The Drudge Report has a story about a veterans group seeking to discredit John Kerry's military service by claiming that he committed war crimes in Vietnam. The claims of the group, known as Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, are being met with reservations and skepticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Steven Taylor says his initial reaction was “severe skepticism” while James Joyner contends, “…frankly, [SBVT] sound increasingly like lunatics.” Kevin Drum appears to agree and adds, “I hope nobody minds if I ignore the whole Swift Boat veterans thing. These people are certifiable lunatics, and I just can't stand the thought of wasting neurons over them.”
Whether the SBVT are telling the truth or not remains to be seen. Before I give credence to their claims, though, I think we should allow the former swift boat veteran under scrutiny a chance to respond:
Kerry on the June 30, 1971 broadcast of "The Dick Cavett Show”:
Now, on the question of war crimes, it's really only with the utmost consideration that we post this question. I don't think that any man comes back to this country to say that he raped or to say that he burned a village or to say that he wantonly destroyed crops or something for pleasure. I think that he does it at the risk of certain kinds of punishment, at the risks of injuring his own character which he has to live with, at the risks of the loss of his family and friends as a result of it, and he does it because he believes intensely that people have got to be educated about the devastation of this war.
...
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.
...
Now, when we talk about something like war crimes, we're not throwing this term out lightly. The Hague Convention, the Geneva Conventions, history has laid down certain laws of warfare. Hague Convention, I believe, Article Four, states that you are not allowed to bombard uninhabited villages or villages that are not occupied by defendants. We have done that constantly in Vietnam.
Kerry on the April 18, 1971 broadcast of “Meet the Press”:
There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
Kerry's April 23, 1971 testimony before the U.S. Senate:
I would like to talk on behalf of 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. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. …
We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.
We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.
Is John Kerry a war criminal? At one time he claimed he was. Has he changed his mind? Was this Yale graduate truly unaware of the Geneva Convention rules? Is he ashamed of his actions in Vietnam? Those are all questions deserving honest answers. But rather than rely on the tales of the SBVT, we need to hear them from Kerry. After all, he's one swift boat veteran who knows the truth.
Can we clear just one thing up, Joe?
Do you DENY that the sorts of atrocities Kerry talks about actually occurred, numerous times?
Do you DENY that the sorts of atrocities Kerry talks about actually occurred,
numerous times?
No, I don't. In fact, I think those who committed such atrocities should be held accountable for their actions.
If a German Officer came back from Auschwitz and blew the whistle, testifying before the Reichstag that crimes against humanity were being perpetrated. That he took part in activites on the orders of superiors, activites which distrubed him deeply and in which his consciouness is now bothering him, would we consider him a war criminal, or a brave man for speaking out?
... would we consider him a war criminal, or a brave man for speaking out?
Those aren't mutually exclusive options. I might consider him to be both. But brave criminals and cowardly criminials should face the same blind justice.
"brave criminals and cowardly criminials should face the same blind justice."
I love the big tough talk here. I assume you feel the same way about the cowardly criminal who leaked classified info to Bob "Human Scum" Novak. I look forward to your enlightened analysis of the topic in a future post.
And how about that cowardly coke snorter, maid impregnantor and dry drunk who ran for President a few years ago? When he is going to come clean about his failure to fulfill his duties in the reserves while he was hiding from Vietnam combat?
Has the thread already died?
Good, it really never shoulda started in the first place. For shame, Joe.
So, from what I can surmise from the above posts, John Kerry is NOT a war criminal because:
1. Vietnam was a "bogus" war
2. If he did perform acts that were criminal, the fact that he went before Congress and said that his chain of command sanctioned such acts absolves him (The "I was just following orders defense"--where have I heard that before? Hmm. Oh, yeah--Nurnburg)
3. The person who leaked CIA materials was also a criminal, but not charged
I guess we need to give Lt. Calley a pass, too, and send a long apology to Rudolf Hess, if the reasons above are reasons, on their face, to support Kerry.
Frankly, if he shot a kid running away, who cares? I might've done the same. Some of the other allegations are harder to justify, under any circumstances. Slaughtering livestock? Burning down a village with a Zippo? If true, it's dead wrong. And you are just dumass blind not to see it.
You better believe if the situation was reversed and the exact same thing had been done by George Bush the Democrats would be howling like banshees over his lies and crimes. Heck, GW gets called a liar for just believing what everyone else at the time believed.
This is another example of selective outrage.
Glad you posted on this, Joe. It's a delicate subject that needs to be handled with discretion. I like the idea of focusing on Kerry's words alone. Perhaps that will clear up the "Christmas '68" inconsistencies.
What's your take on his keeping the medical records out of the release of the rest of his military documents?
William I have a hard time visualizing Bush volunteering for combat or taking a controversial stance against it afterward.
However, if I strain my mind to the point of insanity and imagine some kind of bizarre episode of Sliders in which Bush did do either of those things, my guess is he and the GOP would have made a movie about it by now starring John Claude Van Dam as George Bush.
What's your take on his keeping the medical records out of the release of the rest of his military documents?
If I were Kerry and people were claiming that my Purple Heart awards were bogus because my wounds weren’t that serious I would be rushing to make the records public. He doesn’t need to release them all, just the relevant portions.
I’m sure that great seeker of the truth, Kevin Drum, will be calling for Kerry to open his records just as he did for Bush.
John Kerry is probably keeping his pertinent medical records a secret because, should he become President, enemies of the USA might use them against him.
"John Kerry is probably keeping his pertinent medical records a secret because, should he become President, enemies of the USA might use them against him."
Actually, it's more likely that enemies of the United States would try to use them against him right now. You know, the same enemies of the United States that would like to amend the Constitution to reflect their fundamentalist religious views.
What are these hidden records anyway? This is a freeper hang-up that I haven't heard about. What exactly do you Kerry Haters suspect you'll find in Kerry's medical records?
I for one think John Kerry should now and should have all along ran on his record as a Polititian and not had opened this old wound.
It would have been nice if McCallif had not uttered Bush was Awol ...and it would have been nice if Michael Moore didn't make his little movie . It would have been even nicer if they didn't have the primary campaign shouting any body But Bush .
The Democrats have set the tone of this election . And even now Kerry was saying he would run a positive campaign just called Bush supporters Goons... and after all this some want the Republican party to shut up some viet nam vets against Kerry ?
I don't get it . As long as the Campaign was negative against Bush, all was fair Some even felt self righteous and that it was Deserved. Even when statements made weren't true.
I would have loved to have a campaign on the issues and the candidates. But that never materialized.
John Kerry had no problem dragging out old swift boat buddies and chanting his anti-war mantra . I do not feel sorry for him at all .
Morning Sun complains:
"The Democrats have set the tone of this election."
Har. That's a laugh. No, unfortunately for Bushie, his "mastermind" set the tone back in 2000. The tone is "ridicule your opponent" using half-truths spun to the media and repeated ad nauseum.
"Even when statements [made by Kerry Campaign against Bush] weren't true."
Please provide some examples of this. I think you're full of crap.
Then we can talk about the bogus Republican spin points and memes which were developed against Kerry MONTHS ago, such as the "flip flopper," the "voted against funding the troops," the "voted against all the weapons programs," the "1st most liberal senator," etc., etc.
I am really curious about the "lies" being told by the Kerry campaign. Bush ducked out of combat duty in Vietname. Bush misled the American people about WMDs in Iraq. The whole Iraq war concept was an idioticaly planned debacle which has done NOTHING to make our country safer and has depleted our military resources from where they should be and should have been applied. He opposed the 9/11 commission and now refuses to follow its recommendations. (How long can they hide Condi?) Economy still stinks. Stock market in toilet. Abu Ghraib (how long can they hide Rummy?) His administration is no longer credible except to his hardcore fans who enjoy his "plain-spoken" (read: dumbass) attempt at complete sentences and who believe, against all reason, that Iraqis flew the planes into the twin towers.
Folks, it's OVER. Bush is History (as in the "Worst President In ...")
Larry,
Folks, it's OVER. Bush is History (as in the "Worst President In ...")
Calm down, Larry. I know that its beginning to dawn on you that America is not going to elect a man who admits that he committed war crimses but that's no reason to come unhinged.
>William I have a hard time visualizing Bush volunteering for combat or taking a controversial stance against it afterward.
Actually Bush did volunteer for Vietnam but was turned down because they decided not use the plane he was trained as a pilot on in the Vietnam theater. It was too unreliable and took a special kind of pilot to fly.
>effed-in-the-head vets with their weird-ass theories
Have you actually been to their website? They include most of the guys that are in the group picture that Kerry has been using in his campaign as well as every officer under whom he served.
If Kerry had not used his "Vietnam service" as one of the centerpieces of his campaign, this would not have happened but when he did he made it imperative for those men to do what they are doing. Actually they have a moral responsibility to set the record straight if he is indeed lying.
I am also a Vietnam era vet (Air Force) and my brother's name is on the wall (101st Airborne) so I believe I have a personal stake in the truth or falsehood of this.
Actually Bush did volunteer for Vietnam but was turned down because they decided not use the plane he was trained as a pilot on in the Vietnam theater. It was too unreliable and took a special kind of pilot to fly.
I didn't know that. Source?
Calm down, Larry. I know that its beginning to dawn on you that America is not going to elect a man who admits that he committed war crimses but that's no reason to come unhinged.
Unhinged Joe, looking at some of his Lordship's posts unhinged does not even come close to describing them. Perhaps "howling at the moon, batsh*t crazy" might work, but even that might be understating it a litte.
"Frankly, if he shot a kid running away, who cares? I might've done the same. Some of the other allegations are harder to justify, under any circumstances. Slaughtering livestock? Burning down a village with a Zippo? If true, it's dead wrong. And you are just dumass blind not to see it."
Is this the same Kevin who thought it was O.K. to attach battery cables to the testicles of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib?
This post smacks of desperation. Relax, guys, Pat Robertson got the memo from the big guy months ago, and he says it's Bush in a blowout. You really needn't inconvenience yourselves by voting at all.
Rob,
This post smacks of desperation.
So are you going on record as saying that it doesn't matter whether Kerry committed these crimes or not?
>I didn't know that. Source?
I knew I shouldn't have talked just from memory since I conflated two things. It wasn't because of the plane, but that he did not have the required 500 hours flight time. In addition at that time they were only accepting pilots to do training. Here is a news story covering the issue.
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031773679145&path=!frontpage&s=
Whoa this really hits a nerve for some folks. Being fom the generation that was born at the tail end of the Vietnam war. All I can say is nobody cares anymore. I know this is a shock, but no one likes listening to a bunch of fiftysomethings wail and moan about what happened in a mishandled war 35 years. Like everthing, Baby Boomers have to subject vietnam to the same navel gazing as every other bit of that self-centered generations lives.
I find it ironic that the crowd that called returning vets baby killers, now want to defend those vets as victims.
Let me close my participation in this discussion with the statement that I believe Kerry is a rank opportunist, who while serving in the Navy during Vietnam did so solely to advance his envisioned future political career. I believe that he used every opportunity to inflate his significance and garner official recognition, even to the point of exageration, if not outright lies. For him to then trade on that service as a "war hero" is a travesty to those who bled and died in Vietnam, such as my brother. As a result, to attack him for those exagerations or possible lies is not an ad hominem attack, since the attacks are directed at things material to the argument. True ad hominem attacks are personal attacks on immaterial issues, such as is routinely done to Bush.
I do not have the time to continue this, especially since the a priori positions of some make it impossible to even look at the issues with any semblence of clarity or honest fairness.
"So are you going on record as saying that it doesn't matter whether Kerry committed these crimes or not?"
Nope. However, I will go on record as saying that I consider his war record largely irrelevant to my vote in the coming election. I would say the same about Bush's National Guard service.
Kerry apparently recognizes mistakes and acts to ameliorate them; too bad we can't say the same for our President.
Joe...Joe. I'm on the verge of loosing a bit of respect for you here. I don't greatly care if Kerry served in combat or if Bush got down on his knees and cried like a little girl to his daddy to keep him in country. In fact, avoiding Vietnam is a sign of sanity imo.
But please, on one post you're representing and passively joining in on the latest attack from the GOP, that Kerry, his crew, and the US Navy, are all lying about Kerry's record.
And now you're trying as hard as your little partisian heart will allow to have somone else call him a war criminal based on the stance he took, blowing the whistle on an idiotic war which got a lot of good Americans killed for absolutely nothing.
I realize there is no direct Commandment in the Bible against manipulation and facilitating deception, but is that the impression you wish to convey to your non-Christian readers?
Maybe you should just stop the pretense and start spreading rumors and push polling the KKK/Bible Belt? IOW, it's ugly Joe. I realize you're trying to provide good material for discussion and it's your Blog, you can do what you want.
Great post, Shawn.
"However, I will go on record as saying that I consider his war record largely irrelevant to my vote in the coming election. I would say the same about Bush's National Guard service."
Well, the Kerry campaign must not have gotten your memo, Rob. For him, Vietnam ended yesterday in a blaze of glory, three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star, all while W was going to the same frat parties most of the Clinton Administration was. To hear the campaign ads, Kerry never served in the Senate at all, never served as Dukakis' LG, never published a book, and never testified before Congress. He walked off the plane ride home and drove directly to the convention.
In the end, though, I agree with you. Bob Dole was a great war hero. So was Bush I. So was Ulysees S. Grant. So, perhaps, was Jimmy Carter. That fact, obviously, does not translate to Presidential success. It is in what Kerry would do now, today, as Commander in Chief that would give me pause. And, I believe, that will be true of most Americans.
William ,
The article you linked states that Bush 'really wanted to go to Veitnam' because he allegedly said so once to a superior officer. That's a little weak frankly.
Now I don't know for a fact, but my understanding is the record released by the WH show his guard app and he checked the box which says "I don't want to go overseas". So if that is true, then given a 25 year old anecodotal story of what a Reserve Lt told his superior officder and an official record of the choice which actually determined if we would go or not, I think I'll lean to the side of the official record unless new info comes to light.
Joe...Joe. I'm on the verge of loosing a bit of respect for you here.
And I'm already losing repect for people who are acting as apologists for war crimes.
And now you're trying as hard as your little partisian heart will allow to have
somone else call him a war criminal...
Why do we need anyone else to call him one when he himself admits to being one?
...based on the stance he took, blowing the whistle on an idiotic war which got a lot of good Americans killed for absolutely nothing.
Kerry didn't blow the whistle on anything. He came to the anti-war movement late in the game in order to help him further his political agenda.
I realize there is no direct Commandment in the Bible against manipulation and
facilitating deception, but is that the impression you wish to convey to
your non-Christian readers?
Please point out to the crowd where I have been manipulating the facts or facilitated deceptions.
Maybe you should just stop the pretense and start spreading rumors and push
polling the KKK/Bible Belt? IOW, it's ugly Joe.
How is this akin to spreading rumors? Did Kerry not admit to being a war criminal? Why is it considered unseemly to bring up this fact. I am honestly infuriated by this standard that says forcing prisoners to wear panties on their heads is a heinous crime but murdering innocent civilians in Vietnam is water under the bridge. I find the double standard absolutely disgusting.
Larry,
a) I haven't followed the case of the cowardly criminal who leaked classified info to Bob "Human Scum" Novak. If you really want my analysis of it, I'll try to find some time to research it.
b) All indications are the Bush fulfilled his duties in the National Guard. I find it disingenious to paint those who served in the National Guard as "hiding from Vietnam combat." The National Guard is an honorable service.
c) What justice do you demand for being a "dry drunk" and a "coke snorter"? Is this the same as being a "war criminal"? Are the statue of limitations even the same?
Joe I bleive your position on this is pure posturing for effect. IOW, it's a form lying, pretty transparent lying at that, and you're not serious at all about Vietnam Vets being war criminals. If I'm correct, this makes you a liar. Everyione can serve God Joe, in this case you serve God by being a bad example.
My reasoning is that for your position to be consistent, all or most Vietnam vets would be war criminals, certainly those who carried out free fire operations and commanded such units war criminals.
Would you like to see them all tried and locked up for war crimes? Perhaps executed?
From Stormin Norman to Tommy Franks to Powell, all the way down to the grunts? Yes? No?
Please don't apologize for Powell or Stormin Norman, if they're war criminals then we must bring them to justice. BTW, is anyone else on this thread a Veitnam vet and if so are you a war criminal?
Now another possible error you've made lays in your use of the term 'apologist'. An apologist for war cimes would be someone who apologizes for war crimes. But Kerry did not apologize for war crimes did he Joe? He in fact helped expose them, he rejected them as moral or defensible to the authorities. Right? He is actually the opposite of an apologist isn't he?
So if you detest apologists for war crimes, you should embrace one who exposes them.
Let's get one thing straight. The war in Vietnam was no different than other wars of the twentieth century. The incidence of war crimes was no greater than in world War II. People treat Vietnam like it was some sort of aberration and that every other war was fought with great care to follow the rules of war. Lets remember that in World War II, prisoners were routinely shot, cities were firebombed, and many other atrocities were committed by soldiers from both sides. The point is that when you put people in combat, under stress they will behave in unpredictable ways. It wasn't until the media became involved on the battlefield that all of this became such a focus.
The reason Kerry hammers his military record in campaigning is because the GOP opened that door when they made Clinton's Vietnam avoidance a huge issue. Clinton apparently avoided Vietnam in a dishonorable fashion, but Bush avoided Vietnam in an honorable fashion. This opened the door for Kerry to say "I did you one better -- I went to Vietnam, voluntarily, and served with distinction. (And anybody who claims that taking a shrapnel hit, then braving sniper fire to rescue a green beret is not "serving with distinction" needs to be bitch-slapped.)
Add John McCain to the list of GOP people condemning the criticism of Kerry's service.
Joe:
You mean like these? All three purple heart citations are there. And snopes has more detail on the circumstances surrounding the three wounds. The first two were minor, and did not require any missed time, but were still legitimate combat wounds. What more do you want?Of course, the overriding problem you have here is that Kerry, whom you do not support, did indeed serve with distinction in Vietnam, and his military record is far superior to that of the guy you do support; couple this with the fact that your own party opened the door to exactly this type of discussion, and you feel compelled to denigrate Kerry's character any way you can.
Is Kerry a war criminal? It depends, I suppose, upon how you define it. Probably most of the soldiers who did ground time in Vietnam were guilty of minor war crimes -- as been pointed out above, certainly anyone who engaged in "free fire" exercises. It would be counterproductive to go after them all and convict them all.
Was Kerry's "war crimes" talk in the early 1970's rhetoric? Of course it was. Was it empty rhetoric? Of course not. There's an important distinction.
I think that Robert Scheer sums it up nicely.
DS & Larry Loyd:
Do you guys have a website or blog? Can I have the address if you do?
DS,
Joe I bleive your position on this is pure posturing for effect. IOW, it's a form lying, pretty transparent lying at that, and you're not serious at all about Vietnam Vets being war criminals.
I take war crimes very seriously. I don’t care what war they occurred in or how long ago it was. I don’t think that most VV did commit war crimes. In fact, I would say that only a handful committed such atrocities. Kerry, by his own admission, is one of those who did.
If I'm correct, this makes you a liar. Everyione can serve God Joe, in this case you serve God by being a bad example.
I have to say that I’m honestly shocked that you dismiss claims of war crimes. Even Kevin, who I rarely agree with on anything, is consistent enough in his ideals that he won’t openly condone such behavior.
My reasoning is that for your position to be consistent, all or most Vietnam vets would be war criminals, certainly those who carried out free fire operations and commanded such units war criminals.
You have a misunderstanding about “free fire operations.” All the term means is that targets weren’t required to be cleared by higher authority before offensive operations could be undertaken. Just because Kerry used this policy as a blank check to go on a killing spree does not mean that most other vets did not have more sound moral judgement.
Would you like to see them all tried and locked up for war crimes? Perhaps executed?
From Stormin Norman to Tommy Franks to Powell, all the way down to the grunts? Yes? No?
If any one of these people openly admits to having knowingly and willingly committed war crimes then I think they should be tried and jailed. I don’t care who they are or what status they have achieved. Atrocities are inexcusable.
Now another possible error you've made lays in your use of the term 'apologist'. An apologist for war cimes would be someone who apologizes for war crimes. But Kerry did not apologize for war crimes did he Joe? He in fact helped expose them, he rejected them as moral or defensible to the authorities. Right? He is actually the opposite of an apologist isn't he?
No, he isn’t. He didn’t “expose” the people who confessed to these crimes but helped protect them and prevented them from being brought to justice. Is that the type of Chief Executive you want running our country?
So if you detest apologists for war crimes, you should embrace one who exposes them.
The only one that we know for sure that he exposed is John Kerry.
earlier:
DS & Larry Loyd:
Do you guys have a website or blog? Can I have the address if you do?
tgirsch too...
Tgirsh,
This opened the door for Kerry to say "I did you one better -- I went to Vietnam, voluntarily, and served with distinction.
By “distinction” do you mean burning down Vietnam villages?
(And anybody who claims that taking a shrapnel hit, then braving sniper fire to rescue a green beret is not "serving with distinction" needs to be bitch-slapped.)
You mean like the dozens of men who witnessed the incident and claim that no sniper fire was in the area?
Of course, the overriding problem you have here is that Kerry, whom you do not support, did indeed serve with distinction in Vietnam, and his military record is far superior to that of the guy you do support; couple this with the fact that your own party opened the door to exactly this type of discussion, and you feel compelled to denigrate Kerry's character any way you can.
Tgirsh, let me make this as clear as I can. When you knowingly and willingly kill innocent civilians in direct contravention to the rules of war, international law, and the orders of your superiors, then it doesn’t matter what else you did to “serve with distinction.”
Is Kerry a war criminal? It depends, I suppose, upon how you define it.
It depends?! Kerry admitted he committed war crimes! What else do you need?
Probably most of the soldiers who did ground time in Vietnam were guilty of minor war crimes -- as been pointed out above, certainly anyone who engaged in "free fire" exercises. It would be counterproductive to go after them all and convict them all.
Do you even know what a “free fire exercise” is? Apparently not because you seem to imply that it inherently violates the standards of war.
Was Kerry's "war crimes" talk in the early 1970's rhetoric? Of course it was. Was it empty rhetoric? Of course not. There's an important distinction.
I’m about to hyperventilate. A man confesses to war crimes and you call it “rhetoric?” What if a candidate claims to have been a serial rapist back in the ‘70s? Would we claim that it was simply “rhetoric” and dismiss his confession?
I think that Robert Scheer sums it up nicely.
Did Scheer serve in Vietnam? Did he witness atrocities for himself?
I honestly don’t think ya’ll even begin to realize how depraved it makes you seem that you gloss over admissions of murder so easily. Should the prison guards of Abu Ghraib, whose crimes pale in comparison, be let off the hook too?
(By the way, if you ever want to "push my buttons" all you have to do is dismiss or rationalize the commision of violent crimes against innocent people. That will do it every single time.)
Fyi, regarding George Bush's failure to complete his reserve duties. There's no question about it. The only question is why have people been trying so hard for the last four years to hide the information???
See www.washingtonmonthly.com, Aug 5 post, which has all the data in black and white for you to ponder.
"So what do we know? We know that Bush skipped five months of drills without permission, but we've known that since last March. In addition, though, we now know that despite what he says, Bush never made up any of the drills he missed.
By itself, this might or might not be a big deal. However, in addition to a disturbingly large number of still unanswered questions about his service, it's clear that in mid-1972 Lt. Bush decided to skip his required annual physical and quit flying — and apparently nobody complained. He then missed five months of drills and was never required to make them up. Despite this, in 1973 he was transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, no disciplinary was action taken, and in 1974 he was honorably discharged.
Who pulled the strings to make this happen? And why?"
There is one aspect re: war crimes that is increasingly overlooked, which is the effect that these inexcusable crimes have on your brothers in arms. Don't forget who exposed Abu Gharib: troops who were disgusted at what they saw. Most men wearing the uniform are deeply honorable and committed to seeing our country protected and justice done.
Now, in the middle of combat, I'm willing to give almost any act a pass--through sheer panic, men make errors in judgment which results in the deaths of the enemy, the innocent, and their friends. Which is why a teenager running away with a rocket launcher is absolutely a target that should be disposed of. Bravo to Kerry for neutralizing the target before it became a threat to him and his men.
When the smoke clears, though, the idea that one of the men would torch a village, or slaughter livestock, or exaggerate an action report--all these are devastating to the morale of the troops under and around him. IMO, that is what is happening: if Kerry did the things he is accused of doing in these reports, he brought shame and disgrace to his men. Then, to go to Capitol Hill and decry the very same abuses that he himself was guilty of, is just craven opportunism.
So, we're left with two questions, the first of which is: is it true?
The following questions DO NOT MATTER:
Who is funding the book?
What do Kerry's attorneys say?
What damage control should Kerry do?
Why is the story only coming out now?
None of these questions matter at all. Only one does: is it true?
And the second: if true, what will liberals do about it?
CDM,
Tgirsch is a contributor on Lean Left
http://www.leanleft.com/
I'm an admin on
http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionvCreation/welcome1.msnw
And I've contributed a few places like www.Pharyngula.org
Don't know about Larry.
Joe do you think Vietnam Combat Vets are war criminals or not?
Do you agree with Kerry's judgement on the Vietnam War and the engagement rules formulated by the senior officers and passed down the chain of command, yes or no?
DS,
Joe do you think Vietnam Combat Vets are war criminals or not?
Do I think that all Vietnam combat vets are war criminals? No, I do not.
Do you agree with Kerry's judgement on the Vietnam War and the engagement rules
formulated by the senior officers and passed down the chain of command, yes or
no?
No, I don’t. I do think they should have been more clearly written. The problem with the policies was that they relied too much on the moral judgment of junior troops. Anytime that happens you will have a handful of people like Kerry who thinks it gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want.
Joe writes
"Kerry knowingly and intentionally killed innocent civilians and you want to make him President."
This is true of just about every soldier who ever dropped a bomb or threw a grenade or launched a rocket anywhere near where people lived.
So Joe, since we know that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed by our troops, is it fair to say that any pilot who dropped a bomb there is precluded from running for President?
It really is pathetic to watch the Republicans play this game. Wasn't their whole trip with Clinton that he hadn't seen combat? Now the Dems offer them a decorated soldier who fought to END the Vietnam War and the Repubs want to convince people that Kerry is a "war criminal." If it wasn't so disgusting, it'd be hilarious.
As I said, this is going to blow up in the Repubs faces in a very big way because when folks like Kerry and McCain finally get fed up, these lying assholes like Unadmirable Roy and Jerkoff Eliot will have their crap jammed back down their throats. Kerry will be President and those losers will kick the bucket and be forgotten or, at best, remembered only for their sleazy efforts to smear a fellow veteran. YOu want justice? THat's justice.
Larry,
This is true of just about every soldier who ever dropped a bomb or threw a grenade or launched a rocket anywhere near where people lived.
True. But there is a significant moral difference in civilians being the unintentional targets of a military operation and directly targeting them.
So Joe, since we know that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed by our troops, is it fair to say that any pilot who dropped a bomb there is precluded from running for President?
Only if they dropped the bomb on a non-military target that was known to contain civilians.
Now the Dems offer them a decorated soldier who fought to END the Vietnam War and the Repubs want to convince people that Kerry is a "war criminal." If it wasn't so disgusting,
it'd be hilarious.
The cognitive dissonance of the Kerry supporters is truly astounding. The GOP doesn’t have to convince people that Kerry is a “war criminal.” He confessed. Nothing has to be proven since Kerry readily admitted to committing such atrocities.
As I said, this is going to blow up in the Repubs faces in a very big way because when folks like Kerry and McCain finally get fed up, these lying assholes like Unadmirable Roy and Jerkoff Eliot will have their crap jammed back down their throats.
All of the Swift Boat stuff could go away today and it would not change the simple fact that John Kerry admitted to targeting innocent civilians.
Kerry will be President and those losers will kick the bucket and be forgotten or, at best, remembered only for their sleazy efforts to smear a fellow veteran. YOu want justice? THat's justice.
So I assume the first act of Kerry’s presidency would be to provide a blanket pardon to all war crimes committed in Iraq, including the prison guards at Abu Ghraib prison. That is what you would want him to do, isn’t it?
Well Joe I'm a bit confused. It sounds like you don't think the Vietnam Vets who followed those orders are war criminals (I agree with your assesment BTW that they should have been better written. NEVER trust a civvie to do a real man's job).
But if I'm corrcet on your views, why are you insisting Kerry is a war criminal for following those orders?
"I assume the first act of Kerry’s presidency would be to provide a blanket pardon to all war crimes committed in Iraq, including the prison guards at Abu Ghraib. That is what you would want him to do, isn’t it?"
No. I want Englund and Graner to spend at least 20 years in prison and everyone else up the line, including Rummy, to serve at least 5.
Please don't make me list all of the differences between Abu Ghraib and Vietnam, Joe. It's just too depressing.
Two Marines, one from Vietnam and one from this most recent generation - and both longtime friends of each other - simultaneously told me all about these reports a WHILE ago. I've posted it elsewhere and maybe here, that according to them, Kerry did commit heinous warcrimes against villagers in Vietnam and he was an irritant to the higher ups who kept an un-air-conditioned plane load of them waiting on him in Vietnam for hours, before he boarded and said "can we get some air conditioning?"
"Two Marines, one from Vietnam and one from this most recent generation - and both longtime friends of each other - simultaneously told me all about these reports a WHILE ago."
I'm just curious: did your two Marine friends tell you "a while ago" about the official and unofficial statements made by these Swift Boat loonies 35 years ago when all the events at issue actually happened? You know, the statements where they say that Kerry was a hero, deserved the medals, etc. Did your friends suggest why these guys would have lied back then (or even as recently as 1996)? Did they have any thoughts on why these veterans would lie now?
Not that I really care one way or another what they thought. I'm just curious as to how one-sided their statements were to you.
Larry,
No. I want Englund and Graner to spend at least 20 years in prison and everyone else up the line, including Rummy, to serve at least 5.
So torture prisoners and you get 20 years in prison. Kill civilians and you get the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.
That type of moral relativism is the reason the Democrats have lost there relevancy in this country.
Please don't make me list all of the differences between Abu Ghraib and Vietnam, Joe. It's just too depressing.
Oh, come on, humor me. I'll even get you started:
Difference #1 -- In Abu Ghraib, innocent civilans were not slaughtered by a future presidential candidate.
Your turn.
This is wonderful, this thread. A group of military veterans writes a book, then puts out an ad, and Kerry supporters are scrambling to argue that (1) his actions weren't really war crimes; and (2) if they were war crimes, it was OK for several reasons. Just watching you libs on this one is actually comic.
This about one book, and one ad. If this ad changes 5,000 votes in every state in the country, the election is over right now. If it causes distraction from the Kerry campaign, this election is over, absent a catastrophic mistake by Bush.
Plus, the OFFICIAL Bush campaign is just now starting to get underway, with the Republican convention and bona fide stars (Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Owens, Cheney, Bush) en route to America's living rooms.
Gonna be a great four months.
"In Abu Ghraib, innocent civilans were not slaughtered by a future presidential candidate."
Hmm. Okay, I chuckled. But then I realized that I'm not entirely sure that your statement is true.
Here's my feeble atttempt:
Abu Ghraib: prison under complete control of US military.
Abu Ghraib: prisoners unarmed.
Abu Ghraib: no place for prisoners to hide.
Abu Ghraib: no indication that the prisoners (again: unarmed) posed a serious threat to the guards or that the prisoners routinely disguised themselves as civilians in the prison so that they could assault US soldiers.
Abu Ghraib: our soldiers there for relatively brief time
I could go on. And on and on.
Joe, I'm not going to argue with you about whether Ike or Ronnie or Bush senior or JFK killed more innocent people than John Kerry. It's silly.
It simply baffles me that the Repubs want to go down this "war crimes" road. The only reason I can think of is that they think that if they can force the Dems to admit that "in war, all is fair," then the Dems arguments for trying members of the Bush Administration for their war crimes with respect to Iraq will somehow be diminished.
It won't work. The Repubs are going to come out of this stinking badly. And so will you, Joe. Abandon ship!
Kevin I do wonder how much of a bearing the Vet issue has with undecided voters. I really don't know, but it would interesting if we could gauge it.
Larry I agree the war criminal angle is weak. But the Kerry campaign did choose to make his War Record part of their platform. It's fair game for rebuttal imo.
Kevin writes
"Plus, the OFFICIAL Bush campaign is just now starting to get underway,"
Great. That means more quotes by Bush about how he is "doing everything he can to harm America." I also am looking forward to the next four months.
"If it causes distraction from the Kerry campaign, this election is over, absent a catastrophic mistake by Bush."
This book is just one of many missteps along the way. Remember: if Bush wins, he will be overcoming the worst polling by any incumbent President in modern times. No incumbent has ever won with such crappy numbers.
DS writes
"But the Kerry campaign did choose to make his War Record part of their platform. It's fair game for rebuttal imo."
I agree that Kerry's War Record is fair game for rebuttal. But there are other ways to rebut that part of Kerry's platform that are much less vile and extreme, to say the least. But again, this is the Repub Campaign Strategy we've seen before -- make extraordinary accusations based on next to nothing and let the wingnuts on Fox News and MSNBC get themselves all lathered up about it for weeks, pretending that it's an "important story."
John Kerry has been a US Senator for how long ....? And now all of a sudden he's a war criminal unfit to be President? Why is he any less fit than a coke-snorting dry-drunk maid-impregnating diplomatically inept pretend rancher who ran from combat and even non-combat duty when given the chance and lies about to this day??????
Why did the press not care about Bush's coke-snorting habit? Why did the press not care about Bush's alcoholism? Why did the press not care about Bush impregnating his maid and then getting an abortion for her? WHy did the press not care about Bush's lies about his reserve duty (or lack thereof)? For YEARS Bush kept his records hidden and the press just sat on their hands.
Meanwhile, a bunch of retarded veterans who earlier were on the record saying how great John Kerry is suddenly claim that John Kerry is an evil war criminal. And this is news?
It ain't going to fly. Chuck Krauthammer is going to run a marathon before this war criminal garbage sticks to Kerry. And in the end, it'll all come back to Bush who, for some strange reason, has not yet dared to call John Kerry a war criminal. Do you suppose he will have the guts to do that? Anyone care to bet?
I didn't think so.
Morningstar writes:
"I for one think John Kerry should now and should have all along ran on his record as a Polititian and not had opened this old wound."
Wouldn't it be nice if Bush would run on his experience as a Politician, and not as a representative of his religious faith, with "God on [his] side".
>I didn't know that. Source?
Didn't the Palace Alert program terminate weeks before W "volunteered"? Surely someone with his exemplary attendance record would be aware of that. He couldn't have been thinking of embellishing his record at no risk, could he?
To those of you wo continue to call those civillians in Vietnam "innocetn" let me add one tidbit~
My uncle served in Vietnam, and was gravely injured byan 11 year old boy who ran up to the truck he was in and asked the soldiers to help his dying mother.
They rushed to help and walked straight into shrapnel set off by thi child and his family.
So, for those of you who missed the point, not all civilians in war torn areas are innocent. Many of them make themselves targets by being violent towards the soliders.
I am not arguing that civilians in occupied lands should take no action to protect their position or to defend themselves, but everyone must realize that by doing so, they will cause those occupying forces to defend themselves as well.
In war, thing get ugly. Perhaps it is because young people today do not know how terrible war truly is.
One of the greatest crimes this country has ever commited against its own, was to so villify the Vietnam Vets and thereby making their plight-that of men and women who has seen Hell and now must live with it- seems insignificant. We prevented them from getting psychiatric treatment when they needed it, so many escaped through drugs.
many commited suicide, and others were simply unable to assimilate back into a society who saw them as war criminals. Please remember, most men and boys who were sent to Vietnam did not go willingly. They went because their country asked them to. They did waht they were told, and suffered as witnesses to countless atrocities and likely commited some of their own.
But, never say never-placed in a combat zone where you are fighting against a militia that knows the area, fear does amazing things, you might surprise your self. Survival is a powerful instinct.
if anyone wants some idea of what it is like to go to war and come back to a nation that cannot possibly understand, go rent "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit". We must embrace our soldiers, veterans of whatever war, welcome them and thank them, because regardless of whether or not you agree with the war, they are doing what is asked by their country, and protecting our rights to write what we are writing, and think what we are thinking freely.
Please, thank our soldiers. Hate the war, but love our sodiers and verterans.
"It ain't going to fly. Chuck Krauthammer is going to run a marathon before this war criminal garbage sticks to Kerry. And in the end, it'll all come back to Bush who, for some strange reason, has not yet dared to call John Kerry a war criminal. Do you suppose he will have the guts to do that? Anyone care to bet?
I didn't think so."
Larry has you there, guys. When Bush and those who act on his authority play on this theme, I'll pay some attention to it. They won't, because credibility is already an issue with them. Some conservative bloggers and posters don't worry as much about credibility, but then they are not running for office. If they were, their campaigns would resemble, at best, those of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanon. Blindly dogmatic people frighten most Americans.
Rob,
Larry has you there, guys. When Bush and those who act on his authority play on this theme, I'll pay some attention to it.
Why is John Kerry's authority not enough to make you pay attention to this "theme."
They won't, because credibility is already an issue with them. Some conservative bloggers and posters don't worry as much about credibility, but then they are not running for office.
Why is this not a credible issue?
If they were, their campaigns would resemble, at best, those of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanon. Blindly dogmatic people frighten most Americans.
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. If you admit that you are a war criminal then you get a free pass on the issue. If someone points out the fact that you admit to being a war criminal, though, they are playing dirty politics. Is that what you mean?
Don't you fell the slightest bit of shame in defending Kerry on this issue?
"Why is John Kerry's authority not enough to make you pay attention to this "theme." "
Kerry isn't selling it; as far as I know, only you are.
"Why is this not a credible issue?"
Ask Bush, Cheney & Co. If they thought it would fly, they'd be using it.
"Let me see if I understand what you are saying. If you admit that you are a war criminal then you get a free pass on the issue. If someone points out the fact that you admit to being a war criminal, though, they are playing dirty politics. Is that what you mean?"
I wouldn't spin it that way, Mr. O'Reil- oops, I mean Joe. If a young man who, in testifying against the Vietnam war, admitted that he had participated in activities contrary to the Geneva Convention and thirty-something years later ran for office against a man whose stubborn self-righteousness threatened the nation I love, I would forgive the lesser and more remote transgression for the greater good.
"Don't you fell the slightest bit of shame in defending Kerry on this issue?"
None! Aren't you ashamed to support a man who preached bipartisanship and "compassionate conservatism" in order to win office and then promptly worked to divide the country as never before? Whatever happened to "I'm a uniter, not a divider"? I see a greater disconnect between Bush and his words than I do between Kerry and his words.
Joe:
Whatever, dude.Really? What's this then:[Joe] You mean like the dozens of men who witnessed the incident and claim that no sniper fire was in the area?
But whatever, Kerry's testimony is the "only" stuff you used, and I was just making up the above statement.
No, but as KTK pointed out in another threads, his superiors did advocate policies -- and give orders -- that they knew would result in innocent civilian deaths, and this is what Kerry was complaining about. Of course, it's a straw man anyway, because I'm not aware that Kerry ever said "they told me to kill civilians and I did." He said that he was responsible for civilian deaths, as a result of orders and policies he should have known were illegal but did not.Kool Aid must be on sale this week.No, I'm suggesting that the fact you're characterizing it as "a confession" at all is politically motivated. Of course, I'm sure when John F. Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner," he literally meant he was a citizen of East Germany (or, depending on your translation, a jelly donut). And when people said they were partly responsible for Japanese internment because they didn't more vocally oppose the policy, we should have gone out and convicted them all. It's silly.Coming from a party that includes the likes of Trent Lott, Tom Delay, and James L. Hart, that's a hoot. I'm afraid neither party has a monopoly on scumbags.And George W. Bush's administration led Americans to their deaths under false (or at least exaggerated) pretenses, ordered torture, and you want to retain them. Equally astounding. You of all people should know that in an election, you're rarely voting for somebody; you're usually voting against someone. This election is no different. Was Kerry my first choice? Not by a long shot; but he's still a damn sight better than Bush in my estimation.No wonder you like the Bush administration. You obviously much prefer it when people cover up the things they've done wrong instead of owning up to them. If Kerry had kept his mouth shut, maybe you'd like him. Nah, there's still that D after his name.Oh, picking any of your Clark abortion rants for starters.Really? Knowingly and intentionally? You know, even if I concede every one of your anti-Kerry points, all that we will have established is that both candidates are wholly unfit to be President. And given two "unfit" candidates, I'll take the one whose transgressions are 30 years old over one who's responsible for innocent deaths now any day of the week.I never said that it didn't bother me "in the least." I simply think you greatly exaggerate what it is Kerry said he did, and greatly underestimate how common those actions were.And in any case, if this is such a slam-dunk issue, then why isn't the Bush campaign touching it with a ten-foot pole? I'll tell you why: because it can hurt the Bush campaign a lot more than it can help. The only people it will convince is the people who are supporting him anyway, and it has the potential to turn a lot of swing voters away from Bush. And further, by openly pushing this, Bush would open the door to close scrutiny of his actions in the 1960's and 1970's, a prospect he's surely not excited about.
As far as I can tell, Kerry has admitted to doing things in Vietnam that he regrets, and that were probably war crimes, and that anyone who followed orders did pretty much the same thing (again, as KTK pointed out in another thread). So take your pick: either Kerry is truly guilty of war crimes and worthy of prosecution, but a large percentage of Vietnam Vets who saw ground time are equally so; or he's guilty of little more than committing perjury three decades ago.
Rob Ryan:
Well, as Reich points out, Bush is doing a pretty good job of "uniting" the world against him. ;)As I look back, I feel there's something that needs a bit further discussion:
No, in context it really isn't. I stand by my statement that lots of American soldiers killed innocent civilians in Vietnam. But the why of it is important: because of the nature of the way the VC operated, it was necessary to do so if the war was to continue, and if soldiers were to hold their own safety in any regard. You didn't even know if a little boy or girl was VC. War is ugly, and lots of ugly things happened. This understanding of how things were in Vietnam tempers my view of Kerry's statements, and of any US soldier involved in activities there that I would deem questionable, because they were put into a situation where they had little choice. That doesn't make it any less a war crime, at least not in the technical sense, but it must be considered when discussing such issues.But I will not hold the rank-and-file uniquely responsible for how ugly things got. Presidents from both parties knew that they were in a morally bankrupt, can't-win war, and they continued it anyway for personal political gain.
Kerry had the character to come forward and say that what we were doing there was wrong, and that he was as guilty as anyone else (but not more so), and for this, you would fault him. He fought to end a war that he believed was making good people do very bad things, and for this, you would fault him. This is why I get so passionate about this -- because that mystifies me. Just as my defense of someone you view as a war criminal mystifies you.
Virtually anyone who was on the ground there will tell you that terrible things were done. They may not classify themselves as "war criminals," as Kerry did in the 1970's, but I think you'll find that many of them acted no differently than Kerry did.
We will likely never see eye to eye on this issue, and that's fine. But I think your distaste for the Democrats in general and Kerry in particular clouds your judgment on this (and other issues), just as my distaste for Bush sometimes clouds my judgment.
On this particular issue, however, it's worth noting that the only people making any noise about it are a very small minority, and the Bush campaign isn't touching it (even though they've adopted many other criticisms of Kerry with even less foundation in truth). That may not say anything to you, but it says a lot to me.
You guys who are waiting for the Bush people to "pick up on this theme" before you decide to give it any credibility are fooling yourselves. What about the adage "Don't try to catch a falling knife"? And, are we to believe, that as much as you despise the people and the tactics in the Bush administration, you would actually say, Okay, there must be something to this story, now that Dick Cheney is talking about it? No, you would say that the campaign has sunk to new lows.
So, don't give me that. Even you must give Bush credit for this: he has a very disciplined group of people around him. If they say, Don't talk about this story (yet), it's because they don't have to.
Look at what's happened--these stories have begun to dominate the news cycles, and Bush hasn't had to fan the flames in any way.
For me, it's wonderful. And you're doing all the work.
Bush is worse than Clinton?
Holy smokes. Did anyone see the story about the Pakistani double agent? I'd like to find out how much of that is accurate.
I'm sorry but I couldn't let this pass.
>Why did the press not care about Bush impregnating his maid and then getting an abortion for her?
Because it was not true and your repeating it does not make it so. It makes you libelous and reprehensible.
From http://class.blogcap.com/reading/000225.php
The liberal blogger Atrios ran a parody piece poking fun at the National Review's habit of running anonymous and unverifiable letters which just happened to smear Democratic politicians. The Atrios post was a clearly fake "letter" (and if you followed the link Atrios provided, you'd know it) about a maid working for George W. Bush. An article on Salon reported this as an example of bloggers behaving badly:
Atrios also posted a claim that George W. Bush forced a former maid to sleep with him, then forced her to get an abortion, threatening to kill her if she ever told. The maid was identified only as "Maria," and no further validation of the story was offered.
The Salon story has been changed, so if you went and clicked through the "day pass" ad, you won't see this there. Instead, they've issued a correction:
A Feb. 4 article in The Fix misinterpreted a satirical item about George W. Bush written by the blogger Atrios. The item, a letter from a former maid of the president making outlandish allegations, was parody. Salon regrets the error. [Correction made 02/04/04]
Tgirsch,
I'm short on time today so I won't have the chance to respond point-by-point just yet. But I did want you to clarify a few statements.
But the why of it is important: because of the nature of the way the VC operated, it was necessary to do so if the war was to continue, and if soldiers were to hold their own safety in any regard.
What do you base this view on? Is there historical warrant for making such a claim?
But I will not hold the rank-and-file uniquely responsible for how ugly things got.
I suspect you believe that there was a policy of torture that lead to the crimes at Abu Ghraib prison. If that is true should we not criminally prosecute Graner and England and the others?
As far as I can tell, Kerry has admitted to doing things in Vietnam that he regrets, and that were probably war crimes, and that anyone who followed orders did pretty much the same thing (again, as KTK pointed out in another thread).
You have yet to establish that following orders necessarily led people to commit war crimes. Please explain, using the policies at the time for examples, of why this is true. Also, should the rank and file Nazis be absolved from guilt and/or prosecution because they were only "following orders?"
>No, in context it really isn't. I stand by my statement that lots of American soldiers killed innocent civilians in Vietnam.
There is a considerable difference between
That in the course of operations against valid combatants in Vietnam, American soldiers actions resulted in the death of innocent civilians.
and
American soldiers targeted and killed innocent civilians in Vietnam.
I can only go by the people I knew who were in country (quite a few) and they never saw any of the second and on rare occasions saw innocent civilians get caught in a cross fire or bombing raid or artillery. But none of them ever knew of any direct targeting of innocent civilians.
Did it happen. Probably. It happened in Korea, WWII, WWI, and in every conflict that had large numbers of combatants. There are always, statistically speaking a small percentage of sociopaths and outright psychopaths, especially when using a draft vs. a professional army where such people are usually weeded out. You notice that most of the problems in Iraq have come from the National Guard who are not as well trained or well screened and not the regular soldiers (Army or Marines).
I will say it again. I see a prioris guiding the arguments here, not the facts and reasonableness.
William, I recall that Larry Flynt had the dirt on Bush's maid-impregnating adventures and was just waiting for the bomb to drop. And I'm certain there are people out there who went nose-to-nose with the Chimp in candy-inhaling constests back when he was a slobbering drunk.
Why do you doubt any of this? Are you suggesting that someone would just make something up (!!!) in an attempt to smear a political candidates name? i.e., they might wait until a most opportune time to release the info, in hopes of doing the most damage (allowing as little as possible for recover)?
Shame on you for giving so little credit to this country's proud tradition of fair-minded and accurate political discourse.
yeah, i kinda posted late on this one, but here goes...
to quote ~DS~:
"William I have a hard time visualizing Bush volunteering for combat or taking a controversial stance against it afterward.
However, if I strain my mind to the point of insanity and imagine some kind of bizarre episode of Sliders in which Bush did do either of those things, my guess is he and the GOP would have made a movie about it by now starring John Claude Van Dam as George Bush."
Actually, I can think of at least one instance where he volunteered for combat. Aside from his appearance on an aircraft carrier, I believe he was in Kuwait briefly speaking to a unit of Army soldiers there.
Now, at first thought, you wouldn't think it's volunteering for combat... but then you don't live with the military mentality, as I do, because I am in the military. You're a potential target pretty much wherever you go, and the higher up the chain of command the better [for the enemy]; and GW is as high as it gets. He probably went through a great deal of trouble just to get to the Eastern hemisphere, let alone a warzone. My memory probably isn't serving me right, however; I'm not certain whether or not he was in a camp at Kuwait, most likely that was Tommy Franks. But the aircraft carrier? Oh you know he wasn't in some cheapass C-5 the whole trip to the nearest airport, where he could be airlifted to the carrier.
But then again, the deck of a carrier isn't a warzone. Not that it's without its hazards; in fact, short of being a firefighter or an explosives ordnance demolitioneer, it's about as hazardous as it gets (worse if you get seasick, heh).
No, if he served in the national guard... then he probably did serve in Vietnam, or in combat, at some point or another; or, at least, participated in a few deployment exercises. Except for being shot at, that alone is enough combat for a lot of people. The experience really puts you in your place and has you questioning your immortality.
Now, at first thought, you wouldn't think it's volunteering for combat...
No you wouldn't on the first thought. Nor would you on the second or third thought. Nor does the military which distinguishes combat veterans with known patches and other displays of insignia.
You're speaking on behalf of the entire military and you're telling us that the service considers the deck of a modern carrier off the coast of Ccalifornia, or the well protected safe zone in a friendly nation, equavelent to front line combat?
If so, I simply don't believe there is any point in further discussion. For we have left the land of reality and entered some kind of Carrolian thoughtscape where Humpty points out to Alice that words mean whatever he wants them to mean.
Landing on the deck of a Carrier in a fight suit could easily be interpreted as an attempt to identify with the men and women who actually served in combat, and it could also be viewed as an attempt to hope some of the credit for those actions rubs off. But I don't think anyone outside of Frank Burns would really try to pass that off as combat experience.
Appearing unannounced at Thanksgiving does indicate to me that Bush feels genuine compassion for the service people he's ordered into harm's way. I would sure as hell hope that he does. But again I don't equate that with combat.
These swiftboat guys may be rough around the edges, but not everything they say can be discounted out-of-hand. They also served admirably in Vietnam and the sheer number of them that object to what they see as Kerry's showboating is worth a look into their claims and allegations. I think that they (and many other fair-minded people) are put off by this man repeatedly pushing his Vietnam service as the centerpiece of his campaign for president. Kerry's anointment of himself as a "war hero" is unseemly...period, whether he's accurate about his service record or not. And the "McCain-thinks-the-swift-boat-guys-are-jerks-too" stuff is a canard. Unlike Kerry, McCain has been humble about his Vietnam experience, but he's blinded by bitterness over what the Bushies did to him in the 2000 primaries to understand that in this instance questions about Kerry's military service are legitimate because Kerry has made it his case in chief for why he should be Commander-in-Chief. It's absurd to conclude that Kerry should be able to use his Vietnam record as both a sword and a shield.
As for Bush's National Guard duty, there is no amount of evidence that the man can produce for any of the Bush-haters that will ever satisfy them. Save your breath.
The bottom line is this; the Swiftie controversy is just a piece of a puzzle if you're considering making Kerry the next Commander-in-Chief. The dems can huff and puff all day long and engage in their shameless revision of history to suit their current political needs, but the fact of the matter is that Senator Kerry has been on the wrong side of every important national security issue of his adult political carrer. He advocated too deep of cuts in defense spending, he underestimated the threat of Soviet communism and expansionism, he overestimated the strength of the Soviets should we chose to confront and engage them (as Reagan did), he opposed deploying Pershing missiles in Western Europe, he was pro-nuclear freeze PRIOR to the end of the cold war, he opposed SDI, he misapprehended the role and proper funding levels for our intelligence community, he supported the marxists in Latin America, he opposed Gulf War I, etc., etc.
If Kerry had been King for the last 25 years the Soviet Union would likely still exist, Latin America would be marxist, Saddam would be in Kuwait, the US military would be atrophied beyond recognition, the CIA would be merged with the Peace Corp and we would be marching to the beat of the rotting, narcissistic worldview of the French.
These issues combined with the possibility that Kerry may be the Walter Mitty of Vietnam should raise very serious concern about him becoming Commander-in-Chief at this point in our history.
"They also served admirably in Vietnam and the sheer number of them that object to what they see as Kerry's showboating is worth a look into their claims and allegations."
Uh-oh. Here we go again. Those brave affidavit-signers, simply overwhelming ...
"Kerry has made it his case in chief for why he should be Commander-in-Chief. "
Poppycock. Not true at all. You would like to believe that is true, perhaps, but unfortunately it is NOT. I think you might be misled by the fact that the ONLY positive thing Bush has going for him in the polls is the public's warped and thankfully fading perception of him as a provider of safety. Kerry can hold his service up to Bush's non-combat Reserve-ditching activities and there simply is no comparison.
But just because Kerry wipes Bush all over the floor with his military background does not mean that Kerry's military background is his "case in chief" for the Presidency. Certainly, I couldn't care less about Kerry's military background and no one else I know care's about it either. What matters is that he is an accomplished Senator who appears to be about twice as intelligent as Bush and about half as much of an asshole.
"As for Bush's National Guard duty, there is no amount of evidence that the man can produce for any of the Bush-haters that will ever satisfy them."
Satisfy them as to what???? That he was an arrogant flake? It's obvious that Bush didn't contribute diddly squat to his country during the time that he served. Even Bush isn't so stupid as to pretend otherwise.
"Kerry's anointment of himself as a "war hero" is unseemly...period, whether he's accurate about his service record or not."
Kerry didn't "annoint himself" as a "war hero." Nice try.
"McCain has been humble about his Vietnam experience, but he's blinded by bitterness over what the Bushies did"
Yeah, McCain is so blind he threw himself in Bush's arms recently for some quick man-on-man action. Sorry, McCain isn't blind with bitterness. But I'm sure he remembers what happened to him. And he has a right to be upset about it.
"He advocated too deep of cuts in defense spending,"
Oh really? And that led us to lose which war? How deep would you prefer our deficit to be, sir?
"he underestimated the threat of Soviet communism and expansionism, he overestimated the strength of the Soviets should we chose to confront and engage them (as Reagan did)"
Oh really?
"he opposed deploying Pershing missiles in Western Europe"
And that matters why?
"he was pro-nuclear freeze PRIOR to the end of the cold war"
And this was wrong? Why?
"he opposed SDI"
And why was that wrong?
"he misapprehended the role and proper funding levels for our intelligence community"
Oh really? By how much do you suppose he "misapprehended" the proper funding levels?
"he supported the marxists in Latin America"
Over whom? Why was that wrong?
"he opposed Gulf War I"
For what reasons? Was Gulf War I so obviously a great and important war which provided innumerable benefits to the US in hindsight?
"[If Kerry were King] we would be marching to the beat of the rotting, narcissistic worldview of the French."
Folks, we've got a live one here!
"These issues combined with the possibility that Kerry may be the Walter Mitty of Vietnam should raise very serious concern about him becoming Commander-in-Chief at this point in our history. "
At this point in our history we need to vote the Worst President Ever out of office and clean up the mess he made out of our economy and out of our relationship with the rest of the world.
"What matters is that he is an accomplished Senator who appears to be about twice as intelligent as Bush and about half as much of an asshole."
Larry,
This indicates an estimate of our current president's IQ. Please support your claim that Kerry has an IQ of 182.
As well, please back up your claim that Bush is twice the asshole that Kerry is. Does serving like a lying wimp in Vietnam for four months make Kerry 'half' the asshole to Bush's dodging Vietnam by putt-putting in Alabama?
Twerp writes
"Please support your claim that Kerry has an IQ of 182."
For starters, twerp, the estimate of Bush's IQ is bogus. I doubt he has an IQ of 90.
Here is a recent example of the level of complexity of Bushie's thoughts:
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/000581.php
"As well, please back up your claim that Bush is twice the asshole that Kerry is. Does serving like a lying wimp in Vietnam for four months make Kerry 'half' the asshole to Bush's dodging Vietnam by putt-putting in Alabama?"
Honestly, I don't think serving or not-serving reflects much on someone's asshole-ness.
1) All we have is words from people on the sites. There is no specific evidence anywhere from pictures of past criminals he hung out with or past documents proving what actually happened. So is there any real evidence aganist John Kerry?
2) Did Bush blackmail or threaten army members that Kerry knew in the past to ensure that he wins this campaign?
1) All we have is words from people on the sites. There is no specific evidence anywhere from pictures of past criminals he hung out with or past documents proving what actually happened. So is there any real evidence aganist John Kerry?
2) Did Bush blackmail or threaten army members that Kerry knew in the past to ensure that he wins this campaign?
1) All we have is words from people on the sites. There is no specific evidence anywhere from pictures of past criminals he hung out with or past documents proving what actually happened. So is there any real evidence aganist John Kerry?
2) Did Bush blackmail or threaten army members that Kerry knew in the past to ensure that he wins this campaign?
1) All we have is words from people on the sites. There is no specific evidence anywhere from pictures of past criminals he hung out with or past documents proving what actually happened. So is there any real evidence aganist John Kerry?
2) Did Bush blackmail or threaten army members that Kerry knew in the past to ensure that he wins this campaign?
I repeat myself when I'm under stress.
I repeat myself when I'm under stress.
I repeat myself when I'm under stress.
I repeat myself ...