Kerry gives his opinion of our servicepeople in Iraq

[GaryC 7]

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

I might add that this all turned out later to be total fabrications.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS (warning - gruesome picture)

Sure, take an isolated war crime and paint the entire armed services with it. Really nice of you. I know a bunch of VN vets that would like to dispute that with you.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

He is merely relating what other servicemen testified to in an earlier investigation. He's not making any claims of presenting his account of anything. But it sure makes for good propaganda to take what he said out of context.

Thanks for playing and be sure to try again!

On January 31, 1971, members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) met in a Detroit hotel to document war crimes they claimed to have participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam. During the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians gave anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture, murder, and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a matter of policy.

In April, the VVAW stormed Washington in a week-long protest. At its height, spokesman John Kerry went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to accuse the United States military of committing massive numbers of war crimes in Vietnam. The appearance launched Kerry's political career. The charges he made shocked and sickened a nation, changed the course of a war and stained the reputation of the American military for decades.

But the mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam. War crimes were the exception, not the rule. And the Winter Soldier tribunal itself -- which John Kerry had helped moderate -- turned out to be "packed with pretenders and liars."

Recently discovered enemy documents from 1971 show that Vietnamese communists guided the American antiwar movement via meetings between the communist delegations to the Paris Peace talks and American antiwar activists. John Kerry and the VVAW were working toward the exact goals set forth in the communist directives.

John Kerry's photograph hangs in the War Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City -- an indication of the value the Vietnamese communists place on Kerry's support of their efforts during the Vietnam War.

link

and if you really want, read the 30 some odd pages of testimony by kerry in front of congress from the winter soldier campaign.

link

and as said before.......

Thanks for playing and be sure to try again!

[Pigu 0]

So, Kerry's script said "You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.", which is an anti-Bush joke. Kerry accidentally said, "You end up stuck in Iraq". He messed up the line.

Yes, it wasn't a very good joke anyway, and he should apologise for fluffing his line. But, this isn't a big deal. He just misread his script for God's sake!

If you're really going to judge people by the times they accidentally misread their script... well, if I recall correctly, Bush has made a few mistakes in his speeches from time to time...

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - President Bush, 2004

See, it can happen to anyone!

Edited November 1, 2006 by Pigu

[heishe 2]

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

I might add that this all turned out later to be total fabrications.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS (warning - gruesome picture)

Sure, take an isolated war crime and paint the entire armed services with it. Really nice of you. I know a bunch of VN vets that would like to dispute that with you.

Well, it's not total fabrications, then, is it? I don't think anyone said every soldier behaved like this. When American soldiers commit atrocities, like My Lai or the rape and murder of that Iraqi kid, they need to be dealt with. And if people testify that something like that happened, it needs to be investigated. There is nothing shameful or unamerican about acknowledging that American troops have occasionally done awful things. As a country we need to be accountable for the actions of our soldiers. We can be proud of the honorable ones, but we can't pretend the bad ones don't exist.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

He is merely relating what other servicemen testified to in an earlier investigation. He's not making any claims of presenting his account of anything. But it sure makes for good propaganda to take what he said out of context.

Thanks for playing and be sure to try again!

On January 31, 1971, members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) met in a Detroit hotel to document war crimes they claimed to have participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam. During the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians gave anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture, murder, and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a matter of policy.

In April, the VVAW stormed Washington in a week-long protest. At its height, spokesman John Kerry went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to accuse the United States military of committing massive numbers of war crimes in Vietnam. The appearance launched Kerry's political career. The charges he made shocked and sickened a nation, changed the course of a war and stained the reputation of the American military for decades.

But the mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam. War crimes were the exception, not the rule. And the Winter Soldier tribunal itself -- which John Kerry had helped moderate -- turned out to be "packed with pretenders and liars."

Recently discovered enemy documents from 1971 show that Vietnamese communists guided the American antiwar movement via meetings between the communist delegations to the Paris Peace talks and American antiwar activists. John Kerry and the VVAW were working toward the exact goals set forth in the communist directives.

John Kerry's photograph hangs in the War Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City -- an indication of the value the Vietnamese communists place on Kerry's support of their efforts during the Vietnam War.

link

and if you really want, read the 30 some odd pages of testimony by kerry in front of congress from the winter soldier campaign.

link

and as said before.......

Thanks for playing and be sure to try again!

What's really strange is that the people of Taxachusets have been willing to keep re-electing Kerry to Congress and Senate (but then, they've also kept re-electing murderous Teddy since 1969).

[chri'stina 190]

......

Sorry, Gary...but you're just buying into the political rhetoric. You gotta dig deeper where the real issues are... like, "Why haven't we caught Bin Laden?" or "Why aren't we looking for him?" But hey, let's talk about Kerry who's not even running for office right now.

Steven, with all due respect, I could say you are just on the opposite side of the rhetoric meter. Gary on the right, you on the left.

Kerry isn't running for office, true. Neither is Bush. But there are elections in less than a week that both men are trying to influence, so it does matter what they are saying even right now. And you have to think that if Bush or a unliked politician by you stumbled on such a phrase, you would not be happy about it either. It's just one side versus the other side, over and over again. Both think they are right.

I just think what is funny is that while Gary says something, it's called only rhetoric, but if someone from the left says something, it's 100% true and accurate. You're all using the same tactics, just on different sides of the political spectrum.

[Alex+R 0]

You're all using the same tactics, just on different sides of the political spectrum.

I don't know... I tend to think providing facts and screaming "you're changing the subject! The president is always right and anyone who is a Democrat is obviously wrong!" are slightly different.

At least that's how I see this discussion going.

[GaryC 7]

You're all using the same tactics, just on different sides of the political spectrum.

I don't know... I tend to think providing facts and screaming "you're changing the subject! The president is always right and anyone who is a Democrat is obviously wrong!" are slightly different.

At least that's how I see this discussion going.

I provided all the facts necissary to prove that Kerry hates the Armed Forces. It was Steve that suddenly seized on the flip-flop thing when he ran out of ammo. I was just trying to refocus him.

[chri'stina 190]

You're all using the same tactics, just on different sides of the political spectrum.

I don't know... I tend to think providing facts and screaming "you're changing the subject! The president is always right and anyone who is a Democrat is obviously wrong!" are slightly different.

At least that's how I see this discussion going.

But many people also call those who voted for Bush blind or sheep. It's been said many times on VJ so I don't see that as any different.

I think it's the same mumbo jumbo from both sides, both who think they are 100% right instead of finding out what they may have in common, or both sides admitting problems within their own parties.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

......

Sorry, Gary...but you're just buying into the political rhetoric. You gotta dig deeper where the real issues are... like, "Why haven't we caught Bin Laden?" or "Why aren't we looking for him?" But hey, let's talk about Kerry who's not even running for office right now.

Steven, with all due respect, I could say you are just on the opposite side of the rhetoric meter. Gary on the right, you on the left.

Kerry isn't running for office, true. Neither is Bush. But there are elections in less than a week that both men are trying to influence, so it does matter what they are saying even right now. And you have to think that if Bush or a unliked politician by you stumbled on such a phrase, you would not be happy about it either. It's just one side versus the other side, over and over again. Both think they are right.

I just think what is funny is that while Gary says something, it's called only rhetoric, but if someone from the left says something, it's 100% true and accurate. You're all using the same tactics, just on different sides of the political spectrum.

Rhetoric is flying around all over the shop – that is true. The difference seems to be whether or not that rhetoric is based on a non-issue. Rubbishing a respected national institution is not a non-issue of course – but there seems enough doubt on that score between what was said vs. what was intended. In other words – the arguments seem to be a little dishonest.

Similarly accusing someone of ‘flip-flopping’ i.e. “I voted for the war before I voted against it” is merely taking the words out of context and not applying them to a real issue.

I notice no-one responded to the ‘futile care’ example I pointed out – a very real example of W’s record of performance vs. his public stance on a whole range of ‘pro-life’ issues.

[GaryC 7]

I notice no-one responded to the ‘futile care’ example I pointed out – a very real example of W’s record of performance vs. his public stance on a whole range of ‘pro-life’ issues.

Thats because no one cares about that. I know I don't.

Edited November 1, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[chri'stina 190]

......

Sorry, Gary...but you're just buying into the political rhetoric. You gotta dig deeper where the real issues are... like, "Why haven't we caught Bin Laden?" or "Why aren't we looking for him?" But hey, let's talk about Kerry who's not even running for office right now.

Steven, with all due respect, I could say you are just on the opposite side of the rhetoric meter. Gary on the right, you on the left.

Kerry isn't running for office, true. Neither is Bush. But there are elections in less than a week that both men are trying to influence, so it does matter what they are saying even right now. And you have to think that if Bush or a unliked politician by you stumbled on such a phrase, you would not be happy about it either. It's just one side versus the other side, over and over again. Both think they are right.

I just think what is funny is that while Gary says something, it's called only rhetoric, but if someone from the left says something, it's 100% true and accurate. You're all using the same tactics, just on different sides of the political spectrum.

Rhetoric is flying around all over the shop – that is true. The difference seems to be whether or not that rhetoric is based on a non-issue. Rubbishing a respected national institution is not a non-issue of course – but there seems enough doubt on that score between what was said vs. what was intended. In other words – the arguments seem to be a little dishonest.

Similarly accusing someone of ‘flip-flopping’ i.e. “I voted for the war before I voted against it” is merely taking the words out of context and not applying them to a real issue.

I notice no-one responded to the ‘futile care’ example I pointed out – a very real example of W’s record of performance vs. his public stance on a whole range of ‘pro-life’ issues.

Ok. erekose and I disagree on a whole lot of things. But the way he usually responds to something I say is much friendlier than I see others respond to each other at times who want to just blurt out attacks.

It would be nice if more debate was done this way between the two parties...but that is impossible I think.

[mrc 0]

All of this 'flip flopping' talk is making me hungry for some John Kerry inspired Waffles.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

......

Sorry, Gary...but you're just buying into the political rhetoric. You gotta dig deeper where the real issues are... like, "Why haven't we caught Bin Laden?" or "Why aren't we looking for him?" But hey, let's talk about Kerry who's not even running for office right now.

Steven, with all due respect, I could say you are just on the opposite side of the rhetoric meter. Gary on the right, you on the left.

Kerry isn't running for office, true. Neither is Bush. But there are elections in less than a week that both men are trying to influence, so it does matter what they are saying even right now. And you have to think that if Bush or a unliked politician by you stumbled on such a phrase, you would not be happy about it either. It's just one side versus the other side, over and over again. Both think they are right.

I just think what is funny is that while Gary says something, it's called only rhetoric, but if someone from the left says something, it's 100% true and accurate. You're all using the same tactics, just on different sides of the political spectrum.

Stina, your point is well taken. You can call me on this, but I don't think you'll catch me taking a one-liner that Bush verbally fumbles on and make a judgment as extreme as, "Bush bashes our troops." There's a fine line between criticism of what they say and drawing such outrageous assumptions about their character. Kerry is a decorated war veteran - so to call him a troop basher is insulting, never mind that it's a blatant lie.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I notice no-one responded to the ‘futile care’ example I pointed out – a very real example of W’s record of performance vs. his public stance on a whole range of ‘pro-life’ issues.

Thats because no one cares about that. I know I don't.

Indeed – but surely if you (and I’m not saying you do) feel passionately about those issues, and I know you do about one at least – stem cell research, the existence of such legislation signed into law by W (as Texas governor) would appear to call into question his resolve and general honesty on ALL of those issues. But I’m sure there’s another interpretation that I’m overlooking.