NationStates Jolt Archive

I've never seen it. Not once. I've asked for people who hate Kerry to provide me a link, but they never do.

If no one provides proof Kerry said ALL Vietnam Vets were war criminals, then I will politely ask those who keep spreading this nonsense to STFU.

I dont believe he accused ALL Veterans of 'Nam, he just admitted that war crimes were taking place on a day to day basis over there.

He would know.

He was there.

He testified that war crimes were taking place on a daily basis before a senate commitee, I believe.
The Neo-cons would like for you to think he was saying things that he didnt actually say.

Thats becuase they are basically evil.

Especially Karl Rove.

They have to attack Kerry, to make Bush look good, becuase they cant come before you and tout Bush's sucsesses.

Becuase he doesnt have any.

I'm nearly 100% sure he didn't accuse all Vietnam vets. One of the Kerry haters would have supplied the quote by now if he had.

Notice none of them are responding to this thread. It's because they know their position is indefensible.

Thats usually the case.

They dont post unless they have some sort of proof, even if its only in thier minds.


No matter, in a few days they can bitch all they want.

Kerry 04!

I've seen it.
It was on tv a little while ago, and it just raised my respect for him.
Why is it seen as a bad thing that Kerry spoke up about what was happening over there? America completely butched that war up... and lost! I dont understand when old Americans (or Australians for that matter) talk about serving in Vietnam for our freedom or whatever... We lost, the worst possible scenario happened, and it just got worse from there.
If Kerry haters think that the war was justified and right, and that America should have been involved, then that just proves how screwed up they are.

Edit: From what I can remember, he didn't accuse all Vietnam veterans of war crimes, (I'm just speaking from my knowledge of the war here) but the American soldiers did carry out incalculable damage against the Vietnamese and human rights were rarely considered... Yes, they were instructed to by their leaders, but come on. For those veterans to say now that they contributed to anything less than an atrocity against both the north and south Vietnamese people is plain ignorance. And yes, I know that they were subscripted there, but to deny that they did nothing wrong kind of contradicts what they say about being there against their will...
eh


Seriously, for this to be an issue for the election is stupid. Its petty and lame. There are real issues in the world, real problems that need addressing, yet all that people can think about is this?

Don't you remember?

It was in that one speech. Where he also praised Satan, burned several American flags, had buttsex with Edwards, ate a few babies, and then said "The sky is blue. The sky is green. OOOOOh, can't handle THAT level of flip floping, CAN you?!"

He also turned into a waffle, but I suspect a witch was involved with that. No biggie, he got better.

Well I haven't seen it, but I've read that he never actually witnessed any atrocities (and took back claims that he himself committed any); he was going by secondhand information. So he was about as truthful as George Bush, hohoho

Well I haven't seen it, but I've read that he never actually witnessed any atrocities (and took back claims that he himself committed any); he was going by secondhand information. So he was about as truthful as George Bush, hohoho

Love how that was spun to be a negative. Look, in his speech before congress, Kerry specifically mentions that he isn't speaking for himself. He is there merely to relay the testimony of 150 members of the Vietnam Vets Against The War to admitted to doing and seeing attrocities occur on a daily basis. Kerry never accused anyone, he merely acted as a representative of a disaffected and angry group.

Read his speech (in it's entirety,) right here:

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

bah Im much too tired to read another article or debate for that matter. I was just trolling. :p Although to be honest I don't care for either Bush or Kerry. :gundge:

He stated he was speaking for a group known as the Winter Soldiers, a leftist group of Vietnam Vets sponsored by Jane Fonda. In his testimony, he never directly states he's speaking for all Vets; he never states he's only speaking for his group either. At the time, his comments were taken as an accusation against all Vets by those same Vets who went to war, and are largely the reason why that war is seen in the light it is today, as evidenced by the comments on this board.

I wasn't there. He was. He stated certain things happened. A large number of other Vets who were there have disagreed. I guess the final evaluation is up to history.

He stated he was speaking for a group known as the Winter Soldiers, a leftist group of Vietnam Vets sponsored by Jane Fonda. In his testimony, he never directly states he's speaking for all Vets; he never states he's only speaking for his group either. At the time, his comments were taken as an accusation against all Vets by those same Vets who went to war, and are largely the reason why that war is seen in the light it is today, as evidenced by the comments on this board.

I wasn't there. He was. He stated certain things happened. A large number of other Vets who were there have disagreed. I guess the final evaluation is up to history.

You didn't read the link did you? He very clearly states he's only speaking for his group. Are you not able to read?

Also, provide proof that Jane Fonda sponsored the Winter Soldiers, beyond, say, the amount of involvement Bush had with the Swift Boat Vets For Truth.

You didn't read the link did you? He very clearly states he's only speaking for his group. Are you not able to read?

Also, provide proof that Jane Fonda sponsored the Winter Soldiers, beyond, say, the amount of involvement Bush had with the Swift Boat Vets For Truth.


:rolleyes: I could give a fuck whether or not you think Fonda was involved in the Winter Soldiers conference. If you don't think so, fine, whatever, it doesn't matter whether you beleive it or not.

And no, no he doesn't. Go read again bright one.

:rolleyes: I could give a fuck whether or not you think Fonda was involved in the Winter Soldiers conference. If you don't think so, fine, whatever, it doesn't matter whether you beleive it or not.

And no, no he doesn't. Go read again bright one.

All I'm asking for is evidence. How am I supposed to learn anything new if you don't provide the evidence? Or are you merely parroting baseless attacks some overstuffed talkshow host made?

Oh, and yes Kerry did:
I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of one thousand, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

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.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

Seriously dude, are you illiterate or just criminally closed-mined?

I'm surprised that if you've actually studied the Winter Soldiers conference you don't know that Fonda was involved. Do I care if you have or not? No. Do I care to attempt to prove something anyone who'd done 5 minutes of research could tell you? Not a bit.

And the fact is regardless of what he said, it was taken by veterans to be a damnation of all verterans and cost him a congressional election. Second, it was 30 years ago, if Kerry hadn't of wanted to run on it, would anyone give a fuck?

And the fact is regardless of what he said, it was taken by veterans to be a damnation of all verterans and cost him a congressional election. Second, it was 30 years ago, if Kerry hadn't of wanted to run on it, would anyone give a fuck?

Yeah. I looked it up. Fonda partially funded the Winter Soldier Investigations. I never said she didn't, I merely wanted proof, something you seem incapable of coming up with. Even with that, it was taken so seriously that Kerry was asked to testify before Congress. Guilt by association goes against the very idea of freedom of assembly, a right given in the Constitution.

So you're saying it doesn't matter what Kerry said, what really matters is how he was misinterpreted? By that logic, you can blame Jesus for the Inquisition.

It looks like you've dropped the argument that Kerry never stated he was only representing his group of veterans. I take that as a small victory.

Yeah. I looked it up. Fonda partially funded the Winter Soldier Investigations. I never said she didn't, I merely wanted proof, something you seem incapable of coming up with. Even with that, it was taken so seriously that Kerry was asked to testify before Congress. Guilt by association goes against the very idea of freedom of assembly, a right given in the Constitution.

So you're saying it doesn't matter what Kerry said, what really matters is how he was misinterpreted? By that logic, you can blame Jesus for the Inquisition.

It looks like you've dropped the argument that Kerry never stated he was only representing his group of veterans. I take that as a small victory.


Congrats on your small victory, you are right there.

As far as being incapable of providing proof, another congrats, you found it your damn self. Bravo for being self sufficient and doing your own research.

And no, the misinterpretation is not the point, the point is in the impact it made, in which case yeah, Christianity and Jesus had a part in the inquisition. Kerry's comments were used against all Vets, at home and abroad; whether he meant to speak for them all or not is absolutely irrelevant.

And frankly this issue is idiotic and someone should smack Kerry for bringing it up in the first place.

Congrats on your small victory, you are right there.

As far as being incapable of providing proof, another congrats, you found it your damn self. Bravo for being self sufficient and doing your own research.

And no, the misinterpretation is not the point, the point is in the impact it made, in which case yeah, Christianity and Jesus had a part in the inquisition. Kerry's comments were used against all Vets, at home and abroad; whether he meant to speak for them all or not is absolutely irrelevant.

And frankly this issue is idiotic and someone should smack Kerry for bringing it up in the first place.
C'mon, if you guys didn't have this drum to beat you'd have to stick to that whole 'flip flopping' thing, and then where would you be?

Ultimitely, you can't have it both ways. You think the argument is retarded, don't argue it. Kerry's Vietnam service would have been a footnote to his candacy, no more a flourish to what he's doing as Bush's Texas posturing, which in reality is more ridiculous since he's as much a Texan as Hilary is a New Yorker. You all made a big deal out of it and now that it's not holding as much water as you hope you want to blame Kerry for making an issue out of it? Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

And acting indignant when someone asks for proof? Nice strategy. "Pff. I know what I know and if you don't know it you're ig'nant." Doesn't fly. Am I supposed to be brow-beaten into believing you? No dice. Gymoor manages to provide a preponderance of evidence and invites the same. Put up or shut up. I have been following his threads waiting for him to be challenged in any meaningful fashion, in fact hoping for it. It would mean that there is a balanced debate, a notion that on some level both sides are right-the only really decent argument to be had. Unfortunately all he ever gets is this dribble. It does not bode well for this country.

C'mon, if you guys didn't have this drum to beat you'd have to stick to that whole 'flip flopping' thing, and then where would you be?

Ultimitely, you can't have it both ways. You think the argument is retarded, don't argue it. Kerry's Vietnam service would have been a footnote to his candacy, no more a flourish to what he's doing as Bush's Texas posturing, which in reality is more ridiculous since he's as much a Texan as Hilary is a New Yorker. You all made a big deal out of it and now that it's not holding as much water as you hope you want to blame Kerry for making an issue out of it? Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

And acting indignant when someone asks for proof? Nice strategy. "Pff. I know what I know and if you don't know it you're ig'nant." Doesn't fly. Am I supposed to be brow-beaten into believing you? No dice. Gymoor manages to provide a preponderance of evidence and invites the same. Put up or shut up. I have been following his threads waiting for him to be challenged in any meaningful fashion, in fact hoping for it. It would mean that there is a balanced debate, a notion that on some level both sides are right-the only really decent argument to be had. Unfortunately all he ever gets is this dribble. It does not bode well for this country.


"Us guys"? Who are you talking about?

Kerry's record wasn't an issue till he brought it up and summoned forth the Swift Vets. Period.

Its not acting indignant, its that its an idiotic issue and I don't care to dig up proof to justify it to some guy over the internet. Does it matter that Fonda sponsored the Winter Soldiers? No. So why waste my time proving it to some mutton-head from wherever?

And what preponderence of evidence are you referring to exactly?

"Us guys"? Who are you talking about?
Figure it out. I ain't playin' that game.

Kerry's record wasn't an issue till he brought it up and summoned forth the Swift Vets. Period.
"Summoned forth the Swift Vets?" Nice. Honestly, now-do you honestly think that someone RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT who had served in Vietnam and testified in front of congress-do you really think that if that person hadn't said anything it would have never been brought up? Do you really believe that? Or are you claiming that ridiculous scenario to try and back off a losing argument?

Its not acting indignant, its that its an idiotic issue and I don't care to dig up proof to justify it to some guy over the internet. Does it matter that Fonda sponsored the Winter Soldiers? No. So why waste my time proving it to some mutton-head from wherever?
It doesn't matter? Then why did you bring it up? From post #10:
He stated he was speaking for a group known as the Winter Soldiers, a leftist group of Vietnam Vets sponsored by Jane Fonda.
If you didn't care to prove anything to any 'mutton-head,' why bother posting anything at all? Wouldn't that just risk exposing you as a troll or moron?

And what preponderence of evidence are you referring to exactly?
How about bothering to find all the text of the speeches that Kerry is supposed to have said that all vets ate babies? Or actually researching the claims that Kerry is more liberal than Marx?

Look, if you didn't care or thought the argument was retarded, why did you chime in at all? Did you just hope your snipe would go unquestioned? Your claims don't match your actions.

Figure it out. I ain't playin' that game.


"Summoned forth the Swift Vets?" Nice. Honestly, now-do you honestly think that someone RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT who had served in Vietnam and testified in front of congress-do you really think that if that person hadn't said anything it would have never been brought up? Do you really believe that? Or are you claiming that ridiculous scenario to try and back off a losing argument?


It doesn't matter? Then why did you bring it up? From post #10:

If you didn't care to prove anything to any 'mutton-head,' why bother posting anything at all? Wouldn't that just risk exposing you as a troll or moron?


How about bothering to find all the text of the speeches that Kerry is supposed to have said that all vets ate babies? Or actually researching the claims that Kerry is more liberal than Marx?

Look, if you didn't care or thought the argument was retarded, why did you chime in at all? Did you just hope your snipe would go unquestioned? Your claims don't match your actions.


Do you have a life at all or just spend your time nitpicking things apart online?

Anyway, have fun, don't care, later.

Do you have a life at all or just spend your time nitpicking things apart online?

Anyway, have fun, don't care, later.
I dig when people doing the same thing try to slam others for not having a life. Sort of glass house/projecting thing. Classic.

I don't think many of you understand the implications of what Kerry said in front of Congress all those years ago - he eventually apologised for his remarks, because The Winter Soldier Investigation was a fraud - yet as alot of Americans believed his testimony - soldiers didn't receive a warm welcome when they returned home.

I don't think many of you understand the implications of what Kerry said in front of Congress all those years ago - he eventually apologised for his remarks, because The Winter Soldier Investigation was a fraud - yet as alot of Americans believed his testimony - soldiers didn't receive a warm welcome when they returned home.
Really? We don't realize what the Vietnam soldiers went through when they returned? That little bit of history wasn't run over and over and over again all throughout our life times? Really?

And it's all Kerry's fault? Before Kerry it was all tickertape parades and candy kisses? By 1971, that's 1971 America still thought Vietnam was a walk in the park? All until bad ol' Kerry stepped on the scene? Walter Kronkite, the draft, Ohio, Democratic National Convention-all retro-actively Kerry's fault, I assume?

Yeah...so-

The name of the game here is pony up-because I have seen Kerry appologize for the way he said some things, but not for what he said. It's not enough to make a claim. Back your shit up. It goes like this:
Link (http://factcheck.org/article244.html). You see, a whole site dedicated to checkin' peoples shit. Your turn. Pony up.

You'd think that someone with a signature that smuggly claims that "Your opinions are someone elses" would want to back thier shit up-lest they be unduely casting the first stone....

Really? We don't realize what the Vietnam soldiers went through when they returned? That little bit of history wasn't run over and over and over again all throughout our life times? Really?

And it's all Kerry's fault? Before Kerry it was all tickertape parades and candy kisses? By 1971, that's 1971 America still thought Vietnam was a walk in the park? All until bad ol' Kerry stepped on the scene? Walter Kronkite, the draft, Ohio, Democratic National Convention-all retro-actively Kerry's fault, I assume?

Yeah...so-

The name of the game here is pony up-because I have seen Kerry appologize for the way he said some things, but not for what he said. It's not enough to make a claim. Back your shit up. It goes like this:
Link (http://factcheck.org/article244.html). You see, a whole site dedicated to checkin' peoples shit. Your turn. Pony up.

You'd think that someone with a signature that smuggly claims that "Your opinions are someone elses" would want to back thier shit up-lest they be unduely casting the first stone....

It was John Kerry’s responsibility to ensure his dissent was both principled and responsible. He instead participated in a fraud and a sham known as the “Winter Soldier investigation” and then compounded that by using the fraudulent ‘testimony’ from that event as the STATED basis of his testimony to Congress.

He made no effort to determine the truth of what he testified to, or if he did, chose to ignore the results. He completely failed the test of 'responsible dissent'.

With his testimony he indicted an entire generation of soldiers as war criminals, committing war crimes “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

He later apologized for what he had done during his run for Senate.

Kerry hooked up with an organization called Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Two events cooked up by this group went a long way toward cementing in the public mind the image of Vietnam as one big atrocity.

January 31, 1971, "Winter Soldier Investigation," organized by antiwar celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, and Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theorist, Mark Lane.

Here, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities in Vietnam: using prisoners for target practice, throwing them out of helicopters, cutting off the ears of dead Viet Cong soldiers, burning villages, and gang-raping women as a matter of course.

Al Hubbard, one of the founders of the VVAW and its Executive Secretary, claimed to be an Air Force pilot, wounded in Viet Nam. In fact, Hubbard was never an officer, never wounded and never in Viet Nam.

VVAW members Elton Mazione, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz and Kenneth Van Lesser all claimed to have been a part of the Phoenix program in Viet Nam where they routinely killed children and removed body parts as a part of their duty. They were shown to have never been in the Phoenix program nor had they ever been in Viet Nam.

We’ve also since learned that John Kerry’s “impassioned” and “impromptu” testimony wasn’t even written by him. Kerry's emotional, from-the-heart speech had been carefully crafted by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it...and certainly, as he claimed, NOT impromptu.

I've never seen it. Not once. I've asked for people who hate Kerry to provide me a link, but they never do.

If no one provides proof Kerry said ALL Vietnam Vets were war criminals, then I will politely ask those who keep spreading this nonsense to STFU.


I am here as one member of the group of one thousand, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony...
not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.


Proof:

The country does not know it yet, but it has created a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and trade in violence who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

Need more proof? Try this link. In spite of it being on the swiftvets site, it does provide the transcript of the O'Nell/Kerry debate on the Cavette show, it also provides a video link of the debate on c-span.

http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

Let me give you a few of the quotes:

Kerry said in his testimony that he had first hand knowledge of mass atrocities.

MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that.

MR. O'NEILL: It's interesting that you happen to say that you don't claim to speak for all veterans. You said that before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, same testimony previously cited, "I'm here as one member of a group of a thousand, which is a very much – very – which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit here at this table, they would be here and have the same kind of testimony."

I'm here, John. I'm a veteran in this country. I'm here to say that's a lie.

Here is where O'Neill confronts Kerry with the validity of "testimony" given:

MR. O'NEILL: that's very interesting that you would say that, John. I've got an article right now. It's from the May 8, 1971, New York Times. It concerns some of the testimony. It concerns a Danny S. Notley (phonetic spelling), who apparently is a member of your organization. The Army pursued him all the way to Minnesota to try and get him to sign a deposition regarding the allegations of war crimes that he made, and he refused to, as have all 50 people that testified there and 150 that testified in Detroit, and so I suggest that if you're honest, you ought to finally produce the depositions after all of us waiting for two months.

The effect of what you've done hasn't been to prevent one or two Kerrys (sic). It's been to label two and a half million of us as – Calleys, not Kerrys, although they may be somewhat interchangeable at times.

That's precisely and exactly what you've done. And I think in honesty, as a just and decent human being, that you'd want to do that. I think there's something particularly pathetic about me having to appear on nationwide television and trade polished little phrases with you to defend the honor of the 55,000 people that died there, the two and a half million of us that served there. I think further that the justification that Hanoi uses for keeping our POWs is that they were engaged in criminal acts there, and I think that someone who comes out and says exactly the same thing could be doing nothing but serving those purposes, although I'm not – obviously those are not your intentions. There's no question about that. Note that we never got back all of our POW's and MIA's. Where are they? One can only pray that their suffering has ended.



Here he admits to war crimes for which he was never tried (he later denied having said this):

MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty

There are countless more points in the debate. Follow the link at the bottom of the page and read the whole thing. The final response to the close gives a clear insight into Kerry and his character:



MR. CAVETT: There's really no time left. We've run out of time, and I hope that we haven't divided people in this country against each other even further tonight. Do you feel fairly treated, John?

MR. O'NEILL: I feel fairly treated.

MR. CAVETT: Do you feel fairly treated, John?

MR. KERRY: I do. I wish we could get into the issues now.

MR. O'NEILL: I hope you'll appear with me on a large number of other shows. I hope you'll appear with me on the other shows that have offered. I hope you have the courage.

Kerry refused to return to the debate.

If your going to vote for somebody, you should really consider their highs and lows.

Realplayer: http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/sellout.rm
Windows Media Player: http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/sellout.wmv

If your going to vote for somebody, you should really consider their highs and lows.

I have considered this, and as a Viet Vet, I can not overlook Kerry's "low". How can I consider him as Commander in Chief when he commited perjury, betrayal, and maybe even treason? He helped lead the charge that has plagued over 2 million vets for over 30 years. Do you think the Swiftvets are the only ones trying to wake up American voters?

www.wintersoldier.com

Be sure to check out Pitkin's desciption of what led to his "testimony".

First read the book "America in Viet Nam" then try to find, much less read Kerry's "The New Soldier". Here's a link with a considerable amount of the text and several of the pictures contained in the book.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=NewSoldier

Then YOU consider just how low a man must go before you can not in good conscience vote for him.

Sorry Sukafitz. I didn't understand where you were coming from.

http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/sellout.wmv

I have considered this, and as a Viet Vet, I can not overlook Kerry's "low". How can I consider him as Commander in Chief when he commited perjury, betrayal, and maybe even treason? He helped lead the charge that has plagued over 2 million vets for over 30 years. Do you think the Swiftvets are the only ones trying to wake up American voters?

www.wintersoldier.com

Be sure to check out Pitkin's desciption of what led to his "testimony".

First read the book "America in Viet Nam" then try to find, much less read Kerry's "The New Soldier". Here's a link with a considerable amount of the text and several of the pictures contained in the book.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=NewSoldier

Then YOU consider just how low a man must go before you can not in good conscience vote for him.

So you won't be voting for Bush either, then?

I have considered this, and as a Viet Vet, I can not overlook Kerry's "low". How can I consider him as Commander in Chief when he commited perjury, betrayal, and maybe even treason? He helped lead the charge that has plagued over 2 million vets for over 30 years. Do you think the Swiftvets are the only ones trying to wake up American voters?

www.wintersoldier.com

Be sure to check out Pitkin's desciption of what led to his "testimony".

First read the book "America in Viet Nam" then try to find, much less read Kerry's "The New Soldier". Here's a link with a considerable amount of the text and several of the pictures contained in the book.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=NewSoldier

Then YOU consider just how low a man must go before you can not in good conscience vote for him.

Sorry Sukafitz. I didn't understand where you were coming from.

http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/sellout.wmv

Thanks for those links - I really wish someone could open the eyes of Democratic voters. You can't vote this son of a bitch into office as the lesser of two evils.

So you won't be voting for Bush either, then?

I don't totally agree with Bush, but given my choices, yes I have voted for him. Consider this. What if there had been WMD's in Iraq as most of the world's leaders believed, and Bush had bowed to the UN Security Council members who opposed taking action (and have now been found to have been making billions of $ illegally in the oil for food program), and Saddam had gotten his weopons into the hands of terrorists and they had executed a horrific attack on US soil. What would you be saying now? Same thing! Bush failed!! At least he erred on the side of caution in the US's best interest. Try reading Duelfer's report, or at least the main points of it. It's pretty long! If Saddam wasn't a threat yet, pre-war evidence said that he was. Worse still, he was planning on building WMD's with the help of some of our "allies" after the UN lifted their sanctions. So Bush stopped a major threat before it got started? GOOD JOB DUBYA!!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Thanks for those links - I really wish someone could open the eyes of Democratic voters. You can't vote this son of a bitch into office as the lesser of two evils.

Amen brother! Here's a link to some of the men that Kerry slandered:

http://thewall-usa.com/

I am here as one member of the group of one thousand, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony...
All of the VVAW does not amount to all of the veterans unless all veterans sign up for VVAW.

not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
He's not accusing all veterans, not even most of them in that sentence fragment.

Proof:

The country does not know it yet, but it has created a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and trade in violence...
It's called basic training.

MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that.
That's evidence that John Kerry didn't accuse all veterans of being war criminals. Nice.

MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty
He still isn't accusing all veterans, not even most veterans, of being war criminals. The rest of the quotes were from other people and I don't think John Kerry should be blamed for things that Mr. O'Neill said.

This investigation was the primary cause behind the cruel treatment received by Vietnam Veterans when they returned home from the war.

The VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR ORGANIZATION fabricated lies and used fake witnesses during the “Winter Solder investigation” to rationalize their disproval against the Vietnam War.

When it was discovered that John Kerry's testimony was written by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy, named Adam Walinsky; It became clear that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.

Here we are today looking at the very same routine focusing on George Bush and the disproval over Iraq.

All of the VVAW does not amount to all of the veterans unless all veterans sign up for VVAW.

small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country

Did you read the whole interview? There was no large group of vets. O'neill got him to admit there was only one who would sign a deposition. Some of the few there were have since disclosed they were pressured into making false accusations by Kerry and his friends.


He's not accusing all veterans, not even most of them in that sentence fragment.

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

So exactly what portion was he accusing if not ALL?

It's called basic training.

You obviously have never served and have no idea what basic training involves. Also, you obviously believe that all of our former and present military are "monsters". You made my argument for me on that one.


That's evidence that John Kerry didn't accuse all veterans of being war criminals. Nice.

He had earlier claimed that he had personally witnessed these actions and that others had also on a wide spread basis. Then he turns around and admits that he participated in them. :confused:


He still isn't accusing all veterans, not even most veterans, of being war criminals. The rest of the quotes were from other people and I don't think John Kerry should be blamed for things that Mr. O'Neill said.

He made false accusations that spread a blanket of distrust, hate, and persecution over all of the vets. I have been called a jackass, a moron, an idiot, and a bitter old man blinded by hatred for my disgust with Kerry. I am none of those things. Far from being blind, I am personally aware of the results of his words. The ones who are blind are the ones who insist on closing their eyes and their ears to the truth about this man. He had a serious character flaw then, dealing in lies and intimidation, and most of his 20 years on the Senate has shown that flaw is still present.

[QUOTE=Sukafitz]When it was discovered that John Kerry's testimony was written by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy, named Adam Walinsky; It became clear that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.
QUOTE]

Also interesting to note, there are photos of Kerry on a pleasure boat with the Kennedy clan before he enlisted. After serving his 4 month stint in Nam, the Kennedys got behind him and started him out in his political career. He's been the Jr. Senator from Mass under Ted Kennedy for 20 years. If Kerry is elected, who do you think will be running the country? Kerry or Kennedy (when they can sober him up)?

small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country

Did you read the whole interview? There was no large group of vets. O'neill got him to admit there was only one who would sign a deposition. Some of the few there were have since disclosed they were pressured into making false accusations by Kerry and his friends.

Uh, this was about Kerry's testimony before Congress. There were well over 1000 men who marched with Kerry.


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

So exactly what portion was he accusing if not ALL?

That portion who told him they saw crimes committed on a daily basis. No more, no less. Anything else is inferrence. Learn to read



You obviously have never served and have no idea what basic training involves. Also, you obviously believe that all of our former and present military are "monsters". You made my argument for me on that one.

War is fucking hell. Vietnam, as most historians and veterans will tell you, was an especially brutal slice of hell. There were men who came back, well before Kerry spoke up, who were not treated well. The VA was doing a horrible job at the time. Kerry was speaking out for better treatment of veterans, but of course, in your partisan hackery, you never would have read that far.

But the problem of veterans goes beyond this personal problem, because you think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says "I want you." And a young man comes out of high school and says, "That is fine. I am going to serve my country." And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn't really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.

The hospitals across the country won't, or can't meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don't have the appropriations. A man recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the operation but because there weren't enough personnel to clean the mucous out of his tube and he suffocated to death.

Another young man just died in a New York VA hospital the other day. A friend of mine was lying in a bed two beds away and tried to help him, but he couldn't. He rang a bell and there was nobody there to service that man and so he died of convulsions.

I understand 57 percent of all those entering the VA hospitals talk about suicide. Some 27 percent have tried, and they try because they come back to this country and they have to face what they did in Vietnam, and then they come back and find the indifference of a country that doesn't really care, that doesn't really care.

Yeah, what a heartless bastard Kerry was. To think he actually wanted something scummy like better care for our veterans! (sarcasm)


He had earlier claimed that he had personally witnessed these actions and that others had also on a wide spread basis. Then he turns around and admits that he participated in them. :confused:


Again, your inability to read is astounding. First, in his testimony and in the Cavett interview he states that the gruesome crimes were things he had never personally witnessed. On the other hand, things like free fire zones and other things that are specifically against the rules of the Geneva Convention are things that he and other Vietnam vets took part in at the order of higher ups. The soldiers themselves had never been instructed as to what is in the Geneva Convention. Have you ever read the Geneva Convention?


He made false accusations that spread a blanket of distrust, hate, and persecution over all of the vets. I have been called a jackass, a moron, an idiot, and a bitter old man blinded by hatred for my disgust with Kerry. I am none of those things. Far from being blind, I am personally aware of the results of his words. The ones who are blind are the ones who insist on closing their eyes and their ears to the truth about this man. He had a serious character flaw then, dealing in lies and intimidation, and most of his 20 years on the Senate has shown that flaw is still present.

The result of Kerrys words were created much more by those who relentlessly tried to tear him down for speaking up. They twisted his words, picked at them like hyenas over an overripe kill, and still did not manage to take the man down. Fuck you for attacking a man who had your best interests at heart. What the hell did John O'Neill ever do to try to stop the war or bring home POW's?

Uh, this was about Kerry's testimony before Congress. There were well over 1000 men who marched with Kerry.

Most of those, at least the ones they could find, turned out to not be vets at all. A few did and some of them are saying they were pressured and threatened to give false accounts. Pitkins statement of what led to his claims:

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=YesterdaysLies1


That portion who told him they saw crimes committed on a daily basis. No more, no less. Anything else is inferrence. Learn to read

"officers at all levels of command" All levels of command all over Nam. What do you not understand about this statement? Obviously only one of us is able to read and understand this.

War is fucking hell. Vietnam, as most historians and veterans will tell you, was an especially brutal slice of hell. There were men who came back, well before Kerry spoke up, who were not treated well. The VA was doing a horrible job at the time. Kerry was speaking out for better treatment of veterans, but of course, in your partisan hackery, you never would have read that far.

Yeah, what a heartless bastard Kerry was. To think he actually wanted something scummy like better care for our veterans! (sarcasm)

You're going to tell me what historians have to say about Nam? I WAS THERE FOR 2 TOURS!! Yes it was hell. Yes the VA was doing a terrible job and continued to do so until Bush started making drastic changes. Bush has made more positive changes for the vets in the last 4 years than has been done in the previous 40. Kerry claimed his activities were to benefit the viet vets. Yet he slandered them to accomplish this?


Again, your inability to read is astounding. First, in his testimony and in the Cavett interview he states that the gruesome crimes were things he had never personally witnessed. On the other hand, things like free fire zones and other things that are specifically against the rules of the Geneva Convention are things that he and other Vietnam vets took part in at the order of higher ups. The soldiers themselves had never been instructed as to what is in the Geneva Convention. Have you ever read the Geneva Convention?

Yes I am fully versed on the rules of the Geneva Convention. It was drummed into us in boot. Maybe Kerry missed that class like he has missed most of his senate votes. Further, read up on what exactly a Free Fire Zone is as opposed to how Kerry portrayed it.
Those weren't O'neill's words. Those were Kerry's. O'neill wasn't trying to end the war. He felt we had a mission to accomplish. What is O'neill supposed to have done to help the vets? He's not a politician. He's just a working man like me.


The result of Kerrys words were created much more by those who relentlessly tried to tear him down for speaking up. They twisted his words, picked at them like hyenas over an overripe kill, and still did not manage to take the man down. Fuck you for attacking a man who had your best interests at heart. What the hell did John O'Neill ever do to try to stop the war or bring home POW's?

My best interests at heart? With friends like that who needs enemies? He and his friends helped make my return home a further continuation of the hell we had left in Nam. You keep accusing me of not being able to read. Well, obviously I can. Why don't you try reading some of the accounts of what we came home to? The acts of hate against us spurred on by Kerry and his testimony.

your partisan hackery, your inability to read is astounding, Fuck you

Your literacy, command of speech, clear thinking, and open mindedness is showing. Thanks for discussing Kerry's side so eloquently. Now, go read something other than pro-Kerry material and get a complete view of the picture.

I've never seen it. Not once. I've asked for people who hate Kerry to provide me a link, but they never do.

If no one provides proof Kerry said ALL Vietnam Vets were war criminals, then I will politely ask those who keep spreading this nonsense to STFU.
Why should anyone have to provide a link showing that he called all vets criminals. Just promoting the lies that he did makes him unfit for any office.

Look, I avoid partisan sites for either side. Your use of the freeper site tells me all I need to know. That you would consider it a fairer site than CSPAN or Factcheck.org is ridiculous.

Show me a non-partisan site that shows that most of Kerry's group in 1971 were not veterans (and where did they get their medals to throw if they weren't veterans?)

I don't know if anyone's posted this (http://www.freekerrybook.org) yet, but it's a smashing good read.

Look, I avoid partisan sites for either side. Your use of the freeper site tells me all I need to know. That you would consider it a fairer site than CSPAN or Factcheck.org is ridiculous.

Show me a non-partisan site that shows that most of Kerry's group in 1971 were not veterans (and where did they get their medals to throw if they weren't veterans?)

As for the site I chose, when I googled it was the site that had the transcripts of his testimony and the debate posted. These were not opinion pieces. These were transcriptions of what was actually said. Why don't you source a non-partisan site that provides transcripts that differ.

As for the Winter Soldier site, they're just a bunch of Nam Vets trying to be heard. There are scores of them? Have you checked them out? Do you care that Nam Vets have something to say? Or do only the ones who support Kerry count as worthy?

Where did they get their medals to throw if they weren't veterans? I don't know. You tell me where they got those medals. Shoot, you tell me whose medals Kerry threw over that fence. He can't seem to get his story straight on that one.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/29/the_kerry_medals_mystery/

Why is it that liberals think the only Vets entitled to an opinion are the ones that endorse Kerry?

http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html

here's an impartial story. It shows that some of my points and some of your points are correct.

here's another

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Why is it that liberals think the only Vets entitled to an opinion are the ones that endorse Kerry?

No, I merely think the only people who are entitled to be heard are those who post evidence from impartial sources.

http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html

here's an impartial story. It shows that some of my points and some of your points are correct.

here's another

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

The point is, Kerry supporters keep calling us names, liars the most used one. In reality, a lot of us suffered unfairly because of what he, Jane Fonda, and others of their ilk said and did. Here's a shock. I'm not Republican. I voted for Bush last election and Clinton in the previous 2. I know what I saw in Nam and I know what I found when I came home. I also know that Bush's strategy of offense rather than defense may upset a lot of people, but it may also save us another attack like 9/11. or worse. Kerry said that if we are attacked he would take military action. I don't want to take the chance of another attack. My knees are shot or else I would be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now, and proud to be there.

No, I merely think the only people who are entitled to be heard are those who post evidence from impartial sources.

So, someone who was there and was a victim of Kerry's accusations has no right to be heard? Well you obviously have no desire to know any more than what the Kerry puppets tell you. Again, it's just transcripts of what was said. Source a non-partisan site that has the transcripts posted that does not read the same.

Why should anyone have to provide a link showing that he called all vets criminals. Just promoting the lies that he did makes him unfit for any office.How come all the idiots that deride Kerry's actions protesting the Vietnam war are too young to actually know what went on then? I remember that time very well. It split our country along generational lines. Most young people felt exactly as Kerry did. There were exeptions of course, but not nearly as many as those who selectively edited their memories after Vietnam evolved in our collective concious to be an honorable affair would have you believe. Yes, you heard me right. Most of America did not consider Vietnam to be anything but a shameful stain on our country until time whitewashed the event in our minds into something else. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the way it was. America as a whole has a very fickle and selective memory. The same people who sported love beads and protest buttons now drive beamers and work for fortune 500 companies. We're a nation of followers who sway with the wind of popular ideals. If something in our past doesn't fit with current popular conception, most of us have no problem editing out the inconsistancies.

Too bad for you my memory remains intact.

No, I merely think the only people who are entitled to be heard are those who post evidence from impartial sources.

OK, the only link I posted from the freeper site was the one on the contents of "the New Soldier"

Here's another one that Paxania supplied but you must have missed.

http://www.freekerrybook.org/

The point is, Kerry supporters keep calling us names, liars the most used one. In reality, a lot of us suffered unfairly because of what he, Jane Fonda, and others of their ilk said and did. Here's a shock. I'm not Republican. I voted for Bush last election and Clinton in the previous 2. I know what I saw in Nam and I know what I found when I came home. I also know that Bush's strategy of offense rather than defense may upset a lot of people, but it may also save us another attack like 9/11. or worse. Kerry said that if we are attacked he would take military action. I don't want to take the chance of another attack. My knees are shot or else I would be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now, and proud to be there.

That's fine. I respect that difference of opinion, though I do have to correct you on one thing. Kerry has stated that he does think pre-emptive action is a valid reason for war. He merely plans to be a bit more cautious and a lot more transparent that Bush in going about it.

Now, and this is just my personal opinion and it's not based on fact at all:

I think another attack on our soil (which doesn't scare me all that much, I mean many many more people die every year in car accidents than dies on 9/11,) is preferrable to erring on the side of agression in a military way. I think the honor and moral standing of America is more important. I think that people around the world are not hating us for our freedoms, that's just nonsensical, I think they hate us because of propaganda programs built around mistakes we have made in being too hasty, greedy or merely being careless. When one is the lone superpower, there is a higher responsibility than just looking out for numero uno. I think the arrogant actions of the Bush administration have put us all in more danger, but still I'm not too worried. 9/11 was a tragedy. It was a shame. It was a historical moment. It should not change what it means to be American though. 9/11 did not change everything. If, indeed, it did change everything, then the terrorists have already won. It should not lower our standards for rational action. It should not lower our standards when it comes to starting wars. It should not lower our standards when it comes to political parties rationally disagreeing...but it has, and Bush was in charge for this tragedy that I see as far greater than 9/11. The attack may not have been able to be stopped, but this attack on American values could have.

Really, unless I come across credible evidence of Kerry actually killing a baby himself, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Bush.

How come all the idiots that deride Kerry's actions protesting the Vietnam war are too young to actually know what went on then? I remember that time very well. It split our country along generational lines. Most young people felt exactly as Kerry did. There were exeptions of course, but not nearly as many as those who selectively edited their memories after Vietnam evolved in our collective concious to be an honorable affair would have you believe. Yes, you heard me right. Most of America did not consider Vietnam to be anything but a shameful stain on our country until time whitewashed the event in our minds into something else. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the way it was. America as a whole has a very fickle and selective memory. The same people who sported love beads and protest buttons now drive beamers and work for fortune 500 companies. We're a nation of followers who sway with the wind of popular ideals. If something in our past doesn't fit with current popular conception, most of us have no problem editing out the inconsistancies.

Too bad for you my memory remains intact.

The war was one f***** up mess. Here's how it all started: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861794.html

Lots of young people didn't like it and they had some valid reasons. The older generations had WWI and WWII as examples and they didn't believe that our government would lead us into an unjust war. Communist hysteria was rampant. The youth were bringing about a social and moral revolution and viewed the war as a commercial endeavor and they were the chattel. Who was right and who was wrong? That debate will never end. I served and I don't know who was right. I do know though that what Kerry did was wrong. Lying will never gain popular appeal.

That's fine. I respect that difference of opinion, though I do have to correct you on one thing. Kerry has stated that he does think pre-emptive action is a valid reason for war. He merely plans to be a bit more cautious and a lot more transparent that Bush in going about it.

Now, and this is just my personal opinion and it's not based on fact at all:

I think another attack on our soil (which doesn't scare me all that much, I mean many many more people die every year in car accidents than dies on 9/11,) is preferrable to erring on the side of agression in a military way. I think the honor and moral standing of America is more important. I think that people around the world are not hating us for our freedoms, that's just nonsensical, I think they hate us because of propaganda programs built around mistakes we have made in being too hasty, greedy or merely being careless. When one is the lone superpower, there is a higher responsibility than just looking out for numero uno. I think the arrogant actions of the Bush administration have put us all in more danger, but still I'm not too worried. 9/11 was a tragedy. It was a shame. It was a historical moment. It should not change what it means to be American though. 9/11 did not change everything. If, indeed, it did change everything, then the terrorists have already won. It should not lower our standards for rational action. It should not lower our standards when it comes to starting wars. It should not lower our standards when it comes to political parties rationally disagreeing...but it has, and Bush was in charge for this tragedy that I see as far greater than 9/11. The attack may not have been able to be stopped, but this attack on American values could have.

Really, unless I come across credible evidence of Kerry actually killing a baby himself, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Bush.

The 9/11 attack was more than the death of almost 3000. it was an attack on our economy (over 1,000,000 lost their jobs in the first 90 days after 9/11), our stock market almost crashed. It was also an attack committed with the belief based on previous experience that the US would not retaliate in any significant way. It was meant to be an enlistment tool to prove that Muslim extremists were stronger than the US (and by association Israel) and could conquer the will of its people. But don't confuse 9/11 with Iraq. We're in Iraq because intelligence from the US, GB, Russia, Poland, and several other countries said that Saddam had WMD and intended to deploy them to the US. The UN thought he had them (Saddam had thumbed his nose at 17 resolutions) and was trying to find them. Or maybe they were trying to make a show of it so they could declare Saddam innocent as a lamb and lift the sanctions. Lot of speculation on that point. All reports were that he was planning something very soon. To not have taken action would have been too risky. The reports were wrong. Saddam was playing games trying to appear tough. But, what if they had been right and Bush had done nothing?

I think what people completely fail to get is that it doesn't matter whether or not Kerry claimed to be speaking for all Vets, his testimony impacted directly all vets, at home and abroad, and implicated them all, whether he intended to or "actually did" or not.

There are two options on this. Ignore what happened and simply split semantics about whatever Kerry was talking about. The fact is however that whatever Kerry intended to sayor whether he was speaking for or against all vets or only the Winter Soldiers group is beside the point. His words were used against all Vets and earned him a place in the Hanoi War Museum as helping them to win the war. His words were used against Vets coming home and in POW camps. Someone apparently finds it ridiculous that Kerry's words were what turned people against returning vets and gave them the return that they received. Regardless of how it seems, the chronology and the facts all line up. Vets were accused of being baby-killers and war criminals and spit on and harassaed AFTER Kerry's testimony.

Kerry's testimony turned the anti-war movement into one that was anti-Vet, and thats what Vets are upset about. Frankly, this would never have been an issue had Kerry not made this the basis of his nomination speech. This was timidly brought up during the primaries, however it didn't stick at all and was only quietly hinted at and never came up. Kerry had only once before attempted to run on his war record in Massachusettes and lost that election when these same issues were raised.

So there's that.

Really, unless I come across credible evidence of Kerry actually killing a baby himself, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Bush.


Go read Kerry's books or his debate with John O'Neil and so forth. Kerry himself admitted to burning down a village with a zippo lighter. He has 8mm film he has shown during election campaigns in Mass that have him posing in front of a burning village. He himself states that his missions were to float by enemy villages and simply open fire on the population.

Many of his crewmates and those in his overall unit dispute and downright deny many of his charges and accusations and say that he never did any of the things he says he did. The funny thing here of course is that no one is accusing John Kerry of anything except John Kerry; everyone else is denying it happened.

There are two options on this. Ignore what happened and simply split semantics about whatever Kerry was talking about. The fact is however that whatever Kerry intended to sayor whether he was speaking for or against all vets or only the Winter Soldiers group is beside the point. His words were used against all Vets and earned him a place in the Hanoi War Museum as helping them to win the war. His words were used against Vets coming home and in POW camps. Someone apparently finds it ridiculous that Kerry's words were what turned people against returning vets and gave them the return that they received. Regardless of how it seems, the chronology and the facts all line up. Vets were accused of being baby-killers and war criminals and spit on and harassaed AFTER Kerry's testimony.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

Go read Kerry's books or his debate with John O'Neil and so forth. Kerry himself admitted to burning down a village with a zippo lighter. He has 8mm film he has shown during election campaigns in Mass that have him posing in front of a burning village. He himself states that his missions were to float by enemy villages and simply open fire on the population.

Many of his crewmates and those in his overall unit dispute and downright deny many of his charges and accusations and say that he never did any of the things he says he did. The funny thing here of course is that no one is accusing John Kerry of anything except John Kerry; everyone else is denying it happened.

Sigh. Source? See, this is the problem I have with the anti-Kerry crowd. They make a lot of accusations, but rarely back them up.

Sigh. Source? See, this is the problem I have with the anti-Kerry crowd. They make a lot of accusations, but rarely back them up.


Umm... I gave you three.

Umm... I gave you three.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read John Kerry's books?

Umm... I gave you three.

Umm, where? I see not a single link submitted by you in this entire thread.

Umm, where? I see not a single link submitted by you in this entire thread.


LOL there are other ways of research beyond having them handed to you.

Look up Kerry's books, both of them, in which he describes his actions, you can probably find excerpts on the internet. Look up the Kerry-O'Neil debate where Kerry details his accusations of atrocities and O'Neil, who was in the same unit, refutes them. As far as past campaigns, I doubt if you'll find them, though you might be able to. Specifically, Kerry brought an 8mm with him to Vietnam apparently to catalogue his exploits, and some of that footage that has been shown during various Senate races includes villages burning and Kerry posing in the foreground.


I said all of this before of course. If you want direct links, sorry, I got two papers to write today and am goofing off trying to forestall them :-) but really have no interest in doing all your research for you. One would hope that you would have researched Kerry in depth before supporting him, as you appear to be, and are not simply one of those "anyone but Bush" sycophants, giving no thought or reason to their decisions whatsoever.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read John Kerry's books?


Only excerpts of the more recent one, both the original and edited forms. His first one with the hippies and the upside down flag on the cover, apparently disappeared off the market shortly before he began running.

LOL there are other ways of research beyond having them handed to you.

Look up Kerry's books, both of them, in which he describes his actions, you can probably find excerpts on the internet. Look up the Kerry-O'Neil debate where Kerry details his accusations of atrocities and O'Neil, who was in the same unit, refutes them. As far as past campaigns, I doubt if you'll find them, though you might be able to. Specifically, Kerry brought an 8mm with him to Vietnam apparently to catalogue his exploits, and some of that footage that has been shown during various Senate races includes villages burning and Kerry posing in the foreground.


I said all of this before of course. If you want direct links, sorry, I got two papers to write today and am goofing off trying to forestall them :-) but really have no interest in doing all your research for you. One would hope that you would have researched Kerry in depth before supporting him, as you appear to be, and are not simply one of those "anyone but Bush" sycophants, giving no thought or reason to their decisions whatsoever.

Excuses excuses. I support my positions. I use impartial sources. I take pains to do research based on original and unedited transcripts. I then provide my findings. In fact, the ENTIRE point of this thread is for those who are anti-Kerry to provide the support for their statements, which they haven't done. If you don't like that idea, get the hell off my thread.

Excuses excuses. I support my positions. I use impartial sources. I take pains to do research based on original and unedited transcripts. I then provide my findings. In fact, the ENTIRE point of this thread is for those who are anti-Kerry to provide the support for their statements, which they haven't done. If you don't like that idea, get the hell off my thread.


LOL you realize this is an internet forum not Congress right?

I gave you references, if you care, go look them up yourself, as you probably should have done in the first place. Obviously, this issue doesn't affect your opinion of the man either way, so why bother bringing it up?

You obviously have never served and have no idea what basic training involves. Also, you obviously believe that all of our former and present military are "monsters". You made my argument for me on that one.unless Pedie can supply some evidence that basic training does not have anything to do with preparing for violence, I will remain convinced that he's lying his ass off about being a Vietnam Vet

LOL you realize this is an internet forum not Congress right?

I gave you references, if you care, go look them up yourself, as you probably should have done in the first place. Obviously, this issue doesn't affect your opinion of the man either way, so why bother bringing it up?

I bring it up because I have never seen an impartial accounting of Kerry's exploits make him seem like the demon many Bush supporters make him out to be. I see reports (the PIPA report) that shows that Bush supporters are generally much more misinformed about current events and history. I see it as a responsibility to spread information to replace disinformation.

Yes, this is an internet forum, but look at the title of my thread. I was seeking an intellectual and SUPPORTED discussion. Sorry that you lack the manners to respond as requested.

The war was one f***** up mess. Here's how it all started: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861794.html

Lots of young people didn't like it and they had some valid reasons. The older generations had WWI and WWII as examples and they didn't believe that our government would lead us into an unjust war. Communist hysteria was rampant. The youth were bringing about a social and moral revolution and viewed the war as a commercial endeavor and they were the chattel. Who was right and who was wrong? That debate will never end. I served and I don't know who was right. I do know though that what Kerry did was wrong. Lying will never gain popular appeal.I don't need an explanation of how it started or the reasons behind both sides of the issue, like I said, my memory is just fine and that particular time is well within my years on this planet. What I would like is an explanation of what 'lies' you believe Kerry to be guilty of.

The Entire Winter Soldier Investigation Was A Lie.

The Entire Winter Soldier Investigation Was A Lie.

Support it with an fairly unbiased link or fuck off.

I don't need an explanation of how it started or the reasons behind both sides of the issue, like I said, my memory is just fine and that particular time is well within my years on this planet. What I would like is an explanation of what 'lies' you believe Kerry to be guilty of.

I thought I had made it clear. He implied that war crimes were standard operating procedure throughout Nam. He held a conference of "vets" to give their accounts of atrocities they had witnessed. No more than a handful of them would sign depositions acknowledging their claims later and one has publically recanted his claims saying he was pressured by Kerry.

Yes, this is an internet forum, but look at the title of my thread. I was seeking an intellectual and SUPPORTED discussion. Sorry that you lack the manners to respond as requested.

In fact, the ENTIRE point of this thread is for those who are anti-Kerry to provide the support for their statements, which they haven't done. If you don't like that idea, get the hell off my thread.


Support it with an fairly unbiased link or fuck off.

I have provided you several links to transcripts of his testimony, his debate with O'Neill, and his book. You have discounted them as being unacceptable because they're on partisan sites, so you were provided other links. You are the only one who has not supplied support for your claims as I've asked you to do TWICE. Try supporting your position instead of hiding behind accusations and foul language.



unless Pedie can supply some evidence that basic training does not have anything to do with preparing for violence, I will remain convinced that he's lying his ass off about being a Vietnam Vet.

I didn't say boot doesn't have anything to do with preparing for violence. It trains you on how to deal with violence with violence. You also learn combat skills like teamwork, discipline, focus, pride, tracking, and even how to take care of your feet so your toes don't fall off. You said that boot created monsters.

The country does not know it yet, but it has created a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and trade in violence...


It's called basic training.

That is not what you are taught in the military. Ever wonder why a lot of your leaders are ex-military? By your definition Kerry is a blood thirsty monster running rampant across our country on a tour bus.

And as for you not believing I was in Nam I don't care what you believe. My military record is impeccable and nothing you can say or do will make a ratsass difference.

"Us guys"? Who are you talking about?

Kerry's record wasn't an issue till he brought it up and summoned forth the Swift Vets. Period.

Its not acting indignant, its that its an idiotic issue and I don't care to dig up proof to justify it to some guy over the internet. Does it matter that Fonda sponsored the Winter Soldiers? No. So why waste my time proving it to some mutton-head from wherever?

And what preponderence of evidence are you referring to exactly?
Now hold on a second. The swift boat vets have a direct connection to the Bush campaign.
To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Chad Clanton or Phil Singer, 202-464-2800, both of Kerry-Edwards 2004

WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Kerry-Edwards campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill wrote the following letter to Bush- Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman today:

Dear Mr. Mehlman:

For three weeks now, your campaign has been saying there are no ties between the Bush campaign and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." But the web of connections grows wider and wider every day. Yesterday we saw confirmation of another connection when your general counsel, Benjamin Ginsberg, was forced to resign for providing legal advice for this group.

Enclosed you will find a chart that makes clear the web of connections between President Bush and the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Now that you have this chart and the accompanying fact sheet to back it up, I wanted to ask you several specific questions that deserve your prompt response.

1. Ken Cordier served on the Bush Veterans Steering Committee and also stars in the latest "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" smear ad. As a member of the steering committee presumably he was involved in policy development. What information about the Bush campaign's veterans policy did he share with the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?" Did he ever discuss his activities with this smear group with anyone in the Bush campaign? How many times did "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" activities come up at Bush Veterans Steering Committee meetings?

2. Yesterday on Fox News Karl Rove confirmed that he and Bob Perry are longtime friends. Bob Perry is the largest contributor to the Texas Republican Party and a longtime supporter of President Bush. When was the last time Karl Rove and Bob Perry spoke, and did they discuss the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"

3. Based on newspaper accounts, we know Merrie Spaeth was involved in the underhanded shadow campaign against John McCain in 2000. She also helped organize the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and did the debate prep for President H. W. Bush. She has also admitted that she advised Bush Administration officials in the White House as recently as last year. Was Merrie Spaeth ever contacted by anyone from the Bush campaign, including you, about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"

4. John O'Neill's law firm, Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, has many connections to President Bush. In fact, Margaret Wilson, Mr. O'Neill's law partner, served as General Counsel to Governor Bush and followed him to Washington, where she worked as Deputy Counsel for the Department of Commerce. Did she ever discuss "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" with President Bush, members of his administration or any Bush- Cheney campaign officials?

5. If you say there's no connection, why did the Bush- Cheney campaign office in Florida pass out "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" flyers to promote a joint anti-John Kerry rally in Gainsville, Florida last weekend?

6. According to news reports, you have worked with "Progress for America," a newly formed 527 group that has announced it's going to spend $35 million to attack John Kerry and whose executive director is a top advisor to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Have you had any additional contact with this group? Have Karl Rove or other Bush officials - either in the White House or on the Bush-Cheney campaign - had contacts with this group?

7. How many times did Karl Rove and Benjamin Ginsberg meet? Did they ever discuss the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"

These questions go to the heart of why so many people now believe that "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is nothing more than a front group for the Bush-Cheney campaign. The longer President Bush waits to specifically condemn this smear, the more it looks like he's behind it.

It's time for the President to stand up and specifically condemn "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Not only is this a smear on John Kerry's distinguished military service; it's an insult to all veterans who've served their country.

The American people want to hear an honest discussion of the issues. They're concerned about the economy and the troubling situation in Iraq. Today, as we enter week four of this smear campaign, I'm asking you to talk to the President and ask him to heed Senator McCain's call and condemn this smear. The American people deserve better.

Sincerely,

Mary Beth Cahill

---
BOOM!!!

THE FACTS:

"Web of Connections"

Oh, what a tangled web they've weaved...

Karl Rove - Bush's White House political director; longtime associate to Bob Perry; consultant to Hutchison; most senior advisor to Bush campaign.

Ken Cordier - Former Bush-Cheney campaign advisor-forced to resign after appearing in Swift Boat Veterans for Bush commercial.

Benjamin Ginsberg - Former General Counsel to Bush Cheney- forced to resign for improper relationship as counsel to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Harlan Crow - Bush Foundation Trustee; Longtime friend of Bush family; Longtime fundraiser for Bush family; Donated at least $25,000 in seed money to the Swift Boat Vets for Bush.

Bob Perry - Largest Republican donor in Texas; Donated hundreds of thousands to Bush family campaigns; Donated at least $200,000 in seed money to the Swift Boat Vets for Bush; Close colleague of Rove in Texas Governor's race; Longtime friend of John O'Neill.

Kay Bailey Hutchison - Longtime friend of Spaeth; Former client of Rove; Current Co-Chair of Bush campaign

John O'Neill - Longtime friend of Bob Perry; Very close law firm connections to Bush as Governor; close friend to Spaeth, former colleague to Speath's husband/Bush's 1994 running mate; Front man for Swift Vets for Bush.

Merrie Spaeth - Provided media consulting to Swift Boat Vets; longtime friend of Hutchison; longtime supporter of/donor to Bush campaign; provide debate prep for GHW Bush; met with and gave media training to current, top White House officials; close associate to John O'Neill; Advised smear campaign on McCain in 2000.

Tex Lezar - Late husband to Spaeth; Former running mate with Bush in 1994; law partner to John O'Neill.

Harriet O'Neill - Close associate to John O'Neill, Lezar & Wilson; Bush judicial nominee.

Margaret Wilson - Law partner with John O'Neill, Lezar; Bush Administration official; former counsel to Governor Bush.

Bush-Cheney Campaign HQ Florida - Regional Bush HQ in Battleground State; Coordinated activities with Swift Boat Vets for Bush rally-rally forced to cancel.

Minnesota RNC - Official Republican website in Battleground State; Coordinated linkage with Swift Boat website-provide direct link to Swift Boat commercial.

DCI Group - Political strategy firm with close connections to Bush campaign & Swift vets.

Charles Francis - Longtime friend/supporter of Bush; works for political firm with close ties to both Bush campaign and Swift Vets for Bush; colleague of Lacivita.

Tom Synhorst - Advisor to Bush campaign 2000; "major contracts" with Bush campaign 2004; works for firm with close ties to Swift Vets for Bush; colleague of Lacivita; Worked on anti-McCain phone banking in South Carolina in 2000.

Chris Lacivita - Senior advisor to Swift Boat Vets for Bush; close ties to Bush campaign; associates with Synhorst & Friancis.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

I thought I had made it clear. He implied that war crimes were standard operating procedure throughout Nam. He held a conference of "vets" to give their accounts of atrocities they had witnessed. No more than a handful of them would sign depositions acknowledging their claims later and one has publically recanted his claims saying he was pressured by Kerry. An implication isn't a lie. But that aside, there were atrocities in Nam, it's documented idiot, both in film and in testamony. I'm lucky enough to be just young enough to have missed the draft, but I have a friend who did 2 tours with special forces assigned to a B team, another who was with the marines in the early days, and still another who was actually with the coast guard on a boat in the delta. All say they saw shit they wished never happened, all done by our boys. As the ex green beret says, sometimes you did the wrong things for the right reasons, sometimes you just didn't give a fuck, or sometimes you were just pissed off. Pulling the covers over your eyes won't make it as if it never happpened. Atrocities happened, they happened there and in every war mankind ever fought. None of my friends were asked to testify in front of the senate, they had nothing to loose or gain by sharing what they saw. Most of the time they didn't want to talk about what their experiances. I only found out the one guy was in the marines after he'd had probably more beers than he should one night and then it was as if the dam had burst and it all came pouring out. Politicizing it and denying it won't change anything, it won't make Kerry a liar and it won't bring back the dead or heal the scars. For the record, none of my friends would probably want to sign a deposition or go on the record about what they witnessed. The wounds have finally started to heal, who wants to reopen them?

Isn't just the fact that he lied to congress under oath about the war crimes enough to discredit anythign he has said about it? Yes! Kerry Lied!

Isn't just the fact that he lied to congress under oath about the war crimes enough to discredit anythign he has said about it? Yes! Kerry Lied!What? You still harping about the actions that could be considered war crimes being standard procedure? Guys I know who were there say the same thing, I'll take their word over yours. The shit my buddy Paul tells me he did working with the 'yards would curl your hair. But I guess your explanation would be those were indiginous people and he was just an 'advisor' so that stuff doesn't count, right. If he called Kerry a liar I'd listen, your just some smuck on the internet spouting his party line.

What? You still harping about the actions that could be considered war crimes being standard procedure? Guys I know who were there say the same thing, I'll take their word over yours. The shit my buddy Paul tells me he did working with the 'yards would curl your hair. But I guess your explanation would be those were indiginous people and he was just an 'advisor' so that stuff doesn't count, right. If he called Kerry a liar I'd listen, your just some smuck on the internet spouting his party line.
Whatever, kerry is a liar, you're the Schmuck.

Whatever, kerry is a liar, you're the Schmuck.Oh, damn, you got me good there. I can't argue with that powerfull logic and quick wit.



Don't you have a porn site to surf or something kid, us grownups are trying to talk.

Whatever, kerry is a liar, you're the Schmuck.
After reviewing your posting history, I've decided you need a very stern warning about flaming and trolling.

Bright Shiny Things, don't flame either. Even if flamed first.

Apologies TJ, thought if I kept the flames down to 'simmer' and threw in some humorous barbs I could slide by. My bad.