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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
However, it gets really messy when you go outside Massachusetts with regard to this stuff -- a different world politically. Also, the simple fact is that we are at war and we have to ask ourselves whether a public figure born of the anti-war protest movement is the right person to lead the charge.

Well, Kansas and Alabama are different, but on the coasts where a lot of electoral votes and a lot of economic power is located, it isn't playing too badly for Kerry.

And we're "at war" without real defined enemies (a group who has a member associated with a group who has a member associated with whoever we consider a part of al Qaeda, plus whatever Ay-rabs or whoever get pissed off when we decide to invade a particular target), or without a real defined manner of winning the war. I.e. it ain't over until the last raghead stops shooting at or thinking about trying to blow us up.

Bush and the chickenhawk/chickenchoker crowd seem to get off on this kind of thing, but a lot of people are starting to wonder how many chapters are going to be in this "US against the rascally ragheads" saga. So maybe we need to consider who we're charging, where we're charging, and how much Halliburton et al are charging us for this grand production.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Maybe we could change the tone of this thread by talking about something that is not disputed, i.e., the fact that John Kerry is a war criminal. Should George Bush offer him a pardon like Ford did to Nixon in order to heal old wounds? I think it would be gracious of Bush if he at least made a token offer to pardon Kerry for his war crimes. What does everyone think about my idea?

Sure - maybe a blanket pardon for all Vietnam vets who operated in free fire zones. All two million or so.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It pertains as to why they thought going on his war record would be a good idea. Frankly, when leading Senate Repugs line up to defend Kerry against these SBV guys, inculding one who headed Nixon's investigation into Kerry, I suspect that they thought it was a good idea because they didn't expect a smeer campaign based on lies.

Che., what you talking about? No one in the Nixon administration "investigated" Kerry. Pat Buchanan, a Nixon speechwriter, was on the Chris Matthews show last night and explained that O'Neill contacted them shortly after Kerry's speech before the Senate in 1971. All the White House did was to arrange for O'Neill to have venues for his debates with Kerry. There was no investigation into Kerry's war record -- at least not by the White House. The debates focused solely on whether our soldiers in Vietnam were committing war crimes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Che., what you talking about? No one in the Nixon administration "investigated" Kerry. Pat Buchanan, a Nixon speechwriter, was on the Chris Matthews show last night and explained that O'Neill contacted them shortly after Kerry's speech before the Senate in 1971. All the White House did was to arrange for O'Neill to have venues for his debates with Kerry. There was no investigation into Kerry's war record -- at least not by the White House. The debates focused solely on whether our soldiers in Vietnam were committing war crimes.

They had a debate on PBS about Kerry and his anti-war stance- he and his group were debated several times in the Oval Office by Nixon, Kissinger, and Edelman (I think this was the WH Chief of Staff)- we know cause its all on tape. Maybe you should see that documentary sometimes.

[Ned]

GePap, I don't doubt that they debated the antiwar movement, Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans against the War in the White House. I just do not believe that they conducted an investigation of Kerry's war record. I think they acted on the assumption that Kerry was in fact a decorated war hero who actually earned the metals he bore on his chest.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MikeH
Both your presidential candidates are complete losers, I'd call it a day and change countries if I was American.

Um, did you forget about who runs your country?

[DanS]

Well, Kansas and Alabama are different, but on the coasts where a lot of electoral votes and a lot of economic power is located, it isn't playing too badly for Kerry.

And we're "at war" without real defined enemies (a group who has a member associated with a group who has a member associated with whoever we consider a part of al Qaeda, plus whatever Ay-rabs or whoever get pissed off when we decide to invade a particular target), or without a real defined manner of winning the war. I.e. it ain't over until the last raghead stops shooting at or thinking about trying to blow us up.

Bush and the chickenhawk/chickenchoker crowd seem to get off on this kind of thing, but a lot of people are starting to wonder how many chapters are going to be in this "US against the rascally ragheads" saga. So maybe we need to consider who we're charging, where we're charging, and how much Halliburton et al are charging us for this grand production.

What's this have to do with perceptions that John Kerry is unfit for command due to his Vietnam war record (during and after)?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I don't doubt that they debated the antiwar movement, Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans against the War in the White House. I just do not believe that they conducted an investigation of Kerry's war record. I think they acted on the assumption that Kerry was in fact a decorated war hero who actually earned the metals he bore on his chest.

Why would they? One of the co-leaders of the movement at that very time was found to have lied about his war record- if you think anyone comming to light, specially in such a charged manner would not have plenty of people looking into his background, specially folks at the Nixon WH, then you asre being naive,

[Ned]

On Scarborough country last night, Gardner, who was on Kerry's swift boat during the famous "sanpan" incident, had with him a copy of the after-action report filed by Kerry. The report calls a dead child a Vietcong K. I. A., and falsely states that Kerry ordered his crew to fire warning shots at the sanpan.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS


What's this have to do with perceptions that John Kerry is unfit for command due to his Vietnam war record (during and after)?

Those perceptions are pretty much confined to the hardcore Republicans who disliked Kerry in the first place. Other people who dislike Kerry for being a Massachusetts liberal, or whatever other reasons didn't like him for other reasons, so if this does or doesn't add another reason, it doesn't matter.

In the large electoral states where Kerry was solidly ahead, no real effect either.

As for the rest of it, it's a matter of who or what kind of individual is going to "lead the charge" for our what our glorious little incumbent seems to perceive as a perpetual open-ended war. Perhaps a little clearer definition of who we charge and how and when would be in order...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
On Scarborough country last night, Gardner, who was on Kerry's swift boat during the famous "sanpan" incident, had with him a copy of the after-action report filed by Kerry. The report calls a dead child a Vietcong K. I. A., and falsely states that Kerry ordered his crew to fire warning shots at the sanpan.

And what proof could Gardner give of his claims that that after-actions report was false? Did he have any conflicting papers from that time with him to point to?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
On Scarborough country last night, Gardner, who was on Kerry's swift boat during the famous "sanpan" incident, had with him a copy of the after-action report filed by Kerry. The report calls a dead child a Vietcong K. I. A., and falsely states that Kerry ordered his crew to fire warning shots at the sanpan.

Did the report say "a dead child Vietcong KIA?" and "this report states I ordered the crew to fire warning shots, but I didn't" or does the report simply state events differently from what Gardner now claims happened?

[Lincoln]

Maybe Kerry just got the date wrong again...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Maybe Kerry just got the date wrong again...

Of course. After all, we all know Gardner's memory is infallible, and Kerry just "convinced" the rest of his crew to remember things differently, as Gardner stated.

[DanS]

Those perceptions are pretty much confined to the hardcore Republicans who disliked Kerry in the first place. Other people who dislike Kerry for being a Massachusetts liberal, or whatever other reasons didn't like him for other reasons, so if this does or doesn't add another reason, it doesn't matter.

Didn't you read the last couple of pages before posting? The polling suggests that the perception is spreading to independents due to a Vietnam veterans group spending less than a half million dollars on ads. That's why Kerry's campaign is now playing catch up.