John Kerry the war criminal: Unfit to command, part 2

[Tingkai]

The more I read this thread, the more I realise just how brave Kerry is, not because of what he did in Vietnam, but because of what he did when he came home.

He had the courage to stand and say the war is wrong, the war is pointless, Americans are dying for nothing and more Americans will die for no reason.

To do that, he stood up against a system that he was a part of and many of his "comrades in arms" turned on him. He admitted that he was an active part of the machine that was killing people for no reason. It takes guts to say that I was an ordinary sailor, I did what everyone else did and what I did was wrong.

Look at the hate spewed by some people here 35 years later and imagine how much hate he faced back then.

It takes incredible inner strength to stand up and say "what I did and what we are doing is wrong", especially when you know that so many people will turn against you.

How many of us would have that courage?

[GePap]

Its funny how I can come in and kill the troll and the thread just sinks like a stone.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Why is it because a group gets support from someone who supports Bush they must be suspected liars or part of some grand conspiracy to get 200 or so veterans to lie in concert? Where would you expect them to seek support, from the Kerry campaign? The fact is that they didn't have much money and some rich Bush supporters as well as hundreds of small contributors decided to suppport them. Shoud they refuse the money and continue to try and get their message accross by writing letters to the editor? Be consistent, Mike. Kerry supporters receive money from people who support Kerry. That is the way the world goes round.

Are they a for profit organization with the goal of making as much money as possible? Is it "Swiftboat Veterans to make lots of money and get lots of PR" or "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth?"

Would Bush accept legal donation money from the KKK and White Aryan Resistance if the KKK and WAR said they agreed with his values more than Kerry's? I highly doubt it, because people realize that you are characterized by those who support you.

If the Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth" intended to get the "truth" out, a more likely approach would be for them to reject large partisan donations, so as not to appear bought and paid for. Why do they need all that money? Why, to pay partisan campaign and PR consultants.

Is it truth, or is it money, politics and publicity? I think the answer to that one is obvious.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

GePap,

What you think you deserve a medal for bravery or something?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

if any of these accusations had much validity, they would have begun back then, not now all of a sudden.

It's a little hard to question the validity of all these claims when one (the Cambodia issue) has already been proven to be a lie on Kerry's part. Keep on spinning, though. It's tremendously fun to watch.

Except for the minor detail it hasn't been proven to be a lie. Have you seen GPS tracks or nav logs for Kerry's boat to document where it was?

GPS didn't exist, and the rest is a mish-mash of conflicting data. Kerry was at least in the Delta near Cambodia, and whether Kerry or any other swiftboat went into Cambodia at that time is still classified.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Wiglaf




First you say "My brother did it too."

And tens of thousands of others. What's with you gung-ho types, afraid when war gets a little dirtier than waving the flag and going USA USA USA sitting on your fat ass in CONUS?

Now you argue syntax. All are non-arguments.

Syntax my ass. By definition, anything in a free fire zone was presumed hostile. That was the entire point of designating free fire zones. No inconvenient (and often risky) ****ing around about whether the local dinks were friendlies or not - you were to assume they were VC or VC supporters and proceed accordingly.

If you focus on the fact that he burned innocent people's villages, orders or not, you'll realize he's a war criminal.

And his charges about a great number of Vietnam vets (we can excuse the majority who were REMFs) would thus be correct. Those charges that bend out of shape everyone who hates Kerry for denouncing the war.

The position of the US government through it's military authorities in RVN was that people who remained in free fire zones were hostile, and they and their property (presumably used for support of VC) were to be engaged and destroyed at will. That included hooches, rice stores, cisterns for drinking water, animals, you name it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It has been proven to be a lie in so much as it has caused Kerry and Co. to recant his story. Backtracking and creating new stories normally indicates a fabrication in the original tale (especially when you rule out clarity of memory as the incident was seared in him).

Regardless if it is true or not true, perception being reality, and kerry backing away from early testimonials indicates lie. Given that one has a right to question the rest of the story. And until all documentation is brought to light the question legitamitely exists. (Bush faces the same wrt his service obviously. One oculd argue Bush a better liar in that he hasn't had to change his story as yet)

As for the NYT piece this comes as a huge surprise, not! It has been known for sometime that rather than investigate the details being brought to light the attempt to discredit the SBVAK would be the real story the NYT would run with. More blatant partisanship in the media is hard to find short of FOX opinion shows.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Kerry isn't running on issues, Sava. He's running on what he did for 4 months. People are entitled to question that. If he doesn't like it, he can start running on his Senate record despite MtG's whining.

(a) Kerry is running on issues. The whole point of Some Swiftboat Veterans for Thier Version of "Truth" is to engage in the ol' Lyndon Johnson "pig****er" strategy and divert Kerry's campaign from running against Bush.

(b) Kerry is not obligated to run on his Senatorial record, or anything else in particular. He's running on Bush's record and his alternatives, albeit in typical campaign soundbite mode.

(c) Bite me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Regardless if it is true or not true, perception being reality, and kerry backing away from early testimonials indicates lie. Given that one has a right to question the rest of the story. And until all documentation is brought to light the question legitamitely exists. (Bush faces the same wrt his service obviously. One oculd argue Bush a better liar in that he hasn't had to change his story as yet)

As for the NYT piece this comes as a huge surprise, not! It has been known for sometime that rather than investigate the details being brought to light the attempt to discredit the SBVAK would be the real story the NYT would run with. More blatant partisanship in the media is hard to find short of FOX opinion shows.

what "detail brought to light"? What you mean are allegations made- and what the NYTimes piece points out is that these "veterans" are rather short on any evidence other than their statements. In fact, every single official document AND many of their own previous public statements undermine their allegations.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Why won't Kerry offer up the records via Standard Form 180 that would put the issue to bed?

Compare and contrst those verses his personal Journal which serves as the basis for Tour of Duty.

Why won't he "Bring it on"?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's not how those boats operated, according to the people who served on them in that article quoted. Kerry liked to think so though, according to the posted bit.

Thurlow's bit about the village having no flags or political markers is disingenuous. No village in RVN flew VC flags or had obvious VC political anything, until after the Paris treaty. Villagers weren't stupid enough to advertise to US/ARVN forces their desire to be hit.

In practice all it took was for villagers to flee, or a total absense of draft age males without evidence that they had been actually drafted into ARVN. That standard applied de facto even outside free fire zones.

US and allied forces were free to engage any individuals within free fire zones if those individuals were not known as allied forces, but they weren't obligated to do so. Mission objectives (if any specified) were obviously higher priority than targets of opportunity.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Why won't Kerry offer up the records via Standard Form 180 that would put the issue to bed?

Compare and contrst those verses his personal Journal which serves as the basis for Tour of Duty.

Why won't he "Bring it on"?

"Put this to rest"? RIIGHT. Give me a ****ing break.

Can you point to a single piece of evidence beside their own words they have presented? NO.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Bawk bawk. I smelll chicken.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Why won't Kerry offer up the records via Standard Form 180 that would put the issue to bed?

Compare and contrst those verses his personal Journal which serves as the basis for Tour of Duty.

Why won't he "Bring it on"?

All records other than medical and financial are available under FIA requests. How do you think Thurlow's records were obtained by the press? They even said they made an FIA request.

Kerry offering up the records that others could (and no doubt have) obtained is playing into the pig****er strategy. Make him deny your allegations, instead of campaigning on his campaign. It's not good political campaigning to run defensively on your opponent's claims.

If the records fail to support the claims of Thurlow, Gardner, etc., they'll just say the records are wrong, or they were based on lies by Kerry, or Kerry has used his political connections to alter the records, or some such horse****. Denying you're a pig****er doen't make the story go away.

[GePap]

Exactly.

I mean, Ogie, until you provide us the proof you have stopped beating your wife, how can we trust you?

HUH!?