Reply With Quote
especially because no soldier has been accused let alone convicted of such things
Oh yeah, on Face the Nation the Sunday before he said this:
The man just gets crazier!
especially because no soldier has been accused let alone convicted of such things
It seems clear, to me, the roots of Kerry's blunder -- like so much else where Kerry is concerned -- go back to Vietnam. It was an article of faith among liberals (and many others) at that time that the Army consisted largely of the poor -- kids who couldn't get into college and thereby obtain a deferment. It was also an article of faith that non-white Americans died in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam.
That turned out not to be true, and I confess that I was astonished to learn, only within recent years, that there was no such ethnic disproportion in the Vietnam dead.
The stereotype of the poor, dumb soldier is firmly entrenched among liberals of the Vietnam era. We often see it repeated by younger liberals today, even though the stereotype has no application whatever to our current volunteer army, which is demonstrably equal, at least, to the civilian population in talent and accomplishment.
Why are liberals so determined to hang on to these discredited stereotypes of the past? I suspect it is because the young men and women who serve in the armed forces are a constant reproach to liberals' facile, politically-motivated pronouncements on foreign policy. Iraq is a disaster (never mind that I voted for it)! But the young men and women who are stationed there don't think so. They re-enlist in remarkable numbers; a large majority believe in their mission; and they are working hard, risking their lives, and making considerable progress on many fronts. So it's helpful for liberals to think: what do they know? They're only soldiers--they must be dumb!
I've been googling back to the time when he made the quote and, lo and behold, and his campaign actually floated a different version of the quote two days after the insult:
Of course, it's not really just two words and that only added fuel to the fire; if you take out the two this source suggests Kerry meant to say, you end up with this: "you end up stuck in a war in Iraq."
But that's not what Kerry said; he said "you get stuck in Iraq." Let's reinsert the two "missing" words into what Kerry actually said and see how it comes out:
All right. If that's what he actually meant to say, then I think we have an even bigger problem with Kerry, and with the party that nominated him for the presidency. I mean, "misunderestimate" and "strategery" are one thing, but "you getting us get stuck in Iraq?"
Wow. This thread exploded.
I don't see how any of you can believe Kerry when he said he botched the joke. It doesn't fit any other way except to claim if you don't get an education, you end up in a job you don't like, specifying Iraq. Lets remember, we had democrats trying to get the draft going too.
John Kerry is a special case when it comes to senators. He is a special case when it comes to war criminals. Not only is he Teresa Heinz's lap dog, doing big business deeds, but the cir stantial evidence tells us he received a dishonorable discharge. No wonder we still has about 100 pages (records?) of unreleased do ents from his military record.
His Honorable Discharge is dated 2/16/1978.
He had his metal papers reauthorized by congress in 1985 after he entered the senate. The records are only rescinded if you get a dishonorable discharge.
Kerry’s Honorable discharge was issued under le 10, U.S. Code, Sections 1162 and 1163 which is the board created after president Carter signed an Executive Order 4483 allowing the change of Viet Nan war criminals discharge statuses.
Senator Kerry refuses to sign the Standard Form 180 which would release the do ents in his military records still kept secret.
OK, I will admit, it's not an iron clad case. However, read the followingexcepts from the below links. The cir stantial evidence is enough:
Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this do ent is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers" -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.
The review was conducted in accordance with " le 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service. As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.
Having lost his first bid for Congress, Kerry no doubt decided that his political future would be brighter as a war hero rather than a war protestor. While there are several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable, it is very likely that Kerry's discharge was dishonorable.
Supporting this assertion is the fact that Kerry had all his medals mysteriously reinstated in 1985. He claims that he lost his medal certificates (perhaps these are what he famously threw over that Capitol fence in protest), but when a military officer is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, in addition to the loss of pay benefits and allowances, all medals and honors are revoked. In any case, it would be a cinch for John Kerry to refute our claim by simply signing that Standard Form 180. But he won't. Nor will hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Dr. Phil press him on this issue.Links:There is overwhelming evidence that the Navy gave John Kerry either a dishonorable discharge or an undesirable discharge – which is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge without the felony conviction – and that, as a result of such discharge, he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals. And the kicker? The evidence is on his website!
Kerry's oh-so-clever handlers evidently depended on the ignorance of the public and the press about military records when they posted his 1978 "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" on his site as part of a carefully selected partial release of his Navy records (the Navy says it is still withholding about 100 records). However, one diligent researcher, Thomas Lipscomb, saw through the scam and exposed it in a New York Sun story on Oct. 13. Predictably, the major media has shunned the story.
What Mr. Lipscomb noticed (and I overlooked when I first read the do ent) was the date of the posted discharge, Feb. 16, 1978. This was six years after Kerry's six-year (1966-1972) commitment to the Navy ended. The anti-war detractor of our military did not re-up for another six-year term in 1972, so why the delay of his discharge? The only logical conclusion is that the 1978 honorable discharge was a second discharge given to replace an earlier undesirable discharge under less-than-honorable conditions, as unfit for military service.
Kerry's Dishonorable Discharge
Kerry's non-honorable discharge
Pe ion for an Investigation
Let's not forget that president Bush has a sense of humor. He didn't use the word 'strategery' until after it was coined on Saturday Night Live making fun of him.
Wiki: Stategery:
The word "Strategery" gained popularity when it was used in a Saturday Night Live sketch aired October 7, 2000, satirizing the performances of Al Gore and George W. Bush, two candidates for President of the United States, during the first presidential debate for election year 2000. Comedian Will Ferrell played Bush and used the word "strategery" (a mock-Bushism playing on the words "strategy" and "strategic"), when asked by a mock debate moderator to summarize his approach to foreign policy, thus satirizing Bush's reputation for mispronouncing words. The episode was later released as part of a video tape led Presidential Bash 2000.
After the 2000 Presidential Election, people inside the Bush White House reportedly began using the term as a joke, and it later grew to become a term of art among them meaning oversight of any activity by Bush's political strategists. Bush's strategists also came to be known within the White House as "The Department of Strategery" or the "Strategery Group".
So atrocities shouldn't be reported if we don't fund them. Thanks. So who gives a about the Holocaust or 9/11?Who gives a ? Western atrocities are paid for with our tax dollars, communists, not so much. Can you grasp the distinction there?
Who are you quoting? Are you hallucinating?
What are you on, pass some over please...
If bush was anything other than boy blunder, what kerry says wouldn't matter.
From page 2, user Findog, post #9.
Last edited by SRJ; 08-08-2007 at 06:06 PM.
OK, I'm sorry. My bad. I only looked at the current page, didn't realize we had two pages now.
No problem. I figured you just missed it.
OK, now that I goofed, missing this that I have a viewpoint on, I will make it now:
Western atrocities are committed by US soldiers who do not abide by the laws and are criminal. They are also put on trial when found. It is neither an accepted or endorsed practice of the US military. Senator Kerry was clearly guilty when he did not bring this up while he served. It was his duty and responsibility to report the atrocities he knew of, especially since he was an officer.
Excerpts from a link:
Swift Boat Swill:
"Cut off ears"
On August 9, 1968, a seven-man patrol led by First Lieutenant S. entered Dien Tien hamlet. "Shortly thereafter, Private First Class W. was heard to shout to an unidentified person to halt. W. fired his M-16 several times, and the victim was killed. W. then dragged the body to [the lieutenant's] location. . . . Staff Sergeant B. told W. to bring back an ear or finger if he wanted to prove himself a man. W. later went back to the body and removed both ears and a finger." W. was charged with assault and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline; he was court-martialed and convicted, but he served no prison time. B. was found guilty of assault and was fined $50 a month for three months. S. was discharged from the army before action could be taken against him.
"Cut off heads"
On June 23, 1967, members of the 25th Infantry Division killed two enemy soldiers in combat in Binh Duong province. An army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) probe disclosed that "Staff Sergeant H. then decapitated the bodies with an axe." H. was court-martialed and found guilty of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. His grade was reduced, but he served no prison time.
"Taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power"
On January 10, 1968, six Green Berets in Long Hai, South Vietnam, "applied electrical torture via field telephones to the sensitive areas of the bodies of three men and one woman . . . " Four received reprimands and "Article 15s"—a nonjudicial punishment meted out by a commanding officer or officer in charge for minor offenses. A fifth refused to accept his Article 15, and no other action was taken against him. No action was taken against the sixth Green Beret.
"Cut off limbs"
A CID investigation disclosed that during late February or early March 1968 near Thanh Duc, South Vietnam, First Lieutenant L. ordered soldier K. to shoot an unidentified Vietnamese civilian. "K. shot the Vietnamese civilian, leaving him with wounds in the chest and stomach. Soldier B., acting on orders from L., returned to the scene and killed the Vietnamese civilian, and an unidentified medic severed the Vietnamese civilian's left arm." No punishment was meted out because none of the "identified perpetrators" was found to be on active duty at the time of the June 1971 investigation.
"Blown up bodies"
On February 14, 1969, Platoon Sergeant B. and Specialist R., on a reconnaissance patrol in Binh Dinh province, "came upon three Vietnamese males . . . whom they detained and then shot at close range using M-16 automatic fire. B. then arranged the bodies on the ground so that their heads were close together. A fragmentation grenade was dropped next to the heads of the bodies." B. was court-martialed, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to a reduction in grade and a fine of $97 per month for six months—after which time he re-enlisted. R. was court-martialed and found not guilty.
"Randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan"
While a U.S. "helicopter hunter-killer team . . . was on a recon mission in Cambodia," its members fired rockets at buildings and "engaged various targets [in a small village] with machine-gun fire. Gunship preparatory fire preceded the landing of a South Vietnamese army platoon, which had been diverted from another mission. A U.S. captain accompanied the platoon on the ground in violation of standing orders. The South Vietnamese troops, reconnoitering by fire, did not search bunkers for enemy forces, nor were enemy weapons found. . . . Civilian casualties were estimated at eight dead, including two children, 15 wounded, and three or four structures destroyed. There is no evidence that the wounded were provided medical treatment by either U.S. or South Vietnamese forces. . . . Members of the South Vietnamese platoon returned to the aircraft with large quan ies of civilian property. . . . The incident was neither properly investigated nor reported initially." Letters of reprimand were issued to a lieutenant colonel and a major. The captain received a letter of reprimand.Now before someone says "See it was real" note that the numbers are in the 40's. If anything, the numbers are lower than similar crime rates committed across this nation on a regular basis. It is the same crimes repeated by many, and the crimes are few. We can assume there were even more crimes than investigated, but it would still be pretty insignificant compared to the population of the military over there.While numerous authors have repeatedly advanced such assertions, U.S. military do ents tell a radically different story. According to the formerly classified army records, 46 soldiers who testified at the WSI made allegations that, in the eyes of U.S. Army investigators, "merited further inquiry." As of March 1972, the army's CID noted that of the 46 allegations, "only 43 complainants have been identified" by investigators. "Only" 43 of 46? That means at least 93 percent of the veterans surveyed were real, not fake. Moreover, according to official records, CID investigators attempted to contact 41 people who testified at the Detroit session, which occurred between January 31 and February 2, 1971. Five couldn't be located, according to records. Of the remaining 36, 31 submitted to interviews—hardly the "few" asserted by SBVT. Moreover, as Gerald Nicosia has noted in his mammoth tome Home to War, "A complete transcript of the Winter Soldier testimony was sent to the Pentagon, and the military never refuted a word of it."
Wow. Without Kerry, the right might have to focus on the biggest mistake in modern history. Kerry's your hero. You should show him a little more respect, considering.
How little you know. The facts were already out anyway.
John Kerry was friends with those high up. At the time, he claimed to have no firsthand knowledge of the war atrocities, but read from a written script of the known atrocities. In 1962 he dated Janet Jennings Au loss Rutherfurd, half-sister to Jacqueline Kennedy. He was already connected to the most powerful democrat families, and not just because of her. He also worked on Ted Kennedy's campaign. He was only first to testify before the senate to help in his political aspirations because he had connections. The same information was revealed by others in the hearing.
It was after this hearing that ... there is evidence, but I don't know where, but I've seen it ... he admitted to being involved with war atrocities. That would mean he lied to congress if true! It is this point that those of us who believe he received a dishonorable discharge where the story begins. Under such conditions, the Navy could have reinstated him just for a court martial. This would explain everything in the previous links as to why he had a 1978 discharge do ent under president Clinton's executive order, and why he had to have his medals reissued.
In the context of Vietnam, when we went halfway around the world to invade South Vietnam to prop up a phony government and wage war on the people living there, people that were not a threat to us and didn't want war with us, yes, we should care more about atrocities committed by our soldiers than the 'Cong or the North Vietnamese Army.
I'm all for aid to the victims of such Communist atrocities, but it doesn't take a lot of moral courage or foresight to do so. What goes on in my name and with my tax dollars is where the bulk of my outrage lies.
If a Soviet dissident had criticized American misdeeds around the globe, who the cares? If he had the balls to criticize the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or sucking Eastern Europe bone dry, that takes guts and courage. Can you grasp that? Same standard applies over here - it's no great moral achievement to criticize the actions of terrorists or totalitarian governments, we don't really have a lot of influence over what the North Korean or Chinese government does with its dissidents. But it DOES take quite a bit of courage to stand up to the things done in our name and with our money.
blahdy blah ing blah, I don't give a flying what some yacht-riding elitist like John Kerry thinks. See my post above.
So you'd vote for him considering the statements.?
Considering the alternative that is the re ation of the current administration, I held my nose and voted for the .
You turned the topic at hand into something else. This entire thread was about the Communist blueprint for winning the propaganda war, and as it turned out the mainstream media turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Communists.In the context of Vietnam, when we went halfway around the world to invade South Vietnam to prop up a phony government and wage war on the people living there, people that were not a threat to us and didn't want war with us, yes, we should care more about atrocities committed by our soldiers than the 'Cong or the North Vietnamese Army.
The highest ideal of journalism is fairness. Now, if the United States is portrayed as some sort of murderous horde while the Viet Cong is being portrayed as some sort of benevolent defense force, then what is the public's view of the war? Is it not misleading or inaccurate to ignore what the VC do?
Or is it your considered opinion that the peoples of the third world are expected to be barbarians? It's okay for them to burn and rape and kill because they are inferior to you and me and therefore it's not a story?
Evidently, the mainstream media lacked even the minimal moral courage and foresight to report them during Vietnam.I'm all for aid to the victims of such Communist atrocities, but it doesn't take a lot of moral courage or foresight to do so.
My outrage isn't solely reserved for victims of the most barbaric Americans. All who cause human suffering deserve our outrage. But if American war crimes are reported and those committed by the Viet Cong are not, then guess which faction garners the greater sympathy from the general public?What goes on in my name and with my tax dollars is where the bulk of my outrage lies.
So criticism is only valid if the critic's opinion exposes him to danger? That's hilarious. It's easy to imagine you peering over your shoulder all the time, worried that your ST political posts are drawing the ire of Cheney's bodyguards.If a Soviet dissident had criticized American misdeeds around the globe, who the cares? If he had the balls to criticize the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or sucking Eastern Europe bone dry, that takes guts and courage. Can you grasp that? Same standard applies over here - it's no great moral achievement to criticize the actions of terrorists or totalitarian governments, we don't really have a lot of influence over what the North Korean or Chinese government does with its dissidents. But it DOES take quite a bit of courage to stand up to the things done in our name and with our money.
Stop asking me if I can grasp things. My comprehension skills are fine. But I suppose you're just applying the typical liberal equation: Liberal=Moderate, Conservative=Stupid Racist Sexist phobe
so what's the problem? you're right on!Stop asking me if I can grasp things. My comprehension skills are fine. But I suppose you're just applying the typical liberal equation: Liberal=Moderate, Conservative=Stupid Racist Sexist phobe
The it did. The establishment press such as the NYT, the Washington Post, Time Magazine under Henry Luce, they were all on board with the war effort. There were individual reporters like Neil Sheehan or David Halberstam that reported things the US govt didn't like, but for the most part the mainstream media was supportive of the war effort in Vietnam.it turned out the mainstream media turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Communists.
Except that that didn't happen. These media outlets that are owned by corporate America, which in turn donates huge sums of money to politicians, they don't exactly read like The Nation. Go pick up a copy of Counterpunch or log onto DailyKos sometime and then watch CNN or Katie Couric and see if you can tell the difference. Public opinion turned against the war because there was a huge disconnect between how the government was portraying the nature of the conflict and what soldiers that came home were telling their families, in addition to the draft increasingly affecting middle-class whites in addition to minorities.The highest ideal of journalism is fairness. Now, if the United States is portrayed as some sort of murderous horde while the Viet Cong is being portrayed as some sort of benevolent defense force, then what is the public's view of the war? Is it not misleading or inaccurate to ignore what the VC do?
The story is that Ho Chi Minh led an independence movement and liberated his country from the French. We then stepped in and attempted to prop up a phony government in South Vietnam. I'm not saying he was a Saint, or they didn't use brutal tactics from time to time, but you don't come into somebody's house, start rearranging furniture and giving the residents chores to do and then start lecturing about morals or brutality. What about all the napalm we dropped? The livestock and vegetation that we destroyed? The 2 million dead civilians we left behind, that died at our hands? I could give a that the Vietcong killed collaborators. We were the bad guys in Vietnam, end of story. It wasn't about stopping Communist aggression because quite frankly, the Vietnamese hate the Chinese and fought a war with them after we left. They were happy to take money and arms from the Russians and the Chinese, but they didn't take orders. This was always about Vietnamese nationalism versus American neo-colonialism.Or is it your considered opinion that the peoples of the third world are expected to be barbarians? It's okay for them to burn and rape and kill because they are inferior to you and me and therefore it's not a story?
That's true, because they cheerled for American war aims for quite some time until the war ended.Evidently, the mainstream media lacked even the minimal moral courage and foresight to report them during Vietnam.
I hate brutality in all its forms, but I'm not responsible for what the Vietcong did. I'm all for aiding the victims of Vietcong crimes, but that's as far it goes. And it's laughable to suggest that Vietcong crimes were not reported in the mainstream media during the war. Take some time to peruse back editions of Henry Luce's Time Magazine or any other major newspaper from the era. The domestic opposition to the war was a grassroots effort and eventually the civil disobedience that came out of it became a story. It's the media's job to cover that story as well.My outrage isn't solely reserved for victims of the most barbaric Americans. All who cause human suffering deserve our outrage. But if American war crimes are reported and those committed by the Viet Cong are not, then guess which faction garners the greater sympathy from the general public?
Never said criticism is only valid if it exposes one to danger. I only said that most of our energy and time should be directed towards morally reprehensible actions carried out with our money and in our name. There's not much I can do about North Korean gulags or Chinese suppression of free and independent media. I do feel a moral duty to resist and not support American foreign policy crimes as much as possible.So criticism is only valid if the critic's opinion exposes him to danger? That's hilarious. It's easy to imagine you peering over your shoulder all the time, worried that your ST political posts are drawing the ire of Cheney's bodyguards.
I'm not a liberal and frankly I don't really care what your voting patterns are either. One need not be a Democrat or a liberal to oppose Bush or his war.Stop asking me if I can grasp things. My comprehension skills are fine. But I suppose you're just applying the typical liberal equation: Liberal=Moderate, Conservative=Stupid Racist Sexist phobe
So the moral of this thread is Don't talk bad about the Iraq war because you will aid the devil. Don't question Bush or his motives because if the enemy picks up on it then the logical conclusion is that you don't want the US to win. Don't even think of dissenting because if you do the enemey may use it to their advantage. So i other words just shut up and love Bush and his uncessary war.
I am going to run out and buy 10 yellow ribbons to put on my car!
sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will give aid and comfort to my enemies
Can someone explain to me how it's ok to dissent.. but it's not ok to criticize? Because if you follow the reasoning here on this board if you dissent or criticize you give aid and comfort to our enemies. The press must report the good with the bad as some here will proclaim. Yet I don't see how reporting the opening of a hospital, or children playing in the streets will turn public opinion in favor of this war. I know the usualk suspects will posts blogs that do ent all of the 'good' things that are going but none of that will take away from the fact that a solid majority of American don't see this war as a part of the overall war on terror. I do not know of anyone who doesn't hope this surge works and it is apparent that the perception is that it is in fact working. However, I do believe that most people hope the surge works so we can get out of there as soon as possible. That still doesn't mean that all of a sudden they support the war.
our words are more powerful than our military
why don't we just talk them into democracy
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions