|
SwiftVets.com Service to Country
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
JasonBinPNW Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 58 Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
sparky wrote: | Sounds to me like JasonBinPNW is a bit speechless. I think I should change my signature to...
Quote: | It says quite a bit about a man that his time spent during those years wasn't in the jungle, on a river, taking shrapnel and taking risks and making life-long friends, but being remembered by nobody for long stretches of time and having nobody credible come forward. |
|
What is there to say?
What do you mean "Nobody Credible"? You're telling me that EVERYONE who signed that letter is a "Republican Neo-Con Operative Bush-Cheney Drone"?
I love when you guys revert to tin-foil hat mode.
Does that mean the 6 members of the "Band of Brothers" aren't credible either?
Thus far you have shown that Mr. Kerry and Mr. O'Neil have some history. That was no bombshell there. You have done nothing but attempt to use rhetoric and ad homonym attacks to link the rest of the organization to a single player in more than a mutual interest kind of way. Wake up and smell the coffee (Pretty good stuff here in the PNW BTW). If you could maybe provide something factual in relation to the argument as it stands (Thus below)
1. Kerry Served in Vietnam
2. He came home and testified before congress and accused the people he worked with/for of committing war crimes.
3. He has since admitted that he was simply speaking out of anger.
I accept that Kerry genuinely opposed the war, at least upon his return from Vietnam. There is no doubt of that. It was the unfounded accusations that he made, and the actions that he took in support of his anti-war beliefs that I take issue to.
Explain those without resorting to irrelevant tangents and ad homonym attacks against the president, and THAT will be a valid argument. Right now, you are simply reinforcing people’s notions about you by playing diversionary games "What about Bush? What about Bush?"... What about him!? What does the president have to do with the defamatory statements Mr. Kerry made against these men? Answer up or shut up, because nothing you have said on ANY thread thus far has any relevance. _________________ Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 58 Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
sparky wrote: |
It says quite a bit about a man that his time spent during those years wasn't in the jungle, on a river, taking shrapnel and taking risks and making life-long friends... |
...and then wantonly slandering those friends in order to further his personal agenda.
Who the heck are you talking about "making friends"!? What kind of BS tripe is that!?
FOR GOD SAKE, THE MAN LIE TO CONGRESS AND ACCUSED THESE "FRIENDS" HE MADE ALONG THE WAY OF WAR CRIMES AND INHUMANE ACTS! HE EVEN SAID AS MUCH THAT IT WAS JUST EMOTIONS GETTING THE BETTER OF HIM!
Unfortunately, his actions had consequences for these men, and those who came after them... but it's cool because Kerry was just speaking out of emotion.
What kind of "friend" does that? None of my brothers from the service and my two wars would think of doing that to me, and I wouldn't do it to them.
"Making Friends" ... that laughable. _________________ Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sparky Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 546
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Um, Jason, I was referring to Bush, who just can't find anyone who served with him in Alabama during the time his campaign claims he was there.
Not surprising since he won't release the records that would settle the matter as to where he was during that time. This, of course, would include disciplinary information about why, exactly, he was grounded from flight.
Odd that Kerry has his band of brothers and two hundred republicans claiming they remember him there yet nobody remembers Bush who was there during that time.
Quote: | Does that mean the 6 members of the "Band of Brothers" aren't credible either? |
No, I give the Band of Brothers quite a bit of credibility because they had more than a vague, passing acquaintance with Kerry. Hell, for all I know, these 200 Republicans being maneuvered by GOP Central never really even met Kerry. They're saying the "served with him" which can technically mean they never met the man. And O'Neill is saying he was "on the same boat" to give us the false impression it was at the same time and that he knew Kerry.
It's just a smear and it's clear why: Bush's military record during that time is an embarassment to this nation. The guy couldn't even show up for friggin' Guard Duty! You've got no choice but to create doubts about Kerry's military record because anything else draws attention to the embarassment of Bush's.
Quote: | 1. Kerry Served in Vietnam
2. He came home and testified before congress and accused the people he worked with/for of committing war crimes.
3. He has since admitted that he was simply speaking out of anger. |
The first two sound reasonable (see the Tiger Force link, which conservatives have been strangely mute about here), but not the third. I don't buy it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sparky Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 546
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe we should clarify what we mean when we say Bush failed to show up for Guard duty and why his records should be released to show that at least he showed up. (Kerry's records and evidence do at least show he was where he was supposed to be).
The Washington Post reports that Bush joined the National Guard 12 days before his student deferment would have expired, and that in spite of his low score on the pilot's aptitude test (25, the lowest score allowed), and in spite of the waiting list that some kids spent years on, Bush was sworn in as an airman the day he applied. Indeed, so giddy was Bush's commander, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, that he later staged a special ceremony so he could have his picture taken giving Bush the oath, instead of the captain who actually had sworn Bush in. Bush spent two years learning to fly airplanes in his home state of Texas.
As the 2000 Presidential campaign moved along, angry veterans in Alabama claimed that George W Bush never performed any military service in that state, as stated on his campaign website. They offered a reward of $1000 (which rose to $3,500) to anyone who could prove that he had. No one came forth with any proof.
Eight days before the election, the Boston Globe reported discrepancies between the Bush campaign's statements regarding his military service and what records and documents showed. In 1972, the Globe reported, Bush moved from Houston to Mobile, Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. It was at this time, the Globe found, that he was suspended from flight duty for not taking his annual flight physical. Furthermore, the Globe could find no evidence that he ever performed any drills while in Alabama, or any more drills after returning to Houston.
All that I've read and seen on this tells me one thing: taxpayers spent $1 million training him to defend Texas and Alabama from foreign invaders and he didn't show up.
In the spirit of SBVT's mission statement, I believe that it is incumbent on ALL presidential candidates to be totally honest and forthcoming regarding personal background information.
To show the public that he at least showed up, he should release all his records, not just a single dental exam. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 58 Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Item #3 came out of his own mouth. But I guess that one doesn't count since he was speaking out of emotion then too... fear for his political life.
There is no doubt that there were atrocities comitted by US Forces. Kerrys statements to congress were such that it was taken from abominations within a few units to Standard Operating Procedure for all US Forces operating in theater.
And that is a damn lie. It's a defamatory statement made by a man who now wants to act like he's the guy veterans should back. He betrayed his oath to "render true faith and allegence" to his comrades in arms by defaming and liabling them.
A Commissioned Officer in the United States Military draws his commission from the President, and swears an oath and must adhere to a code of conduct. Among the items within that standard are that he or she:
A) Must never lie. Not to his troops, or his superiors.
B) Must never evade his responsibilities to the troops that he or she commands.
C) Must never make statements against the President of the United States under which he serves.
D) Must do everything within his power to ensure that the laws of land warfare are adhered to at all times by any subordinate inside or outside of his chain of command.
E) That he or she will abide by, and enforce the Uniform Code of Military Justice in the interests of maintaining good order and discipline within his command.
There are a lot more, these are five that Kerry violated. We take that oath, and adherence to the code of conduct seriously. Failing to do so voids your right to lead troops who not only expect, but demand that you set that example.
If he'd simply kept his mouth shut instead of trying to diminish the presidents service (through Terry McAullif who never served a day in his life...what gaul), we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, he opened up a can of worms that he did not expect... that his service would indeed be scrutinized, and he would be taken to task for his word and deed.
The day that I hear the president bragging about his "war hero" status, will be the day that I raise my BS flag on him too.
Now do you see what I have been trying to say for the last dozen or so posts? _________________ Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sparky Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 546
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't buy it. Oh, I understand the accusation, but I haven't seen anything confirming this from a legitimate source (your word that "he lied" just won't cut it, sorry). As far as I'm concerned, much of that list requires that military personnel act patriotically and honorably by protesting a brutal and horrific war. Anyone witnessing ear necklaces who doesn't protest the war has a few screws loose. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 58 Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sparky wrote: | I don't buy it. Oh, I understand the accusation, but I haven't seen anything confirming this from a legitimate source (your word that "he lied" just won't cut it, sorry). As far as I'm concerned, much of that list requires that military personnel act patriotically and honorably by protesting a brutal and horrific war. Anyone witnessing ear necklaces who doesn't protest the war has a few screws loose. |
Then you have not checked out th very things that have come out of Mr. Kerrys mouth in the last year or so. It's out there on his very own web site. Go fourth and search.
Side note:
I was not a Comissioned Officer, I was a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). However, were I to have witnessed ANY of the above which he claims, I would have taken the appropriate action DEMANDED of me by my oath, and incumbent on me as an American Fighting Man, and I'd have done it right on the spot.
Also, the speech which he made in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee directly stated that those kind of barbaric actions were standard policy within the armed forces. We know that they were not. We know that there were instances of atrocities, but not on the scale Mr. Kerry stated.
And now he says "Oopsie, faux pas! I was just trying to emphasize my point! I didn't mean to defame anyone." _________________ Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004 Posts: 405
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sparky wrote: | (see the Tiger Force link, which conservatives have been strangely mute about here), |
Have you noticed that only the Toledo Blade has actually bothered to run the Tiger Force story?
That is because the story is about as credible as the Tailwind story. Most of the media learned their lesson with that one, so they are in wait and see mode. For good reason. The Tiger Force story is poorly researched and even more poorly verified. It has the same stink as the Winter Soldier stories, meaning that it is more likely fiction than fact. _________________ De Oppresso Liber |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004 Posts: 405
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sparky wrote: | I don't buy it. Oh, I understand the accusation, but I haven't seen anything confirming this from a legitimate source (your word that "he lied" just won't cut it, sorry). As far as I'm concerned, much of that list requires that military personnel act patriotically and honorably by protesting a brutal and horrific war. Anyone witnessing ear necklaces who doesn't protest the war has a few screws loose. |
Well, maybe you should read this:
http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html
Note in particular, the statement: "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."
Now, read this:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/Law-War/law-03.htm
and this
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/Law-War/Law-Appg.htm (note the reference to MACV Directive 20-4) and this:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/Law-War/law-04.htm section 72 to the bottom of the page
Now, you should also read this:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
Pay particular attention to articles 88 and 134, since John F. Kerry retained his Naval Commission until at least 1974
I can't find the Naval Officer's Handbook online, but perusual of it would support the 5 points mentioned above by JasonBinPW. However, the code of the US Naval Academy, which every Naval Officer is expected to adhere to, can be found here: http://www.usna.edu/CharacterDevelopment/honor/honorconcept.html
The fact that John Kerry's site posted the after action report for an engagement that Kerry was not a part of is a reflection on him as a Naval Officer. It is a violation of the honor code. His testimony in 1971 was a violation of the honor code, the UCMJ and US Code (he committed perjury).
Note that in 1996, Kerry decided to change his mind about those warcrimes happening... at least long enough to get elected.
And we have yet to touch on his claim to have met with Madame Binh in Paris, his disregard for POWs, his attendance of a meeting where the assassination of US Senators was discussed (or his decades of lies regarding that meeting) which he failed to report (remember, he was a Naval Officer).
Btw, I was a commissioned Officer. If John F. Kerry actually witnessed warcrimes and failed to report them? He should have been court-martialed and drummed out of the service. _________________ De Oppresso Liber |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JasonBinPNW Ensign
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 58 Location: Vancouver (not BC), Washington (Not DC)
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sparky,
I want you to pay particular attention to Greenhats Signature Line.
Read the links he posted. It's all there, and if you don't trust those sources, there are many many more that say the same thing. _________________ Semper Fi!
Jason
Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sparky Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 546
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Have you noticed that only the Toledo Blade has actually bothered to run the Tiger Force story? |
There's a reason it won the Pulitzer. It spent YEARS interviewing and investigating, including determining that the DOD covered up the slaughter. And it began investigating this story YEARS before Kerry looked like he'd win the nomination.
And, in addition to the Pulitzer, their story was repeated, after-the-scoop, by
The New York Times, Feb 16, 2004 pA12 col 06
The Houston Chronicle (Houston, TX) Nov 1, 2003 p12 (297 words)
The AP wires, Associated Press Monday, October 20, 2003; Page A02
which was reprinted in
The Washington Post
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Editor And Publisher (very prestigious journal)
PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer
The Miami Herald
The Philadelphia Inquirer
The Columba Journalism Review
ABC News Nightline
The New Yorker
Initially, the story of these atrocities, which included "ear necklaces" and randomly picking off civilians from helicopters for target practice, burning villages and widespread rape, weren't picked up by the media. PBS's The News Hour with Jim Lehrer had this on their website:
Why the Blade's reports received scant coverage When the Tiger Force series hit the street, it evoked powerful reactions from readers, especially from Vietnam veterans.
Eventually, however, the story picked up steam.
You consider it your patriotic duty to deny atrocities, don't you? Is that why you're trying to claim that nobody but the Toledo Blade carried the story?
I believe it was Kerry's duty to his country to come back and protest these atrocities and to publicize them. Hell, if he hadn't, we might still be mired in the quagmire instead of running factories in Vietnam that we are today. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sparky Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 546
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Pay particular attention to articles 88 and 134, since John F. Kerry retained his Naval Commission until at least 1974 |
I couldn't find these in your links.
I addressed those 5 points and didn't find Kerry in violation of them.
Quote: | The fact that John Kerry's site posted the after action report for an engagement that Kerry was not a part of is a reflection on him as a Naval Officer. It is a violation of the honor code. His testimony in 1971 was a violation of the honor code, the UCMJ and US Code (he committed perjury). |
Where is this after action report?
Quote: | Note that in 1996, Kerry decided to change his mind about those warcrimes happening... at least long enough to get elected. |
He's saying that war crimes didn't occur? Please give me more, okay?
Quote: | And we have yet to touch on his claim to have met with Madame Binh in Paris, his disregard for POWs, his attendance of a meeting where the assassination of US Senators was discussed (or his decades of lies regarding that meeting) which he failed to report (remember, he was a Naval Officer). |
Where did he make this claim? Where is all this crap?
Quote: | Btw, I was a commissioned Officer. If John F. Kerry actually witnessed warcrimes and failed to report them? He should have been court-martialed and drummed out of the service. |
I'm sorry, but nobody would have been left to fight in Vietnam if everyone reported what might have appeared to be war crimes. I believe they were pretty widespread. Besides, at the time, it wasn't clear whether it was actually a war crime. It still isn't completely clear.
The only person who served ON THE BOAT WITH KERRY who speaks ill of him does so because Kerry threatened to have him court-martialed when he endangered civilians. It's a good thing this guy didn't frag Kerry. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004 Posts: 405
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sparky wrote: |
I believe it was Kerry's duty to his country to come back and protest these atrocities and to publicize them. Hell, if he hadn't, we might still be mired in the quagmire instead of running factories in Vietnam that we are today. |
I suggest you speak with a few old Vietnamese Generals about that, or read what General Giap had to say.
The war was won, and Vietnam was well on its way to being as prosperous or more so than Thailand when Kerry and his crew told their lies. Only now is Vietnam beginning to catch up and it still has to deal with a despotic communist government that has murdered millions in 3 nations and attempted genocide.
Don't try to make such bs claims about Vietnam. I live in SE Asia, I've seen the fine handiwork that resulted from JF Kerry, Jane Fonda and their ilk. Patriotic? More like murderous. _________________ De Oppresso Liber |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004 Posts: 405
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sparky wrote: | Quote: | Pay particular attention to articles 88 and 134, since John F. Kerry retained his Naval Commission until at least 1974 |
I couldn't find these in your links. |
You couldn't find articles 88 and 134 in the UCMJ? You have problems reading a document?
Quote: |
I addressed those 5 points and didn't find Kerry in violation of them. |
You are in denial.
Quote: | Quote: | The fact that John Kerry's site posted the after action report for an engagement that Kerry was not a part of is a reflection on him as a Naval Officer. It is a violation of the honor code. His testimony in 1971 was a violation of the honor code, the UCMJ and US Code (he committed perjury). |
Where is this after action report? |
It was on his site, until the Officer who actually commanded the boat at the time sounded off. You aren't paying attention, are you?
Quote: | Quote: | Note that in 1996, Kerry decided to change his mind about those warcrimes happening... at least long enough to get elected. |
He's saying that war crimes didn't occur? Please give me more, okay? |
Research the 1996 campaign for the Senate. Isn't that hard, really. Boston papers, a library and microfiche....
Quote: | Quote: | And we have yet to touch on his claim to have met with Madame Binh in Paris, his disregard for POWs, his attendance of a meeting where the assassination of US Senators was discussed (or his decades of lies regarding that meeting) which he failed to report (remember, he was a Naval Officer). |
Where did he make this claim? Where is all this crap? |
You're defending the man, and you don't even know what he has said? Read his biography. Read the book he wrote in '71. Read the FBI report on the VVAW.
Quote: | Quote: | Btw, I was a commissioned Officer. If John F. Kerry actually witnessed warcrimes and failed to report them? He should have been court-martialed and drummed out of the service. |
I'm sorry, but nobody would have been left to fight in Vietnam if everyone reported what might have appeared to be war crimes. I believe they were pretty widespread. Besides, at the time, it wasn't clear whether it was actually a war crime. It still isn't completely clear. |
Actually, all evidence (including that held in Hanoi) indicates that war crimes by US troops were committed by less than 1/2 of 1% of the troops.
Quote: | The only person who served ON THE BOAT WITH KERRY who speaks ill of him does so because Kerry threatened to have him court-martialed when he endangered civilians. It's a good thing this guy didn't frag Kerry. |
You've never served in the military, have you? You have no friggin' idea what you are talking about, no idea what the military is about or what war is like. All you've done is read a lot of books that reinforced your idea of what the Vietnam War was like, and watched movies like Apocolypse Now and Platoon, and you figure "Yep, that is what it was like". _________________ De Oppresso Liber |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Craig Guest
|
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greenhat wrote: | sparky wrote: | I don't buy it. Oh, I understand the accusation, but I haven't seen anything confirming this from a legitimate source (your word that "he lied" just won't cut it, sorry). As far as I'm concerned, much of that list requires that military personnel act patriotically and honorably by protesting a brutal and horrific war. Anyone witnessing ear necklaces who doesn't protest the war has a few screws loose. |
Well, maybe you should read this:
http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html
Note in particular, the statement: "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."
|
That site was certainly an interesting read - I'd only read shorter partial quotes - such as the one above - mostly seeming to attempt to put the worst slant possible on what he said.
Now reading this I see that he was not speaking just for his self but was speaking as representative of the group, so if there was lie it was the groups lie and not expecially his own. But then there were some of the group who did lie about what they claimed to have experienced. Long time back I heard claim that *they* were "Dirty Tricks Comittee" plants to make easily refutable claims to discredit the whole group. Myself would think that maybe some were and some were just bozo's acting/BSing on their own behalf for whatever personal reasons. But I gather that most of the claims were valid enough.
Some folks keep claiming that Kerry lied - I don't know if they distinguish between what is lying and what is merely mistaken. At worst I think that he - speaking for the vets against the war - may have overstated some. But again I have known numerous folks who would not think he overstated at all. There are a lot of folks who claim they never saw the atrocities spoken of and there are a lot who claim that they have seen such and much of such. I am sure there is some number of liars in either camp.
I think it would serve any advocacy group well to make some attempt to weed slanderers from their group and it would do individuals well to disaccociate themselves from slanderers even if the liars support a common politic. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|