Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen:

You paint quite a picture here, though its based on your opinions mostly. And you have the right to your opinions, but they still do not measure up as facts.

Silence about misdeeds, atrocities, and corruption must not be made the standard of loyalty amongst our fighting forces.

Of course, this is right. But what Kerry did was mitigate his personal damage. He claimed he saw and even committed such atrocities and misdeeds, yet he doesnt hold himself responsible for them. He NOW claims that he was just repeating stories that he had heard, but thats just another nuance from the King Of Nuances. If he committed those atrocities as he claimed, why does he NOT hold himself, an officer in the Navy at the time, responsible?

It was disgust with tactics like free-fire zones, where any Vietnamese person caught in an area could be killed and counted towards one’s number of kills.

Yet Kerry’s own comments, and those of his crew, show that he used free-fire zone tactics when in danger. “There was a fantastic flash, a boom, then the 3 boat disappeared in a fountain of water and debris. I was only 30 yards behind.” Assuming that they had run into a Vietcong ambush, Chenoweth wrote, “we unleashed everything into the banks.”

Apparently Kerry only had disgust with such tactics when other people used them. I suppose there is some kind of nuance here, but I call it hypocrisy when you blame others for doing the exact same thing you have done in the same circumstances.

Stephen, I too am the son and grandson of veterans. And I take a vastly different view of events than you do.

But once again, I will say that we need to look mostly at what Kerry has done SINCE Viet Nam to understand his qualifications for President. It’s not his 4 months in Viet Nam, but his 20 years in the Senate that will qualify him.

Your view of service is laudable—-that we “have a choice between somebody who took the hard path of service willingly, and one who decided to take things easy back at home.” I wonder how important this was when Bob Dole was running against Bill Clinton?

I’ll put it to you straight…Since you find military service such an honor, and such a qualifying event for the Presidency, did you vote for Dole over Clinton? I certainly hope you show the courage to answer this question, as it will say a lot about how strongly you really feel about military service and heroism.

I’ll be waiting…

Stephen,

As the son of veterans thrice over (my mom, my dad, and my step-dad), the brother, grandson, nephew, and cousin of veterans whose service covers WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Bosnia, I can tell you that the miltary personel that I have known throughout my life are somewhat ‘neo-connish’ to coin a phrase.

Most Veterans would appear to disagree with you in your characterization of the Bush administration as exploiting Veterans and ‘betraying’ it’s soldiers.

Thursday August 05, 2004—A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%. rasmussen

jbod, I will answer your question for anyone who voted for Clinton over Dole. The answer is, vet status is not the only criterion by which voters vote for a candidate. I am a vet, and I did not vote for Dole, and I was not alone. Dole is a consummate politician, with a good heart and sincere intent to protect and preserve our nation. But, we were not at war then nor did it appear we were likely to be in a major conflict, hence, other issues, social and economic were what lifted Clinton into office and kept him there.

Eric, 58% to 35% equals most? It only equals a majority, not most. Most is like 80 or 90%, that is ‘most’.

Is it any surprise that in an all volunteer military that a majority would support leaders who would send them into war? Those who would want their leaders to send them to war as a last and necessary resort, are less likely to volunteer, especially, after invading Iraq.

Doesn’t make them cowards either, so don’t even go there, or you will have millions of Republicans caught in the same net.

David:

Thanks for your answer. Its correct and precisely the way I feel about it.

While it’s true we were not in a declared war, the security of our country was in jeopardy in the mid 1990’s. Consider that the WTC had been attacked, terrorists were operating in many parts of the world, we lost military men in Somalia, we intervened militarily in Bosnia, and occupied Haiti in that time frame.

Of course, vet status is not the only criterion that voters should use. I just thought voters should be reminded of that. Some appear to have forgotten.

SomethingAwful.com, mostly known for its photoshop fakes and it’s off-color sense of humor, took up a collection a few months ago to buy body armor for friends stationed in Iraq. Why was that necessary? Why should friends and family pay out of pocket what the public monies of our govenment should be handling?

150 billion dollars is a big accounting mistake. It is the mistake the Bush administration made in budgeting the war, requiring the supplementals. The supplemental in question had two versions- One that debt-financed the money in question, and the other which would sacrifice part of the unprecedented wartime tax cuts to fund the supplemental more cheaply through public dollars.

Kerry voted for the one that would fund the war through public dollars, rather than the debt-financed plan which would ultimately extract the premium of interest, in addition to the debt that must be paid back. It is in fact the nuance of not mentioning that Kerry had an alternate plan, and Kerry’s inelegant description of his actions that makes this episode look like a flip-flop. In fact, he was consistent in his desire to have us take a pay-as-you-go approach to funding, consistent in his desire to give our soldiers the supplies they need, and absolutely consistent in his calls on the administration to bring in UN forces to help our strained resources. Nuance is not an evil in itself. It is not even just cleverness in phrasing. Nuances are the important details that change the meaning of what we are presented with.

Emerson warned us that a false consistency was the hobgoblin of small minds. Well, in the Bush administration, it matters more that Kerry deviated from administration policy, administration methods of funding new ventures than that Kerry stood up for and remained consistent in his values and his convictions. In their minds, it is more important that Kerry both fight the war and like it, than that he remain true to his committment of service, by serving his country in a time of war on the battlefield, and then pushing to remedy the inequities he witnessed when he got home.

In their minds it is more important to be consistent in maintaining the tax cuts, than to be consistent in maintaining the fiscal discipline that was once a major concern of their party.

In other ways, Kerry is more consistent than the Bush people themselves. Cheney was part of the group of people who were closing bases, knocking down weapons programs, and doing whatever. Cheney won’t mention that nowadays. Kerry probably would, and would be consistent in his likely explanations- that the cuts came as a result of the cold war.

As for voting for Clinton or Dole, I voted for neither, on account of my age. four years later, I would vote for Gore. But eight years ago, military concerns were minor in comparison to domestic. Now, the balance has shifted. Even before 9/11, though, Bush wasn’t impressing me. But now, with our fellow Americans in harms way, you bet I find Bush’s lack of military experience disconcerting, especially in the context of his foreign policy. Kerry spent years in the navy, his four months the part of that duty that occured on the Swiftboat. I believe he spent four years total. Four years. Now that’s a more significant amount of time, in a far more disciplined environment than Bush’s It is telling, in terms of the tightness that the ships were run with that Kerry can bring up so many more documents, for about the same length of time.

In his twenty years in the senate, Kerry backed legislation to cut down on government waste, gutted an illegal CIA slush fund (the “cuts” in intelligence Bush’s people accuse him of), investigated the terrorist sponsoring BCCI bank, and fought for the rights and benefits of veterans. He helped streamline our defense, post-cold war, and helped Clinton balance the budget. He voted for our action in Bosnia, or action in Kosovo, He voted for Afghanistan, and he voted for Iraq, when Bush’s case had taken the mild worry of WMDS in Iraq and made an apocalyptic threat out of it. Now tell me, in his six years as governor, what did Bush do that was worth mentioning?

If we’re speaking about experience here at home, what about his experience on the foreign affairs committee, getting our MIAs and POWs home from Vietnam, normalizing relations? Kerry’s spent years in congress on the issue. What did Bush do? What has he done? Are our alliances stronger? Are our enemies subdued? Has he managed to avoid leading us into any international embarrassments? The insurgents still fight, Osama still walks free, our allies give us wide berth, other countries no longer trust the strength and the character of the United States. I don’t want to be pessimistic but do I have to be happy about this? He can say we’ve faced down our enemies, but actions speak louder than words, and his actions seem to be Bushisms in motion.

I am not voting for Kerry merely on the basis of his war record, but I find it to be a great comfort in terms of our current situation. As for nuance, I think you underestimate your administrations usage of them. Anybody who tells you we’ve found Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Activities the year after they state that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction in a country is nuancing you. Anybody who takes the text of the prefatory “Whereas clauses” and uses that as the executive report that supposed to justify going to war is certainly nuancing things. Anybody who’s telling you body counts, but isn’t regaining lost ground or defeating enemies is nuancing you. You are nuanced, and yet you do not realize it. Why? Because he’s not supposed to be a nuanced guy, is he? Well, he’s surrounded by them, with a vice president who knows the ins and outs of the whitehouse, speechwriters who insert codephrases to excite his evangelical base, and a justice department giving lessons on how to finesse the supposedly narrow counter-terrorist PATRIOT act in order to deal with juvenile Delinquents, drug dealers and other common criminals.

This is the administration that calls environmental regulation rollbacks by names like “Healthy Forest”, that’s changed the labor laws to allow employers to take working class employees and cheat them out of overtime by giving them fancy titles.

The question is not where nuance begins in the Bush administration, but where it stops.

Finally, I’d like to conclude by saying this- I would not have our military become a fraternity of silence, where one does not admit to wrongdoing with others, to shield oneself from the consequences of one’s actions.

When I talk about free fire, I talk about zones where you could shoot down a civilian, and have that count. Kerry wasn’t aiming for civilians, he was aiming for the ambush that was likely waiting around for the boats to hit the mines. Why do you think mines would be there? They were there to disable and destroy boats so that snipers and machine gunners could fire at the vessels. You read my earlier posts, so you should be familiar with the statements concerning the lack of real stealth with the Swiftboats, and their rather substantial rate of ambush. This wasn’t an odd occurence, this was everyday. Hell, that was the purpose of these runs, and probably why Kerry ended up so opposed to the war. It’s the same reason so many people curse and ridicule bush for his “bring it on” speech. As daring as it is, he, like the commanders of the SeaLords Operations were gambling with other people’s lives, and quite often losing.

Here’s an oped in that bastion of truth, the NYTimes, by a soldier in Iraq. I won’t quote the whole thing, just portions, but it’s worth reading the whole thing if you’re interested.

We marines are proudly apolitical, yet stereotypically right-wing conservative. I’m both. And I’d be here with my fellow devildogs, fighting just as hard, whether John Kerry or George W. Bush or Ralph Nader were our commander-in-chief, until we’re told to go home.

…Sure, some of those people might be waving just to make sure we don’t shoot them, but I think the majority are on our side. I’ve learned that this enemy is not just a mass of angry Iraqis who want us to leave their country, as some would have you believe. The forces we’re fighting around Iraq are a conglomeration of renegade Shiites, former Baathists, Iranians, Syrians, terrorists with ties to Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda, petty criminals, destitute citizens looking for excitement or money, and yes, even a few frustrated Iraqis who worry about Wal-Mart culture infringing on their neighborhood.

But I see the others who are on our side, appreciate us risking our lives, and know we’re in the right. The Iraqi soldiers who are fighting alongside us are motivated to take their country back. I’ve not been deluded into thinking that we came here to free the Iraqis. That is indeed the icing on the cake, but I came here to prevent the still active “grave and gathering threat” from congealing into something we wouldn’t be able to stop.

…Now we are on the verge of victory or defeat in Iraq. Success depends not only on battlefield superiority, but also on the trust and confidence of the American people. I’ve read some articles recently that call for cutting back our military presence in Iraq and moving our troops to the peripheries of most cities. Such advice is well-intentioned but wrong - it would soon lead to a total withdrawal. Our goal needs to be a safe Iraq, free of militias and terrorists; if we simply pull back and run, then the region will pose an even greater threat than it did before the invasion. I also fear if we do not win this battle here and now, my 7-year-old son might find himself here in 10 or 11 years, fighting the same enemies and their sons.

When critics of the war say their advocacy is on behalf of those of us risking our lives here, it’s a type of false patriotism. I believe that when Americans say they “support our troops,” it should include supporting our mission, not just sending us care packages. They don’t have to believe in the cause as I do; but they should not denigrate it. That only aids the enemy in defeating us strategically.
nytimes

Apparently Kerry only had disgust with such tactics when other people used them.

JBOD,

You must be kidding! Are you seriously under the impression that Kerry spared himself criticism? Remember a little story awhile ago about him throwing away his medals/ribbons?

Eric, I respect your upbringing, but I would say this: I don’t base my appeal on the false impression that most Vets necessarily agree with me. In fact, I would say the very title says everything about what my intentions were- namely, to appeal to those who may not believe as I do.

We can argue the whys and wherefores of what constitutes success, but I think its hard to deny that we’ve gotten little traction on the issue since Saddam was captured. What have we bought with the 967 deaths?

We certainly have not eliminated the threat of WMDS or Iraqi terrorism, given the almost complete absence of both in that nation. So we are left with freeing the Iraqi people. So the question is, are we closer to that? How can we tell? You link to an Iraqi blogger, who tells of the reconstruction, but does that man give the broad indication of what’s going on? What have we to indicate the progress of our pacification and/or securing of Iraq? Give me the landmarks of what we can look at to determine the progress in real terms of this operation.

Woody:

Whose medals did Kerry throw for the cameras? Not his own—his are hanging proudly on his Senate office wall so that he can claim his honorable veteran standing.

He may have, as he now says, thrown his ribbons for the camera. This would be so that he could claim his honorable anti-war standing.

This is a man who claims to have committed atrocities and to have witnessed atrocities. He spoke loudly about the stories he heard, giving them enormous credence. Now, when he is questioned on the accuracy of the stories, his excuse is “Well, that’s what I was told.”

Kerry decried free fire zones AFTER he came back, but used them while he was there. For Stephen’s benefit, when I talk about free fire zones, I talk about firing blindly into the bush to kill whomever is there, civilian or soldier. And that’s exactly what I’d have done to. But I wouldnt have come back home and blamed others for doing the same damn thing.

What you see as organized resistance, I see as half-chaotic. I see us stuck in Iraq, sitting ducks for the various interests in the Middle East that don’t like us. I would say what we have is a coincidence of antagonisms, and one very convenient place to find American soldiers to let out those antagonisms.

I would have had us take a much more flexible response in regards to dealing with the varied governments and religious interests. By invading Iraq the way we did, with the evidence we had, we put ourselves at the mercy of both our critics and our rivals for power in the Middle East, with nothing to legitimize further outside intervention.

> yet he doesnt hold himself responsible for them.

He holds himself equally responsible with all other soldiers of his rank and lower. Which is to say, not much at all. In fact, the only people he’s ever held responsible are the top brass and, of course, the Johnson and Nixon administrations. There is no hypocrisy there and you know that perfectly well.

> Of course, vet status is not the only criterion
> that voters should use. I just thought voters
> should be reminded of that. Some appear to
> have forgotten.

Like who? Who actually thinks that Americans should use military service alone to evaluate a candidate? David’s answer re: Dole goes for me, too. I respect Dole’s service, but Clinton was right for me on the issues. Again, no hypocrisy there. Even Stephen didn’t go that far.

> Kerry decried free fire zones AFTER he came
> back, but used them while he was there. For
> Stephen’s benefit, when I talk about free
> fire zones, I talk about firing blindly
> into the bush to kill whomever is there,
> civilian or soldier. And that’s exactly
> what I’d have done to. But I wouldnt have
> come back home and blamed others for doing
> the same damn thing.

The only people he blamed were the people who ordered him to fight that way, the White House and the Pentagon. He blamed those who calculated the big-picture military strategy in Vietnam, the ones who thought that the best way to defeat an enemy who hides among the civilian population would be to attack the civilian population. That was the Pentagon’s strategy, Joe: to attack and kill civilians. There’s no way to speak out against that strategy without talking about the plight of the soldiers who were literally being forced to implement that strategy. He never held his fellow soldiers responsible for participating in free-fire zones.

(Some of you righties are pretty smart, but it’s like you pretend to be dumb whenever it’s convenient for you to make a point. You pretend to be stupid when you argue that when Kerry uses the word “sensitive” he’s suggesting that we shouldn’t ever attack and kill terrorists. You’re acting dumb when you say that when Kerry says the war on terror is “not primarily military” he means that we should call Judge Judy and sue Al Qaeda.)

In the case of Vietnam, Kerry was speaking out against the Pentagon’s tactics, not against the behavior of the men on the ground. Do you really not understand this distinction, or are you only pretending not to understand so that you can pretend to be offended?

I certainly hope you show the courage to answer this question, as it will say a lot about how strongly you really feel about military service and heroism.

-Cf

Very well said, Stephen.

Christopher made my point for me about Kerry’s comments to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The people Kerry criticized were primarily those who created the policies, not those who executed them. I believe that’s one reason a high percentage of the SBVs are officers.

If you haven’t read the entire transcript from that testimony, which you can find here, I highly recommend that you do.

Joe-
That’s easy. The Ribbons are medals too. After all, they are what most people wear on their dress uniforms, most of the time. Those were what he had, and so he threw them. Now, people made a big deal out of him throwing somebody else’s medals. Never should have been, because he was asked to do so on their behalf. Unfortunately, Bush’s people have to nuance that into being about Kerry claiming those medals were his own. What’s more dishonorable, then, the action, or this malicious reinterpretation of Kerry’s motives?

Now, when he is questioned on the accuracy of the stories, his excuse is “Well, that’s what I was told.”

I wouldn’t say the documentation on his testimony supports that interpretation. First, he didn’t just say it was others who told him these things, he said so thirty years ago. Why did he say so? The Winter Soldier investigation, at basis, was about Vietnam Veterans revealing the endemic problems with the world, problems that historians have since confirmed. This was about presenting a foreign policy based on “love and peace”, but instead presenting a fact and witness based rebuttal to a false picture of the war as being a successful, civilian friendly enterprise.

As for free-fire zones, I believe that is a term of specific meaning in military policy circles, and it should not be conflated to mean any pre-emptive fire showered at targets Kerry’s experience has taught him might be set up in place for an ambush. This is one of those cases when the nuance of how a the military defines the term is important to understanding what he’s speaking of.

A free-fire zone is essentially a zone declared civilian free, where indiscriminate attacks can be justified. This is typically what happened with villages in Vietnam, as Kerry describes it.

Bushes at the side of the river do not count as a free-fire zone, simply because they are indiscriminately fired at. If there was a crowd on the side there, and this happened, and he fired, I could see the case for hypocrisy, but unless you are an extreme vegan, I don’t see how you could claim his pre-emptive shots into the bushes as indiscriminate murder.

Good article Stephen.

I believe they took resources and attention from our efforts in Afghanistan, away from the real threat of Osama Bin Laden, whose organization and his very person have proved more resilient than our president anticipated.

And you’d be right: A large number of Arabic speakers at the CIA and NSA were pulled off the hunt for bin Laden and told to focus on Iraq, Predator UAVs were deployed away from Afghanistan to Iraq, all the Special Forces troopers with Arabic training were taken out of Afghanistan to look for non-existant Scuds in the western Iraqi desert, reconaissance satellites were retasked from Afghanistan to Iraq, and even now because of the relatively small number of troops we have deployed in Afghanistan, the predominant tactic is to run patrols from a base and just wait to get hit so a counterstrike can attempt to take out a few Taliban - there hasn’t been a large-scale agressive operation there for months.

But of course, Bush believes that capturing or killing bin Laden - the guy responsible for attacking America and killing thousands of Americans - is totally unimportant,

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

I don’t understand why you Republicans are so happy with this yo-yo.

Anyhow, Kerry did the right thing. Like many vets, he went into Vietnam an idealistic young man, and came out believing it was wrong. I’m impressed by his courage and conviction. He’ll make a great President.

Chris:

These are words that Kerry spoke. By including the statement about officers at all levels, he includes himself and his peers. By saying that any soldier who took part in these operations is guilty, he includes them all.

“I would like to talk, representing 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, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….”

“Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

— Crosby Noyes, Washington Evening Star

“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 calibre 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 is 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.”

— John Kerry, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” April 18, 1971

MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. 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.

I’d agree that Kerry disagreed with the tactics used, and that he blamed those high in the command chain. But he blames even those who carried out the tactics as being guilty. I think it can be a case of wanting to achieve an objective at any cost. Sort of like when the police resort to asking the Mafia for help in solving a crime…it has short term gain, but long term loss.

Kerry was willing to cast a negative light on his fellow soldiers from the safety of his homeland offices. He was willing to do so to achieve his goal, which very well might have had some noble character to it. But in casting that negative light on so many, he obscured any nobleness.

Kerry decried free fire zones AFTER he came back, but used them while he was there.

You are missing a basic point here. Hypocrisy is holding yourself to different standards than other people. I don’t see any evidence that he is a hypocrite. The fact that he criticized the same things that he did earlier, doesn’t make him a hypocrite, as long as he is holding HIMSELF equally culpable. As our prez can tell you, there is a difference between a hypocrite and a repentant sinner.

Your point about the medals/ribbons is cute but irrelevant.

For Stephen’s benefit, when I talk about free fire zones, I talk about firing blindly into the bush to kill whomever is there, civilian or soldier.

So for the record, you don’t think that our soldiers serving now in Iraq should ever fire their weapons without making sure there aren’t any civilians around first?

Or do you need to know whether the soldier is a Democrat before you answer?

Woody:

How bout having the courage to post my ENTIRE quote, rather than selecting pieces from it to make it look incorrect. Here it is in its entirety:

>”Kerry decried free fire zones AFTER he came back, but used them while he was there. For Stephen’s benefit, when I talk about free fire zones, I talk about firing blindly into the bush to kill whomever is there, civilian or soldier. And that’s exactly what I’d have done to. But I wouldnt have come back home and blamed others for doing the same damn thing.”

You asked a question that my quote above already answered. I understand that in battle, when being attacked and in fear for your life and the lives of your fellow soldiers, that one would shoot in the direction of the attack. And I said very clearly (very clearly for anyone who had any intent of comprehension, that is) that I would do the same.

JBOD,

Let’s look at the big picture. You seem to want to defend American soldiers under a lot of different circumstances. I recall you being rather defensive when the atrocities at Abu Grahib came up. In your book, soldiers clearly deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Now a veteran is running for President on the Democratic ticket, and you have decided that he deserves no consideration whatsoever. You will draw the line however you need to put him on the side of wrong. He can’t even criticize a war that he had the courage volunteer for, because he was secure in a Brooklyn office building when he made the critiques. Can’t you see why this is ridiculous?

No need to answer. This is a tiresome game. Heads, you win. Tails, Kerry loses.

Woody:

Your comments cannot go unanswered. I AM willing to defend our brave soldiers who put their lives on the line. I’d hope everyone would take that same approach.

As far as Abu Ghraib is concerned, I’ve stated unequivocally that those involved should be held accountable. They broke the rules. I’ve also said that to hold strictly to the Geneva Conventions is a bit impossible, since the GC says that not even coercion may be used, and also states that POW’s must be paid for their tenure in imprisonment.

You say I give Kerry no consideration, but I’ve given him consideration repeatedly. I’ve stated that he deserves honor for his medals and for his time served in Viet Nam. There is hearsay that his medals are undeserved, but I’ve seen no proof. Until there is solid proof, I’ll continue to give him credit for the medals.

Kerry certainly had the freedom of speech to say what he felt. But he can’t have it both ways. He said many inflammatory things that hurt and mischaracterized many people. And not all of his words were true. His words were used against POW’s who were being tortured. He can’t take back those words now and nuance his way out of them.

He chose his path. He chose his actions in Viet Nam. He then chose to decry those very same actions once he was safe. And that put others in even more danger. THAT, my friend, is where Kerry was wrong.

The implication of Kerry said is that their superiors made war criminals out of them, to make it, to paraphrase Apocalypse Now, to where one need wings in order to stay above the moral squalor. Simply, that it was impossible to fight the war the way the Johnson and Nixon ordered them to fight it, without being morally stained by it. He includes himself as one of those people. He never implied that every US soldier actively sought to contravene the laws of war on their own initiative, nor did he say that the character of the soldiers fighting the war was to blame for the commission of these putative war crimes. Additionally, he offers qualifying language, like “letter of the law” and “If you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles” to indicate that his fellow soldiers were being involuntariliy, in a legal sense, being made into war criminals. He further qualifies this by recalling they had to look the relevant regulations up himself to find that out. The implication is, the average grunt, enlisted or drafted, wouldn’t know that this was being done to them- they’d just follow orders.

In the end Joe, I don’t see how your metaphor plays out. If you believe in individual responsibility, then those responsible for the shame of the war crimes the average soldiers were asked to participate in, are those who ordered it. The shame falls on those who acted with dishonor, not those who simply told the truth about that dishonor. You may think that silence would have protected our soldiers, but you would be wrong. Our soldiers did not have the benefit of being stateside, protected from the retaliation of the local population for our mistreatment of them. By making this a war against civilians as much as soldiers, the policymakers put our soldiers in the crosshairs of the vengeance of the resulting discontent. It is they who the SwiftVets should blame, not Kerry, who simply told the truth.

You have got to stop seeing Vietnam or other wars in this “images is everything” way. What our soldiers do and are ordered to do has real consequences. When Colin Powell responded to Bush’s decision that he had decided to go to war, he told Bush that the Pottery Barn rules would apply here, that is “you break it, you’ve bought it”.

We break Iraq, Colin was warning, we’ll be responsible for running the whole country.

So, what do they do? They go in, having not prepared their soldiers to face the culture, having not prepared them to take on the tasks of reconstruction, having not given them enough manpower to truly take over the country, and not just a few cities here and there. We never prepared them for the contingency of a long guerrilla war. No matter what spin you put on it, it’s the conditions on the ground that matter most. If we can’t get that right, then trying to get favorable media treatment is just an exercize in propaganda. It will only perpetuate our problems, not resolve them.

He then chose to decry those very same actions once he was safe. And that put others in even more danger. THAT, my friend, is where Kerry was wrong.

C’mon, joe. That’s the same crappy muzzle that Bush is trying to use on critics of his Iraq occupation. It wasn’t wrong then, and it’s not wrong now.

Kerry decried free fire zones AFTER he came back, but used them while he was there. For Stephen’s benefit, when I talk about free fire zones, I talk about firing blindly into the bush to kill whomever is there, civilian or soldier. And that’s exactly what I’d have done to. But I wouldnt have come back home and blamed others for doing the same damn thing.

Sorry, Joe, but you’re not making sense. When you talk about free-fire zones, that definition might be what you mean but it’s not what Kerry meant and it is also not the real meaning of free-fire zones. Kerry is not blaming soldiers for firing blindly into the bushes when ambushed and unable to visually pinpoint their attackers, Kerry is talking about entire areas being declared civilian-free and everyone in those areas being purposefully shot at without even a cursory attempt to determine if they are noncombatants first and without the soldiers being under attack first. THAT is a free-fire zone in a military sense and in the sense that Kerry was referring to. You can’t change his meaning just because you mean the term in a different sense.

When presented with all the facts, more veterans than not do not respect Kerry because of what he did and said after the Vietnam war. His after- war antics trump his war service because it says a lot about a man that would turn on his comrades for political gain. I do not see his antics as the altruistic whistleblower that he is characterized as above. This man ran to every camera he could find in the early 70s, spouting things he either lied about or heard through heresay. Every “urban war legend” came to life in this man’s comments and the irrational left and the enemy fed off it to the detriment of the soldiers still in Vietnam.

Being in the military is not a prerequisite for being President, but I find the Democrats flip on the issue from 1992 interesting.

JBOD,

OK, it was inaccurate to say that you have not given him any consideration. You have been him credit for his time in Vietnam and his medals. (How considerate of you!)

It is more accurate to say that you are engaging in moral gerrymandering. No matter what facts came out, the line between right and wrong is going to miraculously wiggle so that John Kerry is on the side of wrong.

For example, you never go so far as to say that no one should criticize the conduct of a war, but you knock John Kerry because he was already safe. Would you feel better if he radioed in his testimony from a combat zone? Did you want him to call Congress saying, “A while ago I cut off the ears of a Vietnamese soldier, which I now realize was wrong. I am letting everyone know now, because once I am safely on American soil I will lose my moral authority to talk about it. Either that, or I would have to wait until the war is over and my story is a historical curiousity. Excuse me, flak coming in…”

Gerrymandering, my friend.

Stephen:

I’m not sure what “metaphor” of mine you are referring to. As far as I can see, I’ve directly quoted Kerry, not used metaphors. Kerry was not the average grunt either—he was a college educated trained officer, and if he wants to hold the decision makers responsible, then he should count himself as one of them. Certainly a lower level decision maker, yet still one who commanded his men.

Jarin:

You may be correct about Kerry’s use and meaning of the term “free fire zone”. I dont know what he meant by it for sure, as I’ve seen varying definitions of the term. But he certainly was very clear about the other atrocities that he discussed. He gave them credence, and made it possible for many in the States to view our honorable young men as animals. He did this because it furthered his cause. Without being able to cite atrocities, his argument lacked pizzazz. But with the atrocities, he smeared the good name of our soldiers.

Were there atrocities? Of course…and there are in every war. But to characterize them as a commonplace occurrence, as Oliver Stone did in “Born on the 4th of July”, was wrong.

AP:

Our difference is this. I believe it was wrong then, and is wrong today. You believe it was right then, and is right today. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Joe, do you not understand that the responsibility for damage done by John Kerry’s testimony about atrocities in Vietnam - about which nobody has presented evidence to prove him a liar - rests squarely on the shoulders of the Pentagon and the Johnson and Nixon Administrations?

If the Pentagon orders a free fire zone in a civilian area, and soldiers act on those orders, and John Kerry testifies that these actions took place, and then American soldiers are subsequently humiliated in POW camps and even back on the streets of the United States - how is this John Kerry’s fault???

Anything bad that happened to American soldiers because of John Kerry’s testimony is the Pentagon’s fault and the White House’s fault. Period. As far as I am concerned, John Kerry’s post war activism and testimony is entirely appropriate, even heroic. Your basic contention that sometimes the truth is better left unspoken sounds more like an apology for totalitarianism than it does like a voice of genuine concern for the troops.

Are you going to tell me that the whistleblowers at Abu Ghraib are responsible for the beheadings and tortures that have been sunsequently conducted as revenge for those events?

Remember the WatchBlog motto: Critique the Message, Not the Messenger!

-Cf

“about which nobody has presented evidence to prove him a liar”

Chris Farley… How do you prove someone a liar who is espousing views for which he has no proof of? No one ever said that Kerry was at fault for what the North Vietnamese did. However, reiterating my point above is useless.

Also… the period of time that the United States controlled the Abu Ghraib prison will go down in history as the Golden Age of that place considering what went on their before the war and what has inevitably gone on there since the Iraqis took over control of the goverment.

Chris:

You are welcome to your opinion that Kerry’s anti-war stance was appropriate or even heroic. My opinion is that with friends like Kerry, who needs enemies. Kerry went after everyone and anyone he could in order to further his cause—and the burden of proof is on him to prove his claims. What you see as heroic, I see as slanderous. So be it.

By the way, I have yet to see you comment about how Kerry can claim to be “presidential” in regard to intel and terror, when he missed 76% of the meetings on the intel committee. Perhaps I’ve missed your response to the question of whether you call for Kerry to release his attendance records….if so, my apologies. If not, perhaps an answer is in order.

Woody:

Cute phrase—moral gerrymandering. I suppose it could be equally applied to your stance, since Kerry apparently can do no wrong in your eyes. If the shoe fits…

I’m staying inside the lines on this one, however. Kerry is wrong to have incriminated soldiers without providing any proof. He made our brave soldiers seem like animals—-THAT WAS WRONG. No gerrymandering…no beating around the bush. It was just plain wrong.

Stephen,
Back to the vote for funding for equipment for troups at war;….

Kerry did vote to authorize the war…fact.

Kerry voted against the funding…fact.

Kerry wanted funding tied to raising taxes to pay for it…fact

That amendemndant was voted down…fact.

At that point Sen. Kerry could have made a legnthy speach on the senate floor and said why he was reluctantly voting FOR the funding for our troups. I could respect that point of view.

If you had a child that needed medical treatment, that you didn’t have the money to pay up front, would you deny the treatment for them ?
Or would you worry about the debt later and save your child ?

Spin that vote anyway you wish, But don’t try to sell that to a vet or a parent of a solider in the war.
( I’m not bashing you personally, just the excuse for Kerry’s vote on that )

JBOD says,

Kerry is wrong to have incriminated soldiers without providing any proof.

If that’s wrong, I’m sure you will join me in calling on SBVT to cease from saying anything about Kerry that they can’t prove. (Which leaves out basically everything but his testimony.)

Wait, my psychic powers are telling me that this seemingly firm moral principle you have laid out may actually have an exception, which just happens to apply to a certain Navy officer…

Woody:

Your sarcasm simply doesnt become you. It does a good job of obscuring your points though.

I’ve stated that I dont buy the medal flap precisely because there is no proof. Only when there is proof will I then retract my comments about Kerry having served honorably. So my quest for the truth remains fully intact.

But you are correct in one area. It would probably be an infringement on the freedom of speech to not allow opinions to be made. I would hope that opinions such as Kerry’s Winter Soldier comments would be held to a scrutiny of proof, just as the SVBT comments are.

There are additional comments by the SBVT that do raise questions about Kerry and his accuracy (see Cambodia). By asking questions, and coherently checking the answers, you can get an idea of whether someone is telling the truth. Has Kerry been telling the truth, and if so, why has his story on Cambodia suddenly changed. Apparently is no longer is “seared-SEARED” into his memory.

So, Woody, continue the effort to try to paint me as being hypocritical, or unfair, or whatever you will next try to do. But by reading what I write, you’ll note a level of consistency that perhaps you are envious of.

I appeal to you veterans to say that such a policy will only end in shame, and will only encourage our government, whoever is in charge, to be half-hearted and half-witted about how it deploys our troops. Ours is a military under civilian command, and although the admitted mission of the military is to defend democracy, not to practice it, that nonetheless means two things: American citizens can and must demand the best behavior and representation from our military, and those in charge must be held to account in the public forum for the things they do.

Goodness me, if we veterans were only intelligent enough to understand that Senator Kerry is the answer to America’s problems, then we’d be almost as bright as normal people. Thank you so much for clearing that up. Could you possibly be any more patronizing?

All this talk about what did or did not happen during Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry’s abbreviated stay in Southeast Asia is pretty much meaningless. He put on the uniform, did his job, and got out at the first opportunity. I respect him for whatever he did up to that point, just as I do all those who put on the uniform, regardless of where or in what capacity they serve.

My first recollection of Kerry was during his camera mugging days after he returned home. Peace marches were the “in” thing to do and Kerry, in my opinion, used that forum to advance his own career at the expense of those still serving. I didn’t care much for him then and nothing he’s done since then has changed my opinion.

It seems to me that folks who think Kerry was being courageous in his post-discharge period are pretty much the same people who thought Bill Clinton was courageous for bugging out to Europe. However, being a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard is a sign of cowardice. I must admit that the logic is at least fascinating.

As a veteran who spent 28 years in the Marines I wish to say one thing to Kerry. [Screw] You. You cannot beg for forgiveness when you gave comfort to our enemies and put our men in harms way.

Semper Fi!
Retired in Florida

[Bracketed text altered by WatchBlog Manager]

Aldaron (who, apparently not the best reader, called me “Chris Farley”)
> How do you prove someone a liar who is espousing
> views for which he has no proof of?

Do you seriously think that Kerry was factually wrong? Are you really that uninformed that you have not heard of the many well-documented stories of war crimes committed by American soldiers in Vietnam? Have you not heard of the courts-martial? The special investigations?

If you cannot prove he is a liar, you have no right to call him a liar. The specific allegations he made are all known to be true (for example that he and his fellow swiftees were sent into free-fire zones). The allegations that he attributed to other people were true insofar as he actually heard people say them. And, as it turns out, most of those allegations turned out to be true, too - Americans did torture Vietnamese prisoners, they did burn villages. This stuff did happen, and it should not have happened. Period.

Joe wrote:
> Kerry is wrong to have incriminated soldiers
> without providing any proof.

His job was not to provide proof. His job was to tell what he saw and what he heard so that the Congress, the press, and the American people would seek to find the proof. Which they did. The proof came out later, in great quantities, as you well know.

You still call it “slander”, but it’s not slander if it’s true. Kerry said nothing that wasn’t true. You have not presented any evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

> He made our brave soldiers seem like
> animals—-THAT WAS WRONG.

THE PENTAGON made our soldiers seem like animalS! THAT WAS WRONG! Are you seriously saying that My Lai never happened? That free-fire zones were okay, that they were used with caution and compassion? That we were winning the war?

All Kerry did was tell the truth about what he had seen and done, and about what other people had said they had seen and done. You have to remember that the American people were being lied to every day about the Vietnam war. Defeats were described as victories, massacres were hushed up, casualty numbers were doctored! Jeez, are you seriously defending the Pentagon here? Are you defending Nixon here?

Think of it this way: When the anti-terrorist forces enter a kidnappers’ den and the kidnapp-ee is killed in the process, whose fault is it? You would blame the rescuer. I blame the original criminal.

You didn’t deny it, so I can only assume that you honestly think that the people who blew the whistle at Abu Ghraib are traitors just like Kerry was. I really don’t understand your position on this.

It seems plainly obvious to me that if you are a soldier and you realize that you and your fellow soldiers are being dehumanized by your government’s policies and military strategies, do you really think that it’s patriotic to keep your mouth shut? Please please answer this in detail, I really want to know how it is that you can percieve things the way you do.

You keep changing the subject from having to defend your role as “apologist for government deception”, changing over to the topic of Kerry’s intelligence committee attendance. I’ll take a stab at it, but I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed in my answer, which is: Frankly, I don’t have anything to say - I’ll wait and see.

-Cf

> You cannot beg for forgiveness when you
> gave comfort to our enemies and put our
> men in harms way.

Retiredmarine, wasn’t it Johnson and Nixon who put our men in harm’s way? Wasn’t it McNamara and Westmoreland and Abrams who determined our sometimes tragic military strategies in Vietnam? Do you not hold the men in Washington responsible at all for what our troops went through?

-Cf

retiredmarine, and wasn’t it protester’s here at home, both of draft age and their friends, families, and professors including Kerry and his testimony that ultimately put the pressure on D.C. to stop the losses at 50+ thousand instead of letting that number rise to 75,000 or more?

The answer is YES! I was in the Army 72-75 and protested the war both prior to enlistment and after enlistment. I loved my country and I wanted the politicians to stop wasting my comrade’s lives in a civil war we were both unable and unwilling to conclude through victory. It took courage to protest given the arrests and hostilities that took place during those times. It took courage since anyone with a name who protested was likely to be surveilled by the FBI as a potential pinko sympathizer. Yes, it took courage to demand that our government end the senseless loss of life. Ho Chih Minh won. So, where is the Commie takeover of the world that we spent 50 + thousands of lives trying to stop.

The premise of that war, Communist expansion, was a false premise, and history has demonstrated that emphatically. The Vietnamese Communists were left to rule, and no expansion of Communism from within Viet Nam ever took place. It was a civil war, plain and simple, one neither the French nor the Americans should have spent so much blood trying to resolve. The outcome was not altered by our losses.

No, it is you who don’t know a joke when you see it. Chris Farley played a bumbling fool on tv all the time. Get it?

When you put a bunch of 19 years olds in a situation like Vietnam, bad things may happen. Its called WAR. WAR is bad. That’s why we don’t do it very often. However, getting in front of a camera after you leave a war zone and talking about things “you heard from some guy” or from some left-wing newspaper for your own political career is spineless and shameless. John Kerry was no honorable altruistic whistelblower as some like to make him out to be.

It seems as though those who disapprove of Kerry’s activism against the Vietnam War when returning home after fighting in that war are the same types who now claim that anyone who question the presidents motives for, authority to launch, mismanagement when planning, and wisdom of - the Iraq war are Americans who are somehow traitorously unpatriotic.

I doubt that these two differing views will ever be reconciled because both groups feel they are being patriotic in their respective stances.

Soldiers are trained never to question the authority of their superiors - even when their superiors are breaking established law (criminal killing or torture of civilians, free fire zones, etc.). It makes no difference to them whether those same superiors admit that the war was a catastrophic mistake years later (which they overwhelmingly have done regarding Vietnam) because during the fighting they were never supposed to question their authority.
Accordingly, Kerry is going to be viewed as a traitor even if he was _right_ to stand up to fight to end the war, and even though there is a mountain of evidence that atrocities were committed by American soldiers in Vietnam, long before his superiors would admit that these things did occur and that the war was wrong.
This is also why the whistleblowers of Abu Graib are now receiving death threats - because anything that makes the military look bad during a time of war, and anything that may call into question the morals of commanding officers is once again going to be perceived by this group as traitorous and unpatriotic.

On the opposite side of this argument are people (like myself) to which this attitude seems like utter madness. Didn’t we fight the American Revolution so we didn’t have to go along with anything that smacked of tyrants and tyranny? Therefore, doesn’t that freedom give us the _obligation_ to question, as well as protest against, the authority and the morals of our government and the military - if we think there is a need to do so? Being afraid to speak out will never be our idea of patriotism.

By the way…
Another of the None Too Swift Vets, Alfred French - the guy who said “I served with John Kerry. … He is lying about his record.” in one of the ads has admitted that he was relying on accounts of three other veterans when he made his statements and didn’t personally witness the events. These sailors sure are sinking fast…

Here is a link to the story:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040824_1014.html

Alderon, you have every right to your opinion, but, please, enlighten us with your evidence that Kerry’s testimony was motivated by anything other than stopping the losses occuring in Viet Nam at the time. Otherwise, we can only conclude that we either agree with your opinion or not; but, no one is going to be persuaded by it unsubstantiated.

What Kerry testified to, was nothing new. Back in 1969 protestor’s were listing and touting war crimes and abuses being reported by injured G.I.’s coming home and reporters coming back as eyewitnesses. In 1970 a brother of a school friend of mine came back and tearfully recounted rape and shooting at anything and anyone who moves, women and men.

You seem to want to portray Kerry is an anomoly without support and common knowledge as a basis for his fellow’s claims. That was not the case. The MyLai massacre was a huge issue back in the states, not because it happened, but, because no one above Calley’s rank was held responsible.

It was leadership that failed in Viet Nam. It was leadership which failed in Abu Ghraib and dozens of other prisons operated under U.S. auspices in Iraq and Afghanistan. Little has changed. Our soldier’s performance will be as good as the leadership and individual conscience will support. It is a shame that those leaders are capable of insulating themselves from their failures in leadership while their subordinates carry the full weight and responsibility for their actions.

It seems as though those who disapprove of Kerry’s activism against the Vietnam War when returning home after fighting in that war are the same types who now claim that anyone who question the presidents motives for, authority to launch, mismanagement when planning, and wisdom of - the Iraq war are Americans who are somehow traitorously unpatriotic.

I don’t think that anyone here has questioned Kerry’s or anyone else’s patriotism for attacking the President’s decisions. Kerry’s motivation for doing so is obvious — he wants the man’s job. Can’t fault him for trying.

Soldiers are trained never to question the authority of their superiors - even when their superiors are breaking established law (criminal killing or torture of civilians, free fire zones, etc.).

You are correct in saying that the authority of superiors isn’t to be questioned. You couldn’t be more wrong when you say that includes the commission of criminal activity, simply because they were told to do so — if that is in fact the case.

Each of us in this country, whether military or civilian, is in fact responsible for his own actions. Putting on a uniform doesn’t change anything. The trial of Lieutenant William Calley for My Lai is an example of that fundamental fact, as are the ongoing trials resulting from incidents at Abu Graib.

None of these people were mindless automatons programmed to do whatever they were told. In the end, violating the law was what they chose to do. Despite a growing tendency in today’s society to make everyone a victim of someone else, that’s the reality.

Chris:

Once again, you come at me with your tiny fisted anger. And so many of your comments simply dont make sense or are patently false. Allow me to respond:

Of course, My Lai happened, but what Kerry did was make it appear that My Lai was the norm and not the aberration. I believe his intent was to make it seem that our soldiers were doing such horrifying things that people would be shocked. This may have been an attempt to cast blame on the “higher ups” but ultimately, Kerry also cast blame on his fellow soldiers.

Kerry used hearsay to make his claims. To date, he has offered no proof of any of his claims. We know bad things happen in war, but if one goes in front of Congress to talk about it, they ought to have factual information, not hearsay.

I have talked many times, even with you, about Abu Ghraib. I love your logic though. In the absence of my comment, you make a wild assumption of what I might think. Really good tactic there.

I’ve said that those involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses should be held accountable for their actions. The ONLY problem I have with those who blew the whistle was the public format they seem to have chosen. Given that the information was inflammatory and puts our soldiers in more danger, I’d have thought it better to have been done in the chain of command privately. Only after this was tried, should it have been made public as a last resort.

Lastly, I have not changed subjects at all, and you, my friend, know this. I’ve said continually that it is far more important to look at Kerry’s POST Viet Nam record as Senator than to look at his 4 months in country. Let’s agree that he served and won medals. Lots of people did the same, yet they are not qualified for the Presidency. Neither does that qualify Kerry for the Presidency, no matter how many times he mentions that he won THREE PURPLE HEARTS.

Ive repeatedly said that his Senate career is the most salient information we have with which to judge him. And its great to see you take a swing and a miss when given the chance to comment on this.

You first tried to suggest that Kerry’s campaigning caused him to miss 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings. When I showed you that the meetings were over an 8 year period ending in 2001, you recanted that suggestion.

Chris, you’ve been on the forefront of saying that this Viet Nam brouhaha is unimportant and takes the focus off the real stuff. So I give you a real issue from Kerry’s career and your only comment is “Frankly, I don’t have anything to say - I’ll wait and see.”

C’mon Chris, you can do better. Does missing 76% of the meetings on a topic related to the security of our country give Kerry the right stuff for the Presidency? Shouldnt he be willing to tell the public how many of the private meetings he went to? Dont you think its relevant to know what Kerry did in regard to our intelligence community, especially when we now know that it has been flawed?

And all you can come up with is “Frankly, I don’t have anything to say - I’ll wait and see.”

Classic…..simply classic.

Beagle-
Kerry voted against a certain kind of funding and certain kind of approach, but did vote for a bill to take care of the logistics of the war all the same. Because he provided an alternative bill that did the same thing, it cannot be said on the facts that he intended to deprive even one soldier of the supplies he or she needed. He also wanted the government to return to the “pay as you go” model of government instead of racking up debts which will ultimately cost taxpayers more money, because of the interest on the debt.

Now, on your point, I would gladly go into debt to fund a need medical procedure on my child. The operative word, of course, is needed.

There is an important reason why Bush did not try to sell the world and these United states on the concept of a war meant to free the Iraqi people. Simply put, it would be starting a war against another nation, for no other reason than we dislike their kind of government, or their leader. They used terrorists and WMDs, because these two factors would make Iraq our problem, would require us to act in our own defense, and therefore justify the war in terms of pre-emption.

Without those two things, the war is simply us imposing our political will on people outside of our sovereign borders. That is what Bush has been trying to get us to accept, in the absence of evidence for what he sent us to war for.

With all due respect Beagle, I think there are many soldiers and vets who find that discrepancy highly disturbing, and believe Bush was not honest with the public. My Grandfather, who was in the 82nd Airborne in WWII is one of them.

The real spin is from a president who didn’t ask congress for the allocation of money he trully need. Now, extending your metaphor, that means Bush either knowingly or incompetently didn’t ask for enough money to take care of his sick child. The fact that this war went 150 billion dollars overbudget probably indicates that he willingly lowballed the estimate, to give Congress less second thoughts in authorizing the war.

NOTOTH
My point was quite simply that our elected government and the appointees underneath them have a duty to step up to the responsibility of leading this nation’s armed forces properly. Because it’s under the control of politicians by the nature of the system, there is temptation to pay heed to political consequences before real world consequences, to try and second guess our military on political grounds. It is these policies that Kerry encountered, and which he protested, policies perpetuated in a way that acted like a cancer on the conflict in question. The signs of that cancer are evident in this war. Despite advice from experts all around, there is little visible evidence that the Bush Administration is acting to resolve these severe issues.

If Bush had diligently taken on his duties at home, it would be much easier for him to avoid the questions on his record. If he had not allowed things to get to the point where he was grounded, he could have avoided the questions. If he, in the end, had not missed so many days that he had to (admittedly) make up the days in whatever classes he attended, then it wouldn’t be an issue. Kerry was not merely in the military for the four months he was a Swiftboat officer. He enlisted in the Navy in 1966. As far as the evidence can tell us, his performance in those regards was exemplary. Even in the Swiftboats, its difficult to find documentary evidence that there was any question to how well he served. If you don’t like Kerry, fine, but you should watch the conclusions you come to, because those are the conclusions you’ll have to defend, and the less fact based they are, the more rhetorical those arguments will have to become.

retiredmarine-
I respect your service, but I believe it was our government who did that, not Kerry. Kerry only pointed out what was already common knowledge, what had already filtered into public understanding. In a way, Kerry really missed the real turn of Americans against the war. The war lost popularity long before then. What Kerry was protesting against was the continuation of our presence in the military conflict, once the consensus had become one of ending the war. To put it bluntly, your people were screwed over long before then, in part because of what your fellow soldiers were asked to do. Your government pitted our soldiers against the Vietnamese people, a fight nobody could win, and which gave comfort to the enemy by ensuring a steady stream of recruits, low moral support among the Vietnamese for the war, and moral confusion for those who were asked to do a supposedly clearcut job in fighting the vietcong.

Aldaron-
You’ve obviously been told a lot by people who have their agendas, as Kerry had his. What I would tell you is that many of Kerry’s opponents among the vets read a lot into his speeches and his actions that a close examination of his earlier and later career would discount. The fact that a five year POW like McCain would become his friend should tell you something about the real Kerry.

Also, don’t be insulting. I enjoy this site, and others too, because you don’t have the same sort of name-calling that unfortunately normally goes on. You have debate and discussion, and often surprising points of view from people. That what drew me here, after years of writing in places that were not so friendly. I will starting deleting things(and on rare occasions people) if they get too offensive, so keep it clean, please.

> Chris Farley played a bumbling fool on tv
> all the time. Get it?

Oh, I see. You were just making a cheap childish personal insult. You’re cool!

> When you put a bunch of 19 years olds in a
> situation like Vietnam, bad things may happen.
> Its called WAR.

Things happened in Vietnam that should not have happened, but they did anyway because the military strategy was terrible and nobody was doing anything about it. Free fire zones? That’s not a normal war technique, at least not for American soldiers - in fact, it’s a sign that a military strategy is going very badly.

-Cf

jbod said “Given that the information was inflammatory and puts our soldiers in more danger, I’d have thought it better to have been done in the chain of command privately. Only after this was tried, should it have been made public as a last resort.”

The chain of command was addressed, by both soldiers and the Inter’l Red Cross. The abuses continued. Also, chain of command provides an open door policy that leads nowhere up the chain of command, usually, when complaints are expressed, especially the kind of complaints that could present PR problems. Such complaints go up a couple of links and stop, and orders come back down to insure that the complaint goes no further.

I am not saying that is exactly what happened in this instance, I cannot know. But, that is how the chain of command worked when I was in the Army, and I see little reason for it to have changed. Perhaps someone with more recent duty could chime in on how far up a complaint about treatment of prisoner’s of war would have gone in today’s military in a combat zone.

BTW, where was all the protest and rage by those on the right and in the military when Apocolypse Now, Platoon, Casualites of War, Full Metal Jacket, and other such movies made 100’s of millions of dollars depicting horrible acts by American soldiers? Guess there wasn’t a Presidential election hinging on the veracity of those movies at the time.

> And all you can come up with is “Frankly, I don’t
> have anything to say - I’ll wait and see.”

I’m just being honest, Joe. I don’t know enough about it so I ain’t gonna talk about it. It’s better than not answering your question or defending an obvious flaw with my candidate, don’t you think?

-Cf

Stephen,
With all due respect,….

Never try to sell that to a vet in a saloon, or anywhere, that a vet could get close to you.

Respectfully, beagle

Stephen,
Please don’t take my last post as some kind of cyber threat, I have little respect for the “text monkeys” that do that.

We dissagree on the issue, I’ll leave it at that.

Stephen…. don’t be condescending to me. It was the early 90s (at least) before you were even possibly capable of understanding this world. No one tells me what to think. I form my own opinions using history as perspective.

Also, I will respond to anyone directing comments at me any way I like.

NOTOTH:
“I don’t think that anyone here has questioned Kerry’s or anyone else’s patriotism for attacking the President’s decisions.”

I never said that. I said that people here seem to be questioning his patriotism for coming home from his tour of duty and being an activist against the war in Vietnam.
As far as Kerry attacking the presidents decisions regarding Iraq, it is glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain in their head that the WMD evidence was flimsy, that it was poorly planned, that too few troops were sent and that it has been fiscally disastrous to this country when concurring with massive tax cuts.

“Kerry’s motivation for doing so is obvious — he wants the man’s job. Can’t fault him for trying.”

I see a correlation between Kerry standing up to protest against the war back in the seventies and the fact that he has criticized the administrations handling of the war now. The thing both have in common is _conscience_.
Dubya, on the other hand had no conscience when it came to bumping someone else out of the way when joining the Air National Guard so that he didn’t have to put his life on the line during the Vietnam war, nor does he seem to have a conscience about sending our soldiers off to fight and die or be maimed in a guerrilla war - this is especially true now that we all know that there aren’t any WMD’s.

“You are correct in saying that the authority of superiors isn’t to be questioned. You couldn’t be more wrong when you say that includes the commission of criminal activity, simply because they were told to do so — if that is in fact the case.”

In Vietnam, that criminal activity was taking place was in fact the case. This is true of Abu Graib and Guantanamo as well.
When a soldier is fighting in a foreign country they cannot blow the whistle on their fellow soldiers or commanding officers while someone is trying to blow their head off. He or she will follow orders in the field - just like the military has trained them to, and perhaps later address the criminal activity when returning home. Often though, if they intend to remain in the military, they will do nothing as it might hurt their career.

“Putting on a uniform doesn’t change anything.”

It changes everything according to the people I know who have served in the military. Putting on the uniform means a person must learn to deny every instinct of self-preservation and engage in battles at the command of their superiors, possibly losing life or limbs in the process. Though this is not expected of a soldier until the military has had the chance to break them down and mold their mind into a state where they know how to just shut up and simply follow orders.

“In the end, violating the law was what they chose to do.”

Or what they were ordered to do.

“Despite a growing tendency in today’s society to make everyone a victim of someone else, that’s the reality.”

Talk to the prisoners of Abu Graib and Guantanamo about being the victims of someone else, that’s also a harsh reality. One that was covered up by the Military until a brave whistleblower with a conscience stepped forward.

“Talk to the prisoners of Abu Graib and Guantanamo about being the victims of someone else, that’s also a harsh reality. One that was covered up by the Military until a brave whistleblower with a conscience stepped forward.”

Classic liberal view of the world. All of these guys in these prisons are choir boys, victimized by the evil empire…. the United States.

“Classic liberal view of the world. All of these guys in these prisons are choir boys, victimized by the evil empire…. the United States.”

I’m not going to stoop in order to answer this.

Instead, I’ll repeat a part of a brilliant reply that David posted earlier today:
“It was leadership that failed in Viet Nam. It was leadership which failed in Abu Ghraib and dozens of other prisons operated under U.S. auspices in Iraq and Afghanistan. Little has changed. Our soldier’s performance will be as good as the leadership and individual conscience will support. It is a shame that those leaders are capable of insulating themselves from their failures in leadership while their subordinates carry the full weight and responsibility for their actions.”

This is not only eloquent, but very true in my opinion.

During the last portion of the “Wizard Of Oz” Dorothy and her companions are exorted to “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” who, of course, is the true Wizard Of Oz. It seems that Mr. Stephen Daugherty, in the guise of the Scarecrow, now bids us do the same.
When the Democratic candidate had no military record on which to run (Clinton) military experience was, gee whiz…not all THAT important, afterall ! How many Democrats did you observe emphasizing the fact that Clinton weaseled his way out of the draft and finally came clean when he stated that he “detested the military” (A new record for him, one in a row !). At about the same time Kerry was busy stabbing his crewmates in the back, live on national T.V.. Speaking of stabbing people in the back, apparently Kerry’s camp has (with a rare shameful blush) ceased denying that he was present at a meeting where the assassination of elected officials was discussed. Elected officials probably never had anything to worry about though, Kerry may simply have changed his mind (color me surprised) !
With Sen. Kerry the Democrats decided to push a candidate on the basis of electability fearing that their base of support actually favored Gov. Dean. Okay, you got what you wanted NOW you don’t seem to want what you got ! Kerry is certainly NOT the first candidate, Republican or Democrat, with feet of clay…he is simply the latest. He is not the only candidate to have, grossly, exaggerated his military record, he is simply the latest. He is not the most indecisive candidate on the American scene (Thank God for Dennis Kucinich!) he is simply the last empty suit (If you’ll pardon the “Scarecrow” imagery.) that the Democrats have to offer.
It takes NO talent, originality, courage or even wit to paint a generation of Veterans as monsters and maniacs who act in a manner, “reminiscent of Genghis Khan”. It only takes gall…and a compliant news media that requests that we “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.

Beagle, I will not form my opinions based on the odd chance that I may run into a Veteran with a closed mind and poor impulse control. I will form my opinions based on the hard realities of this world. As for the reminders to keep the tone civil, I wasn’t trying to condescend, but rather give a friendly warning in lieu of more drastic action.

I will accept abject disagreement, I will accept a repudiation of everything I believe in, I simply won’t accept anybody resorting to name-calling others who post comments. I simply won’t accept my part of the site becoming a den of trollery, and I will delete messages and ban users to keep it that way. But right now, we are far away from any such drastic action, and I know I can rely on you to take to heart the motto of this site: critique the message, not the messenger.

Besides, the message is so much more fun to take apart. All you get with these flame wars is two separate sides using the latest trollspeak to smear the other side, and it never rises above that level of sophistication.

Here you have no-holds barred duels of facts against facts, analysis against analysis, and minds against minds. If you want to make it personal with people, there are other sites where you’ll be more comfortable.

Alderon-
I am twenty four years old, a Baylor graduate, and an avid reader. I know how to track down a news or research source and I love to do it. How you form your opinions is your business, but what kind of language and behavior you attach to our site is the business of the editors on this Blog, myself included.

If somebody’s insulted you personally, point it out, and I’ll mark out the offensive comment. The arguments here should remain political, and not get into the ugly realm of the personal.

Samaritan-
I’ll take it as a complement. Scarecrow was the one given brains, I recall. Let me ask you a question, befitting my new status as the big, stuffed head- If military service was all that important before 9/11, why did your party pick Bush over McCain? Obviously, McCain had a superior Military record. Why don’t you just concede that before 9/11, domestic affairs took precedence in the political world over foreign affairs, and avoid the huge hassle over why your party or mine were not all that interested in military service before our peace was shattered that clear September morning? That’s why Clinton was elected and re-elected, and that’s why Bush had his work cut out for him trying to defeat Gore.

As for the meeting in question, does it at all matter to you that Kerry’s response to that radical, illegal suggestion was to sever ties with the group? If you think guilt by association works, fine, I prefer people be held responsible for their choices. Kerry chose to wash his hands of that kind of radicalism.

As for Kerry did, he simply told the truth, and I don’t know what history books you read that don’t confirm the free-fire zones, the burnt villages, and the other ghastly stories. This is what people did, unfortunately, even Kerry himself to some extent.

There are some inconsistencies in the way your people tell his story. Did he form a diabolical scheme to cheat medals out of the military and use an obscure regulation to get him stateside, or did his superiors become so sick of him that they used the regulation to get him sent home? When your only purpose is to tear somebody down, the logically mutually exclusive explanations can somehow co-exist, as convenience dictates.

There are too many convenient explanations, a embarrassment of details concerning the cutdowns and takedowns that the SwiftVets use. It begs the question of why a man who pissed off the Nixon administration so royallly managed to sail through that period without this wealth of evil deeds coming to light. My sister described this as the spaghetti stick approach. Just throw it up their until it sticks.

My opinion? The SwiftVets are trying to rewrite history. They’re trying to rehabilitate a conflict even Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz thought was a big mistake. They’re trying to replay their own failed “Wizard of Oz” game, to convince people that there weren’t atrocities, we weren’t fighting a losing battle, and that politics wasn’t interfering with military policy.

In the end, you intentionally overlook Kerry’s pronounced sympathy for the average soldier as opposed to the leaders of the war. If you read the text of his testimony, it’s clear that he believes the soldiers are just following orders, not scheming to committ evil acts of their own initiative. It’s with the military planners and civilian leadership that he lays blame. I mean, if he intended to paint the average soldier as the immoral party, why did he ask them how they as a man to be the last person to die for a mistake? I mean hell, if he hated the military that damn much, why stick around? Why get himself embroiled in the controversy? In one interview, when he was still working as an assistant DA in Massachussetts, he testily responded to a reporter by saying that with his record, he could have been in Washington, if he had just kept silent.

You neglect entirely the price Kerry paid for being the whistleblower, the price you continue to try and make him pay. If Kerry had really wanted political victory at all costs, why endanger his standing with just the kind of group that would support him by taking such a controversial position. It’d be ten years, I think, before Kerry was elected to public office, despite the fact that he ran for congress almost concurrently with his Winter Soldier investigation. Where would be the benefit for a cold calculating politician there?

Chris:

> And all you can come up with is “Frankly, I don’t
> have anything to say - I’ll wait and see.”

I’m just being honest, Joe. I don’t know enough about it so I ain’t gonna talk about it. It’s better than not answering your question or defending an obvious flaw with my candidate, don’t you think?

-Cf

My frustration with this is that I provided you with information on the topic at FactCheck.org.
Additional information is easily found simply by googling on “Kerry Senate Intelligence Committee attendance”.

Here you are talking at length, and relatively knowledgably about what you call a non issue (the Viet Nam medals etc.) yet you dont have time to even form an opinion on a true issue.

Its really simple. Kerry missed 76% of the public meetings, but says there were a lot of private meetings. But, he wont release the attendance records of those meetings.

I’ve only asked your opinion…..should he release the attendance records (not any of the information discussed, though). And also what your opinion is of a candidate who seems to have not been present in what should have been formative debate on how to address the intelligence gathering capacity of our country.

This to me is a REAL issue, going to the heart of Kerry’s ability to lead. If he isnt even willing to go to meetings on a sensitive issue, what good is he? If he did go, then release the records.

Again, you’ve found the time to investigate the non issue quite a bit, and to write how you want to discuss real issues. But when presented with one, you claim ignorance about it, even after having been presented the evidence.

I have a hard time understanding your position. But perhaps you just want to continue discussing what you consider non issues. If so, no more complaints about it.

My trouble with those attendance numbers on Watchblog is that no primary source is listed. Where are these attendance records that I’m supposed to accept the assertion on? I’d be much more comfortable about taking the hit on this if it wasn’t merely a matter of GOP numbers, which have been sort of unreliable in the past. I.E., The Three hundred tax hikes Bush talked about, which actually include tax cuts the GOP researchers apparently became confused about, since they were less than the tax cuts the GOP wanted.

So, if you have a link to the records in question, I would like to see them by themselves. I went to the Bush site via the FactCheck link, but when I got to that site, there was a claim, but no information. So, just for the sake of keeping everything clear I’d like to see that record, and the record of other senators on that committee to provide context on the issue. If closed-session attendance tends to be higher across the board, And Kerry is no exception in poorly attending the public sessions, that changes things. As for the attendance records of the private meetings, I offer (perhaps a bit lamely) that there might be security concerns about getting a count on those records. But in any case, I’d like to see them myself. Just like I’d like to see the records involved with this case too, and not just have to take my political opponent’s word on that.

My trouble with those attendance numbers on Watchblog

Ahem. Factcheck. ;-)

One more question, Joe- What are his attendance numbers on the Foreign Affairs committee, pray tell? If The Intelligence committee (whose attendance I’ll concur was important) was his only committee, I’d that information, if true, would have greater weight with me. But if we’re looking at the overall picture, while we can fault Kerry on his poor Intelligence committee attendance (if private meeting attendance doesn’t change things), we must give him credit for attending the Foreign Affairs committee.

While we’re on that subject, I’d like to take your stand on Clinton’s military service and apply it here. If intelligence and foreign affairs were so important to Republicans, why did they choose a presidential candidate four years ago with so little experience in that? Of course you want to believe that foreign affairs and intelligence are important aspects of the candidate’s portfolio, but the answer to the question naturally is, the Republicans wanted to neutralize Gore’s Clintonian lead on Domestic Affairs, which means military service, intelligence experience or other related issues would not be as important criteria as they are now. Of course, now, in the wake of 9/11, multiple questions come about: how did this happen on Bush’s watch, and what has he done about it since? Due to the works of Michael Moore and Richard Clarke, a great deal of doubt has been raised on the issue.

True-blue Republicans will believe to the ends of the Earth that he’s the best Commander in Chief ever, but many others are legitimately doubtful due to the crumbling of our case for war, the escape of Bin Laden, and the intense violence that has marked our campaign in Iraq. He has alienated allies. He has done little to prevent nuclear proliferation in the surviving powers of “The Axis of Evil”, despite his full and fervent willingness to plunge us into war to take on the other one.

What am I saying here? Bush releases commercials like this to distract voters from his poor record, and his much greater inexperience. Kerry may not be the brightest shining star of the Senate intelligence committee, pending further evidence, but he certainly outshines Bush on those issues.

You guys wouldn’t have this problem if you chose more competent presidents.

Woops… I mistakenly posted the commment below first in the “Assymetrical Attack” thread. Please delete it from there because it makes no sense in that context.
>>>>>>>

Wait a few more years and the after-college reality of this world will hit you. Some never come out of the college fog. A prime example is in the several naive posts just above.
If anybody thinks that the United States is even remotely in danger of becoming the enemy we are fighting now, then you have lost all perspective in this world.

Also, if you want to know what I’m talking about regarding others, email me or go to my site and leave a response and I will show you their first strikes. I don’t give it a second thought though because it is just the internet, but don’t accuse me of attacking people directly on this board first.

Lastly, some of you have absolutely no sense of humor.

Adrienne:

There’s a huge difference between “being an activist against the war in Vietnam” and padding the truth while doing it. The first is honest debate but the second goes to character. Kerry has since admitted that some of his statements were “over the top.” Oh, really?

Funny, I don’t recall saying anything about the content of Kerry’s charges against Bush or his conduct of the Iraq war. Those are legitimate issues that should be, are are being, debated. I said simply that Kerry’s motivation for doing so is that he wants to be President. Apparently you think he has a much higher calling. Fair enough.

In Vietnam, that criminal activity was taking place was in fact the case. This is true of Abu Graib and Guantanamo as well.

True, and you should also include the bombings and killngs here at home conducted by anti-war “activists” in the seventies. While we’re at it, let’s not forget the crimes that occur every day in every city of the world. Criminals are criminals and most of us understand that they don’t represent the larger group.

Kerry used a very broad brush to paint several million people in uniform as torturers and murderers. There is nothing noble, courageous, or honorable in that.

Putting on the uniform means a person must learn to deny every instinct of self-preservation and engage in battles at the command of their superiors, possibly losing life or limbs in the process. Though this is not expected of a soldier until the military has had the chance to break them down and mold their mind into a state where they know how to just shut up and simply follow orders.

There is a big difference between being trained to overcome fear and being conditioned to commit a crime. I certainly encourage your “people I know who have served in the military” to come forward and give specific examples of crimes they committed under direct orders from their superiors. If they in fact committed those crimes then they and their superiors should be prosecuted. That is exactly what’s happening in the examples that you continue to present (Abu Graib, Guantanamo, etc.).

Talk to the prisoners of Abu Graib and Guantanamo about being the victims of someone else, that’s also a harsh reality. One that was covered up by the Military until a brave whistleblower with a conscience stepped forward.

I said that each of us is responsible for his own actions and that putting on a uniform doesn’t change that. Those are the facts. You turned that into a rant about victims of crimes for which prosecution against the alleged criminals is already underway.

Nototh:
“Funny, I don’t recall saying anything about the content of Kerry’s charges against Bush or his conduct of the Iraq war.”

Kerry has said plenty about Dubya’s handling of the war - but one needs to listen to his interviews and stump speeches to hear those opinions. Sadly, since the media in general only wants to talk about the None Too Swift Vets right now, lots of folks might have missed his thoughts on this, as well as his thoughts on the _real issues_ the country needs to focus on right now. But then, that’s been the whole point of the SBVFT ads, isn’t it? To keep us from talking about the real issues in this campaign?

“Criminals are criminals and most of us understand that they don’t represent the larger group.”

You must not be reading the papers right now. Here’s something you might want to read:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6068681

“Kerry used a very broad brush to paint several million people in uniform as torturers and murderers.”

Have you ever read a transcript of what he said to Senate Foreign Relations Committee so many years ago? I’ll bet you haven’t, though I’m sure you’ve watched the SBVFT ads a lot of times. If you are actually interested to know just how wrong you are, you may read young John Kerry’s words to the SFRC here:

www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp

I don’t suppose after reading it you will be struck, as I am, that we are in a very similar situation now with the Iraq war, but at least you’ll know exactly what he said, rather than the butchered version you see on the SBVFT ads.

“You turned that into a rant about victims of crimes”

Yeah, but I just couldn’t resist doing so when you said:
“Despite a growing tendency in today’s society to make everyone a victim of someone else,”

I read this just after I had finished reading an article about the commitee report where they claimed it was obvious that the problems of Abu Graib went much further up the chain of command than only “a few bad apples”.

Stephen:

While I dont know the actual records that FactCheck used, the excerpt below shows how they came up with the number. Its interesting to note that the Kerry campaign has not come up with anything to suggest that Kerry did in fact attend more meetings.

“the Kerry camp accused Bush of “fuzzy math and bad stats,” saying “They rely only on whether Sen… Kerry made statements in one of a small number of open hearings.” That’s not true. Records list senators and staff members as being present whether or not they spoke, and — to repeat — the 76 percent figure actually gives Kerry credit for attending one hearing for which there’s no evidence of his participation.”

Regarding Kerry’s attendance in the Foreign Affairs Committee: I dont know his attendance, but perhaps when he provides the records about the Intelligence Committee, he can provide these as well. VERRY good i