebuke Saudi Arabia for supporting those terrorist organizations. It has also done nothing to reduce our dependency on Saudi oil. This is not the liberal media attempting to deceive you, these are facts....policy statements made by the Bush Administration and a matter of public record.

Also a matter of public record is the growing anti-Americanism spreading over the globe. George Bush has, from the very beginning of his presidency (before AND after 9-11), consistently thumbed his nose up at the international community. He withdrew unilaterally from the Kyoto Treaty. He withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Nuclear Treaty. He invaded Iraq unilaterally. Bush claims to this day that he "worked with the UN" before going into Iraq. Yet, he would not have done so at all if it had not been for a large outcry both internationally and in Congress. Even the highly conservative Pat Buchanan noted, "America is not hated for what we are, but what we do." George W. Bush has consistently pushed away other nations (even our allies and friends) at the EXACT time he should have been working to form closer bonds in order to prosecute the War On Terror. The United States CANNOT be everywhere in the world at once hunting terrorists. In order to direct a truly comprehensive and effective strategy to win the War On Terror, we MUST have the cooperation of our allies and friends abroad. Former presidents, like Ronald Reagan and the FIRST President Bush understood this. They understood that in order to achieve the objective (whether it was defeating the Soviet Union, repelling Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, or fighting global terrorism) that you need the cooperation of other nations because the sheer scope of the problem defies the efforts of any single nation to solve it. The United States did not attempt to contain the Soviet Union alone...it forged powerful alliances like NATO to ensure victory in the Cold War. By extension, the United States should not try to fight the global war on terror alone, either.

This argument lies at the very heart of the case against President Bush. His mistakes in Iraq, combined with his earlier behavior on the world stage, have completely alienated the United States. Longtime allies are refusing to support us because they have extreme difficulty working with George Bush. He is unwilling to admit his mistakes, unable to devise a plan to correct them. President Bush's credibility around the world (and by extension the credibility of the United States) is at an all-time low. Bush claimed during the Friday debate that being President means that you have to make unpopular decisions sometimes. That's true, but a President also has to take responsibility for his decisions, both good and bad...and the fact is, there are no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had no links to Al-Qaida, and we are now saddled with a $200 billion dollar boondoggle in Iraq that has drained our military and financial strength to the point where we may not be able to prosecute the War On Terror. When Kerry has pointed this out, Bush has accused him of "wanting to leave Saddam in power" which he KNOWS is nonsense. Saddam Hussein is an evil, vile, rapacious man...this is beyond debate. BUT HE WAS NOT AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. The sanctions had effectively destroyed his ability to create weapons of mass destruction, as the final report to Congress regarding Iraq states. Even if Saddam still wanted to develop those weapons again once sanctions were gone, there were clearly other (and FAR less expensive) ways to keep him under control. Sanctions COULD have been reinforced by the United States. There are many tools available to the President other than the military with which to craft foreign policy. After 9-11 and before the Iraq War, Bush could have used the enormous worldwide goodwill to ask for new measures to contain and control Saddam Hussein short of war, thus leaving U.S. forces free for other anti-terrorist operations around the globe. But Bush didn't. He rushed into war for whatever reason, and now we are mired in Iraq with no clear exit strategy.

This isn't leadership. This is a mixture of George W. Bush's ignorance and impulsiveness coming home to roost. He has not made America more safe. In fact, he's made it LESS safe. He's made America less safe because: A.) He has wasted money and military strength in Iraq, leaving us unable to react to threats elsewhere. B.) He's inflamed anti-Americanism all over the world, creating vast new pools of potential recruits for terrorist organizations, and C.) He's severely damaged U.S. credibility and relations abroad which we NEED in order to fight the War On Terror. And worse yet, he's not trying to FIX these problems. He's instead attacking John Kerry, trying to paint him as a flip-flopping pacificst who would be worse at the job than Bush himself is. John Kerry may be many things, but he is NOT what Bush has tried to make him out to be. John Kerry is a Vietnam VOLUNTEER whose courage and determination is noted by both his commanding officers and his shipmates. John Kerry understands what is needed to win the War On Terror, and he understands that there is a difference between decisive leadership and plain old stubborness. This is why many former military commanders back his candidacy....it's because John Kerry has laid out a solid, cohesive, and logical plan for winning the War on Terror. George Bush has not. The ONLY reason Bush is not in deep trouble is because he's been running on 9-11. He can't exactly claim success on the economy...here in Ohio we've lost almost a quarter of a million jobs under him. He can't claim success in foreign relations...Nixon went to China, but Bush only goes to Crawford. In light of that, he claims "catastrophic success" in the War on Terror, tries to hide the details of what is going on from the American public, and wages a ceaseless smear campaign against Kerry/Edwards. It's NOT right! America deserves better than -this-. Even members of the President's own party in Congress have said that his performance in Iraq is, and I quote, "Pathetic". Bush has made the centerpiece of his campaign, "You don't change horses" in the middle of a war.

Let me tell you something. If MY horse is galloping over the edge of a cliff, I am gonna move my ass to a new one. Quickly. I urge the rest of you to seriously consider doing the same.

-Written by an Ohioan
An extremely well written and well thought out letter. Thank you. :)

Shalrirorchia:

A very well written and well thought out piece. Thank you.

It appears our thinking has tracked somewhat over the past few years. A difference being I voted Bush in 2000. A registered Republican and a avowed conservative, I had no confidence in Gore at all.

I have lived 2 blocks south and one block west of the WTC for 16 1/2 years. On February 26, 1993 the local beat cop and I were the first two responders on the scene. I managed to provide aid to a couple who were preparing to exit the underground garage but made it no further than the ramp leading to Liberty Street. He has a glass shrapenel wound that was lodged in his left upper and inner thigh and had nicked the femoral artery. She had the hair and parts of her scalp on the right side of her head blown off and was peppered with glass. I managed to get his bleeding slowed to a trickle and kept them both from descending into shock until EMS arrived.

On the morning of 9-11, I heard the impact of the first plane and responded. As I opened the front door to my building I was passed by a man I have known for years as a calm, implacable person who had a look of sheer terror in his eyes and manner. I looked up and saw the flames and smoke rising from the north tower. Once again I responded by running toward the incident in hopes of being of some use.

When I arrived at the intersection of West and Albany Streets I saw that the FDNY, NYPD and EMS were, unlike 1993, already at the scene in force. There was no need for me there but where I stood there was a river of people moving away from the WTC and across West Street toward the Hudson River. Stuck in this flow of humanity there were several trucks and other vehicles that couldn't move. But from past experience I knew they had to move because soon a torrent of emergency vehicles of all manner would be racing toward the scene on both sides of the highway. I managed to get them through the crowds and away toward the south. I then took up the task of keeping the people moving away from that intersection and off the street for their safety and to provide the expected emergency vehicles clearer access.

In the process of doing this I spotted several bloodied bits I didn't quite register at the time. I also saw a large whitish mass about twenty feet from where I stood. Noted but not defined at the time because it was not relevant to the task at hand. Then a young woman screamed in horror. Instinctively I jerked my attention to her. She stood with her right arm extended and pointing at that mass, her left hand covering her mouth. I followed her point and then recognized the mass as what could only be the inverted torso or a human being with only small bits of blood red here and there. Now noted, but without emotional reaction, I returned to the task at hand. Occasional glimpses toward the tower revealed what seemed to be debris occasionally falling from the towers in irregular intervals. Then one piece of debris rotated enough for me to see the arms and legs of a human being falling through space. I jerked my whole body away knowing what I saw but trying to erase it from my mind and to deny it's existence.

Then, from the south, the roar of jets engines increased. I spun toward the source. It was a very low, very fast passenger airplane in a sharp left bank racing northward just east of our position. "What the hell is wrong with the Air Traffic Controllers?" my mind demanded. The pilot dipped his wings into an even steeper left bank. "This poor bastard is fighting to avoid a collision." I willed him to successfully bank away from the towers, then - in an moment that seemed to last several seconds - the jet was absorbed by the south tower. Then, along with the back blast came the just as instantaneous awareness that we were under attack and that the buildings were going to fall down.

Terror. Shock. Fear. Instinct. Horror. These are just empty words. They convey nothing. No word or group of words can possibly convey the myriad firings that one experiences in such an timeless moment. Trying to define it is impossible. What followed is more distinct and discernable.

Long after the clouds of dust settled, the emotional dust settled. What was left was an unbelievable determination to first fix this and then to fix those that caused this.

It was not particular to me. Everyone was of one mind on both scores. I'd have to hazard that it is a very human response. Part internal defense and part the acknowledgement that one has to contend with an external threat and neutralize it. I would have to say this is the nature of war and the results of it. Whether you are an innocent in New York or an innocent in Baghdad.

Whether one is killed by the bullet from a Saturday Night Special or a multimillion dollar smart bomb is quibbling. Either way death to innocents is intentionally dealt. The perpetrator of that death must be stopped. All the lies and obfuscations offered in defense must be shown to be the reprehensible work of an unredeemable madman.

Bush has to go.

No, I don't think Kerry's intent was to harm any Americans. I think Kerry's intent was to kick-start Kerry's political career. He just either never gave any thought to the impact of his words on other veterans and POWs, or thought about it but just didn't care. Either way, he's still an amoral opportunist in my eyes, and always will be.
One of the articles you cited in this thread(I forget which one) stated that the anti-war movement was "limited but well publicized". If the base of people opposed to the Vietnam war was so small, how could Kerry possibly hope to build a political career by criticizing the war?
The anti-war movement was quite widespread, but Kerry did not take amoral advantage of those peaceful sentiments. What he did was still unpopular, especially in a political setting. Much of the hippie movement was based on "dropping out" of modern political, social, and economic culture. He did an unpopular thing, a thing which is still unpopular today, because it was the right thing to do. Atrocities were commited. Not by all soldiers, but at least by the soldiers who made their confessions through him!

Eustrusca, we lost the Vietnam war. We beat a "strategic withdrawal". The anti-war movement did not cause this defeat. They wanted the war to stop, to have peace. Wouldn't it have been better for US military personnel if the war had ended sooner, if their efforts had been successful? Soldiers would have been brought home instead of staying to fight and die.
The POWs still would have been POWs if Kerry had not testified; he was not responsible for their capture, nor would they have been any better treated had he kept silent.

Jeez, don't you know that everything on this planet has a liberal bias, Google, photographs, the rotation of the earth......

It's the kind of head in the sand approach to the world that Eutrusca uses to avoid facing the things Here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=247) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=159) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155) here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=153) and here, (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147) and, for added measure and relavancy to this particular line of claptrap, here. (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=244.html)

But of course, Eutrusca refers to factcheck.org-that's factcheck.freakin' org! (http://factcheck.org/default.aspx.html) as "one man's lame attempt at refutation......."

But then, if there was any need to establish that Eutrusca was a paranoid freak, there would be this thread here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362859)

My favorite so far from this thread is when he accused someone of not being american for using the word 'autonomous.' Priceless.

You can't blame him, sand keeps his head warm.
That's because the facts are biased, CToaN. Didn't you hear Colbert make that point months ago on the Daily Show? :D

That's because the facts are biased, CToaN. Didn't you hear Colbert make that point months ago on the Daily Show? :D
Of course! It's all so plain and if we don't see it it's because we're blinded...:D

(did you get the TG about The Subdudes concert?)

Just got it. Thanks, but I can't make it.

Just got it. Thanks, but I can't make it.
Kinda figured. But if they're playing here they're probably playing up there (although likely right now.....)

Regarding John Kerry's supposed violation of the Constitution: if it were true, wouldn't we hear of it by now? George W. Bush would have a heyday with it, yet this thread is the first time I'm hearing it.

Excellent. So you concede that there's a good case for Kerry risking his life just by going to Vietnam. Risking your life seems a bit extreme to "jump-start" your political career.

And while I've been nothing but respectful of your personal experiences, I'm sure you would concede that plenty of people who served in Vietnam had very different experiences from you. Hence, there's no basis, other than your own gut-feeling that John Kerry isn't representing truthfully what was related to him by other servicemembers there.

Additionally, you seem to think that it's justified to displace your anger and hatred at the people who personally treated you badly onto a person who publically protested the war. You do this by citing things like how his testimony "aided and abetted" the enemy, and yet you fail to point out which parts of his testimony you're referring to. You also fail to answer any of the arguments others have made that indicate just because someone's words are twisted and misused doesn't mean that the speaker is wrong for having said them.

Your only answer to that is to claim that Kerry is motivated solely by politics, but if you are honest with yourself, you'll have to admit that your perceptions of that are certainly colored by 1. the stigma that attached itself to war protesters during Vietnam, 2. your own personal encounters with certain war protesters, and 3. the popular media and political portrayal of John Kerry.

Yes, you have the right to say all the things you said in the letter (well, excepting the potential libel claim in there, but I'm sure no one will ever call you on it). However, the more important thing is to use that right responsibly, and given how emotionally charged this issue is for you and the way that the campaigners have been spinning these stories, I would say that you've slipped some in that responsibility.

Now, you can get mad and yell at me about how I don't know what happened because I wasn't there. But I will again refer you to the above that states very clearly that I respect the pain and anguish you've undoubtedly suffered. But if that pain and anguish is causing you to lash out at someone unjustly, it's still unjust, whether you still hurt or not.

Well, at least you're relatively logical. Many of your facts and assumptions are incorrect, but we could debate that from now until doomsday and never agree. As with many others on this board, I suppose I will just have to agree to disagree with you. I have no intention of getting mad and yelling at you. That simply adds more heat than light to the discussion.

BTW ... you state that "So you concede that there's a good case for Kerry risking his life just by going to Vietnam. Risking your life seems a bit extreme to "jump-start" your political career." I concede nothing of the kind. Please do me the minimal courtesy of not putting words in my mouth.

Actually, you could make a good argument for the case that every American soldier who entered Vietnam being in danger of losing his or her life.

You state here that one could make a good arguement that every American soldier who entered Vietnam was in danger of losing his or her life. Kerry was an American soldier who entered Vietnam. According to your statement, it follows logically that one could make a good arguement that Kerry was in danger of losing his life.

Well, at least you're relatively logical. Many of your facts and assumptions are incorrect, but we could debate that from now until doomsday and never agree. As with many others on this board, I suppose I will just have to agree to disagree with you. I have no intention of getting mad and yelling at you. That simply adds more heat than light to the discussion.

I appreciate you not reacting out of anger, but the claim that I'm relatively logical, yet many of my facts and assumptions are incorrect is fairly warrantless, at least at this point. If you believe I have wrong facts and assumptions, please indicate which ones are so and why they are so. I will be happy to have that discussion.

BTW ... you state that "So you concede that there's a good case for Kerry risking his life just by going to Vietnam. Risking your life seems a bit extreme to "jump-start" your political career." I concede nothing of the kind. Please do me the minimal courtesy of not putting words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words into your mouth. I'm indicating the logical extension of an argument you yourself made:

Actually, you could make a good argument for the case that every American soldier who entered Vietnam being in danger of losing his or her life.

Now, if there's a good argument for the case that every American soldier that entered Vietnam was in danger of losing his or her life, then there's a good case for Kerry (as he did, in fact, enter Vietnam) being in danger of losing his life. I put no words in your mouth at all.

Additionally, I have something that I'd very much like you to explain to me. You've repeatedly (even in this thread) referred to Kerry accusing veterans of doing horrific things. You even included a tad bit of the following in your quotes, so here is the entire paragraph in question:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

In this paragraph, he CLEARLY states that other veterans testified to war crimes being committed. He did not make the claim himself, but indicated that the claim was made by others. Do you have proof that others did not make that claim? Because your arguments stem from him making that claim personally, when all he was doing is representing the people who HAD made those claims. Please explain how you conflate the two.

In this paragraph, he CLEARLY states that other veterans testified to war crimes being committed. He did not make the claim himself, but indicated that the claim was made by others. Do you have proof that others did not make that claim? Because your arguments stem from him making that claim personally, when all he was doing is representing the people who HAD made those claims. Please explain how you conflate the two.

And that proves what? In a later interview ( sorry, but I don't have a link for it just now, I can look it up again if you like ) on one of the major networks, he was asked whether he personally did any of the things he talked about. After some hemming and hawing, he stated that he had.

In addition, if he didn't believe those things he mentioned others doing weren't true, then why did he mention them. Taken in context, it's obvious from the testimony that he believed them. If, as you indicate, he was in Vietnam long enough to believe atrocities were committed, then went on to testify about them and add that they were "committed daily," does that not indicate that he was passing along what he should have known more about than to pass them along?

Sorry, but trying to absolve Kerry by saying that he was just passing along what others had told him won't wash. At the very least, it indicates that he's terrible at doing proper research and at separating fact from fiction.

And that proves what? In a later interview ( sorry, but I don't have a link for it just now, I can look it up again if you like ) on one of the major networks, he was asked whether he personally did any of the things he talked about. After some hemming and hawing, he stated that he had.

I would definitely like to see it. I, somewhat understandably, have reservations about the context in which you claim he said these things.

In addition, if he didn't believe those things he mentioned others doing weren't true, then why did he mention them. Taken in context, it's obvious from the testimony that he believed them. If, as you indicate, he was in Vietnam long enough to believe atrocities were committed, then went on to testify about them and add that they were "committed daily," does that not indicate that he was passing along what he should have known more about than to pass them along?

So he believed what Vietnam vets had told him. What a bastard. And he said that others had indicated to him that they were committed on a day to day basis. This is precisely what I mean when I say you continually misrepresent his statements. He was passing along what over 150 Vietnam veterans had told him. He was testifying that they had told him these things. He was not saying that no one else had differing views on what had happened, not even close. What would you say if he had been told these things and then called those vets liars? Would you stand up and say, "John Kerry is a good man for giving the thumb to vets that believed and trusted him." Hardly. You'd be villifying him. Stop trying to have it both ways...

Sorry, but trying to absolve Kerry by saying that he was just passing along what others had told him won't wash. At the very least, it indicates that he's terrible at doing proper research and at separating fact from fiction.

Right, because you were there with all 150 of the other vets who made the claims about daily atrocities. And you know and have proof that these atrocities didn't happen. Are you calling those vets liars? For all the respect that you claim was denied to you and others coming home, aren't you doing the same thing to the vets who happen to disagree with your personal view of what happened during the war?

Right, because you were there with all 150 of the other vets who made the claims about daily atrocities. And you know and have proof that these atrocities didn't happen. Are you calling those vets liars? For all the respect that you claim was denied to you and others coming home, aren't you doing the same thing to the vets who happen to disagree with your personal view of what happened during the war?

Here's part of an interview with one who was there with Kerry, John O'Neill, author, "Unfit For Command." The transcript of the interview can be read here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C129554%2C00.html. I strongly recommend you read the entire interview, but have little expectation that you will.

"In 1996 where there was a charge that Kerry had committed war crimes by shooting a lone Viet Con teenager who was running away, George Eliot came forward, in effect helping Kerry by saying there was no war crime.

"It's ironic that you read that particular part of his citation, because that's exactly what he did not do himself in the Silver Star incident. He didn't go ashore and chase a dozen Viet Cong soldiers. That's exactly what didn't happen.

"What actually did happen is he went ashore. He faced one lone Viet Cong kid. The kid was shot in the legs. He tried to get away, Kerry jumped off and shot him in the back. I don't think that was wrong to do that. I might not have done it myself, but I just don't think it's Silver Star material. It's ironic that you read that."

Here's part of an interview with one who was there with Kerry, John O'Neill, author, "Unfit For Command." The transcript of the interview can be read here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C129554%2C00.html. I strongly recommend you read the entire interview, but have little expectation that you will.

"In 1996 where there was a charge that Kerry had committed war crimes by shooting a lone Viet Con teenager who was running away, George Eliot came forward, in effect helping Kerry by saying there was no war crime.

"It's ironic that you read that particular part of his citation, because that's exactly what he did not do himself in the Silver Star incident. He didn't go ashore and chase a dozen Viet Cong soldiers. That's exactly what didn't happen.

"What actually did happen is he went ashore. He faced one lone Viet Cong kid. The kid was shot in the legs. He tried to get away, Kerry jumped off and shot him in the back. I don't think that was wrong to do that. I might not have done it myself, but I just don't think it's Silver Star material. It's ironic that you read that."

I read it. Mind you, it's coming from FOX News, which has a decidely Republican alignment (Just as CNN has a reputation for being a liberal media outlet).

The storm began this morning with a story in The Washington Post. The newspaper had obtained documents that refute the claims of one of members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the book "Unfit for Command."

Although O'Neill tries to bash the Washington Post later in the interview, I am more inclined to believe the Washington Post.

O'Neill then attempts to deflect criticism of the Swift Boat ads by claiming that multiple Democratic sources are criticizing Bush. That's only partially true, Eut. What John Kerry did and did not do in Vietnam are matters of fact. The Democratic criticisms are not entirely the same situation or context. Do you still support Bush even though he's using all these proxies to attack one of your own?

I read it. Mind you, it's coming from FOX News, which has a decidely Republican alignment (Just as CNN has a reputation for being a liberal media outlet).

The storm began this morning with a story in The Washington Post. The newspaper had obtained documents that refute the claims of one of members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the book "Unfit for Command."

Although O'Neill tries to bash the Washington Post later in the interview, I am more inclined to believe the Washington Post.

O'Neill then attempts to deflect criticism of the Swift Boat ads by claiming that multiple Democratic sources are criticizing Bush. That's only partially true, Eut. What John Kerry did and did not do in Vietnam are matters of fact. The Democratic criticisms are not entirely the same situation or context. Do you still support Bush even though he's using all these proxies to attack one of your own?

I don't think the term "proxies" is an accurate portrayal of The Swiftboat Vets. Just like Moveon.org is a pro-kerry org, so Swiftboat Vets is an anti-kerry org, only with more intimate knowledge of Kerry's character, or rather the lack of it. As I have repeatedly stated on here, I am no rabid GWB fan. I just happen to believe, with good reason IMHO, that Kerry would be a disaster of monumental proportions for the US, and certainly for the US military. And this at the very moment in history when the US military needs to be functioning at its maximum effectiveness.

We are never going to agree on this sort of thing.

And just whom do I "hate?" Names, please.
Your posting record points to your hatred of the entire left-wing. You don't need names or specifics or any other such annoying "details".

John Kerry betrayed America.....Kerry's long list of black-bag antics designed to undermine America's military strength and resolve.

...............Like his comrade "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and so many other Leftist protagonists from the Age of Aquarius.............

The nation was in turmoil over our continued role in Vietnam, the result of limited but well-publicized Leftist protests against the war.

So Kerry, ever the opportunist, endeavored to become the Left's most "useful idiot" (as Lenin called Western apologists for Soviet propaganda), collaborating with Fonda..........

an effective spokesperson for his Leftist cadre.........

As for the success of Kerry's anti-democracy protests and his leadership of the VVAW .............

That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent coddling of Communists...........

He has dishonored his family, dishonored his state and dishonored our nation. He is not fit for public office at any level of government, much less, the highest office in the land. John Kerry should resign.
Hello Joe McCarthy!

Yes its an individual choice, but that gives you no right to bad-mouth our nations Veterans. Would you be willing to go and fight for your home?
Bad mouthing a veteran is what the Republican machine has been doing for the past six months.

Bad mouthing a veteran is what the Republican machine has been doing for the past six months.
Bad mounting a coward who shot unarmed men in the back then put himself in for medals about it is not bad mouthing a veteran, coward.

There's a vast, vast difference between coming back and shinning "some light on what was going on over there," and stating in a Congressional Hearing that "... many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

As if that weren't bad enough, Kerry later went on to say that veterans "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war"
Are these things not true?

Bad mounting a coward who shot unarmed men in the back then put himself in for medals about it is not bad mouthing a veteran, coward.
Ah I understand. Kerry was the only US soldier in Vietnam who committed such cowardly acts. Fact is he's a veteran. Lots of other veterans did things just as bad and worse, and yet you protect them just because they're veterans?

Ah I understand. Not even a little, but we don't blame you, you are an anti-bush sheep

Kerry was the only US soldier in Vietnam who committed such cowardly acts. No but he is the only idiot basing his entire campaign on his war crimes. Fact is he's a veteran. Lots of other veterans did things just as bad and worse, and yet you protect them just because they're veterans? :rolleyes: Nope, just the ones who are not war criminals like Kerry, and anyone you slander like you have must be a good person.

Whether anyone here believes me or not, I have a "relative" (My first wife's [who died of cancer to aleviate any smart ass comments] cousin) served in Vietnam, was wounded, and upon returning to the US was also spit upon, called a baby killer and all sorts of other fun things. I know a number of Vietnam vets who have told me the same type of story (I was 12 when the Vietnam war ended) as well as seeing that type of thing on TV when I was growing up.

I give you heartfelt thanks for your service to this country and wish you the best in your life.

One thing alot of the people who post here (US Citizens specifically but other countries as well) don't seem to understand is that it is people like you, the people you served with and the 100's of thousands that have died prior to and after the Vietnam war, have purchased them the right to bitch and complain and talk down the government of the US.

To all of these people, I say grow up and get some knowledge.

I appreciate and thank the vets for their intent in attempting to serve their country. But I have to ask one question that is at the heart of the Viet Nam conflict. At what point did that ever have an impact on America's survival or the survival of it's constitutional guarantees?

The Viet Nam conflict was never about America's survival. It was about attempting to develop a political sphere of influence in South East Asia along the southern border of the PRC. Not unlike what Iraq is about now. American service men and women were then, and are being now, cynically used to further politically dubious goals.

There's a vast, vast difference between coming back and shinning "some light on what was going on over there," and stating in a Congressional Hearing that "... many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

As if that weren't bad enough, Kerry later went on to say that veterans "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war"

All of this is a matter of public record and can be seen at numerous Websites, including C-Span ( http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp )

Are you saying that it never happened? Villages were never razed? Women were never raped? "Trophies" were never taken? Food stocks were never poisoined? No soldier ever plinked off civilians or livestock?

Interesting that you might claim that. In the Phillipines in WWII the US paid $5.00 for each Japanese head collected by the indiginous people. I was told this by a vet, my father in law, who witnessed the policy in action when the brought in the heads lined up on poles that ran through the neck and out the mouth. He told of many excesses and of men who came to love the killing. But then, he wasn't in the rear with the gear. He was out in front of the front, an engineer who helped pave the way for the advance of troops.

He loved America as did my father who served in the OSS. Both thought the Viet Nam war was a disgrace. But none of us degraded the average fighting man. We just didn't have false illusions about 'heros all'. Some were shits and some served honorably.

Hmmm. Well being spit on might have been one clue. Being called a "baby-killer" might have been another. Having been glared at but mostly just ignored may have had something to do with it. Listening to John Kerry ( and others ) at the Congressional hearings was definitely one.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the people who took just a moment to let any of us know our service was appreciated, regardless of how they felt about the war. I don't think we expected parades or applause, but some sort of acknowlegement that we ( especially the draftees ) had served in spite of apparent public opposition to the war would have been nice, don't you think?

I was very gratified to see that returning soldiers from Gulf War I and the current conflict were honored, despite the noisy sometime protests against both. IMHO, despising soldiers who serve, even when the war is unpopular, is analogous to shooting the messenger who bears bad news.


The Viet Nam war was not merely unpopular, it was detested. It was a lie to support Johnson's political adventureism. Do you really think that people who had such strong emotion against the war and the political administrations of Johnson, and later Nixon, whuld be throwing parades for those who participated in the governments actions? That is ridiculous!

There were also plenty of supporters of the war. You didn't hear from them?

Over the years emotions have cooled somewhat and the rhetoric that went with it. As I have said elsewhere, I appreciate your heart in attempting to serve our country. It is unfortunate that the government so ill used and abused you. It must have been a difficult experience having the eye opening experience of coming home to such strong negativity for your participation in that conflict. But as you have said, don't shoot the messenger.

I was stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina when LT Calley was being Court Martialed, so yes, I am aware of My Lai and other war crimes comitted by American soldiers. Those were, based on both my own anecdotal evidence and what statistical evidence I have found, the exception rather than the rule.

In the heat and stress of combat, there will always be some who stray beyond the bounds of the acceptable. This is a natural consequence of the nature of war. Wars should be outlawed, but until they are, this sort of thing will continue to happen and the best we can do is try our damndest to keep most of the genie in the bottle.
At last! You have stated something I can agree with.

I am well aware of that, having been told as much on here time and time again. As I have repeatedly stated, I am no great fan of GWB. I just happen to believe, based on what I know about him, that Kerry would be a disaster of monumental proportions for the US at this point in history. IMHO, we need a President who can ( not to put too fine a point on it ) kick ass and take names to prevent further terrorist attacks, and that is definitely NOT a description of John F. Kerry.
The problem with GWB is that he lacks the discipline and control necessary to bring the full array of diplomacy and a strong hand when needed. He presides as a yahoo who will shoot first and not even bother to ask questions later.

It is my belief that Kerry is closer to what we need. If he abhors war - as most vets do - he will exhaust every other means of resolution before ungloving the mighty hand. I don't think he is incapable of using force when necessary.

- S N I P -
Sorry, but trying to absolve Kerry by saying that he was just passing along what others had told him won't wash. At the very least, it indicates that he's terrible at doing proper research and at separating fact from fiction.
As opposed to GWB's WMD research?

Here's part of an interview with one who was there with Kerry, John O'Neill, author, "Unfit For Command." The transcript of the interview can be read here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C129554%2C00.html. I strongly recommend you read the entire interview, but have little expectation that you will.

"In 1996 where there was a charge that Kerry had committed war crimes by shooting a lone Viet Con teenager who was running away, George Eliot came forward, in effect helping Kerry by saying there was no war crime.

"It's ironic that you read that particular part of his citation, because that's exactly what he did not do himself in the Silver Star incident. He didn't go ashore and chase a dozen Viet Cong soldiers. That's exactly what didn't happen.

"What actually did happen is he went ashore. He faced one lone Viet Cong kid. The kid was shot in the legs. He tried to get away, Kerry jumped off and shot him in the back. I don't think that was wrong to do that. I might not have done it myself, but I just don't think it's Silver Star material. It's ironic that you read that."

Eutrusca, you continually ignore relevant parts of my argument for reasons I'm not entirely sure about. You switch this from being a discussion about whether Kerry insulted the honor of all Vietnam vets in his testimony before the Senate to an issue regarding his Silver Star. If you're conceding that his testimony wasn't erroneous or wasn't illegit, you're saying that half of your original letter was based on misinformation. Are you conceding that?

And if you're not saying that, why the sudden shift to the Silver Star incident? I did read the whole thing, and I've read at least 3 long excerpts from the book itself. I've read several reports since then discrediting what some of the SBVT say (Letson, for instance, wasn't the administering physician, even though he claimed to have treated Kerry). While they have differing opinions of what Kerry did, there are other vets that served more closely with him that support him and his bid for the presidency. Do you honestly think that people in combat remember everything the same or that you can tell based just on their recollections who was correct? Or do you think that your dislike of Kerry may be coloring your judgement here? I've already pointed out several examples of how I believe this to be the case to which you haven't responded at all.

No but he is the only idiot basing his entire campaign on his war crimes.

Funny, and here I thought he was campaigning on things like the economy, healthcare, welfare, and the horrible bungling of actions in Iraq. Oh yeah, and the deficit. The record setting deficit Bush has lead us into.
When Kerry testified to war crimes, he was testifying on the behalf of other vets who had commited those crimes, testified to him about them, and then asked him to make record of it.

Funny, and here I thought he was campaigning on things like the economy, healthcare, welfare, and the horrible bungling of actions in Iraq. Oh yeah, and the deficit. The record setting deficit Bush has lead us into.
When Kerry testified to war crimes, he was testifying on the behalf of other vets who had commited those crimes, testified to him about them, and then asked him to make record of it.

See, your relatively new here, so let me give you some advice.

Munkebrain won't listen to what you say at all.

I'll bet anything his next post will be nothing but an insult against Kerry. Nothing to back it up, just one big case of shitting from the mouth.

Oh, and there's a chance he'll insult you or say you hate america or something like that.

I'll take my chances, but thanks.

I think Eutrusca may have something to hide.

I think Eutrusca may have something to hide.

And just what, pray tell, might that be? :)

Alright... just in case nobody's seen this, we should probably do our own research on Kerry's war record. I found the following articles on www.factcheck.org and thought I'd post them so you folks could check some things out for yourselves.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=244.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=231.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=177.html

And just what, pray tell, might that be? :)

How should I know? You're the one hiding it.

My question to you, the people of a State I remember with great fondness, is this: do you truly believe that someone amoral enough to place political ambition above the truth about your sons and daughters is worthy of being elected President of the United States and Commander In Chief of her armed forces?
Truth is an absolute defense to libel. I'm just sayin'.