quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono How about Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr.? Admiral speaks out, disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound (Paraphrasing)

You mean this William L. Schacte Jr. who's account contradicts not the Navy Record, but the Smear Boaters themselves?:

quote:

Evidence contradicts claims by Novak’s highly touted witness In his August 27 column, syndicated columnist and CNN Crossfire co-host Robert Novak presented his interview with retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr. -- who claims to have been the commander on the December 2, 1968, mission for which the U.S. Navy awarded Senator John Kerry (D-MA) his first Purple Heart -- as decisive evidence supporting allegations by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Kerry did not deserve the award because his wound was self-inflicted and minor. Having landed what he called Schachte's "first on-the-record interview about the Swift Boat Vets dispute," Novak quoted Schachte claiming that he was on Kerry's crew for the mission and denying that the boat received hostile fire; the Swift Boat Vets' own website and the accounts of crewmen present on Kerry's boat that night contradict his claims. Kerry won his first Purple Heart for "[s]hrapnel in left arm above elbow," according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. Gunfire broke out after "Kerry's crew spotted some people running from a sampan, a flat-bottomed boat, to a nearby shoreline," according to an April 14 Boston Globe article. Schachte, however, told Novak that "Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 (grenade launcher)." He added, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart." Schachte also said, "There was no fire from the enemy." The account of the incident on Swift Boat Vets' own website contradicts Schachte's assertion, also in Novak's column, that Schachte was the commander on Kerry's boat. According to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's website (archived copy here): The action that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart occurred on December 2, 1968, during the month that he was undergoing training with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. While waiting to receive his own Swift boat command, Kerry volunteered for a nighttime patrol mission commanding a small, foam-filled "skimmer" craft with two enlisted men. The two enlisted men who joined Kerry on the December 2, 1968, mission, William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon, have both insisted (here and here) that no one apart from Kerry was with them on the boat that night. "There definitely was not a fourth," Runyon told The Boston Globe. The same Globe article also notes that both Zaladonis and Runyon believe that their skimmer received enemy fire, though they are not completely certain. Both also doubt the crew even carried an M-79 -- the weapon with which Schachte claims Kerry was injured -- on the boat that night: "I am reasonably sure we didn't have an M-79," Zaladonis said. "I didn't see one. I don't remember it." Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn't an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat? "I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn't shoot them," replies Runyon. In an August 20 New York Times article, Runyon expressed resentment at how Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had distorted his version of events after he -- mistakenly believing Swift Boat Vets was a pro-Kerry group -- sent the group a statement describing the skimmer incident. "Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta. 'It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire,' he said. 'He [the SBVT investigator] made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life.'" http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270009

Schacte is also not as "politically independent" as he would like for everyone to see him as:

quote:

Schachte has a history of political contributions heavily weighted to Republicans, including $1,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaigns in both 2000 and 2004. Since 1997, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Schachte has contributed $8,500 to federal candidates or national political organizations. All but $1,750 of those donations have gone to Republican candidates or to the Republican Party: 2004 $250 to Senator Charlie Condon (R-SC) $1,000 to President George W. Bush (R) 2003 $500 to Representative James W. Demint (R-SC) 2001 $1,250 to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) $250 to Representative Joel Hefley (R-CO) $250 to Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) $250 to Henry Brown (R-candidate in SC) 2000 $250 to Republican Party of South Carolina $750 to Henry Brown (R-candidate in SC) $500 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC) $1,000 to then-Governor George W. Bush (R) $250 to H.B. "Buck" Limehouse (R-candidate in SC) 1999 $500 to Senator John W. McCain (R-AZ), presidential candidate 1998 $250 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC) $1,000 to Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC) $1,000 Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) 1997 $250 to Representative John M. Spratt (D-SC) On August 27, writer and blogger Joshua Micah Marshall noted that Schachte is the new law partner of David A. Norcross at the law firm Blank Rome LLP. According to Blank Rome's website, Norcross "was recently appointed Chairman of the Republican National Convention's Committee on Arrangements for the 2004 Republican National Convention." http://mediamatters.org/items/200408270007

quote:

Also, I believe those "spot reports" have already been discounted as non-biased sources of information, as they were written for the most party by Kerry.

Without substantiation behind those claims, the Smear Boaters have nothing but speculation and innuendo to support such statements like that.

The Smear Boaters made the claim that the reports with the mystery initials "KJW" were derived from Kerry. They cited the reports that initiated Thurlow's medals as well as Lamberts during the incident where Kerry saved Rassmann's life. Aside of the obvious fact that Kerry's initials are "JFK", strangely those initials have appeared on other reports completely unrelated to Kerry in any way, shape, or form. Other discrepencies with the Smear Boater's claims on the reports can be found here under "Who Initialed Navy Report?":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug21.html

quote:

Kerry still has the ability to release the official doctor's records, but chooses not to do so.

And Bush has the ability to release copies of his Texas Guard records stored in Austin, TX, or the ability to release his actual records which were mysteriously moved from the archive center in Missouri to the Pentagon.

If you believe in full disclosure of records, I certainly hope you are not holding the double standard against your incumbent as well.

quote:

Furthermore... Plot thickens after checking records (Paraphrasing)

Which should be an issue entirely taken upon the Navy itself for awarding those medals and citation statements, NOT on Kerry.

Why the hell does Kerry have anything to do with how and why he was given awards? See, that's the funniest and most obvious thing about these Smear Boater charges - they really like to have you believe that Kerry somehow awarded himself these medals.

Even if I were to become a cynic of Kerry and his heroism, I cannot fault him for his awards which were GIVEN to him. What's worse, they attempt to claim and insinuate (without substantiation, mind you) that Kerry somehow rigged the system by getting decorated as fast as possible and leave the war as soon as possible. If I'm not mistaken, I think O'Neill goes as far as to say that this was Kerry's plan from the get go on his way to the Presidency!

These issues should be entirely placed upon the shoulders of those who awarded him, and nothing more. Attempting to put the blame on Kerry is terribly misguided. But attempting to insinuate that Kerry was collecting medals as fast as possible in order to "look" decorated as if this was his plan all along in a grand scheme to get into the White House is laughable if it weren't so tragic and dishonorable to the men and women who served in that unfortunate war.

I personally agree with McCain that these ads are dishonest and dishonorable. They really do a disservice to all who served by attempting to label war wounds and medals by category of severity. They have issues such as these, they should be talking directly to the military who awards them, not to those who were awarded.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Dammit Opus, why do you have to reign in my Monday morning fun??? Hehe yes how convenient that Schachte comes forward after all those who were present during the incident confirm John Kerry’s account of events. Anyway just to add slightly, not only do all Navy records ONLY confirm that William Zaladonis and John Runyon accompanied Kerry on that boat, not only do those confirmed as being there categorically deny a fourth person being there, but even Letson denies recalling his presence until he was let in on the gag:

quote:

The [Swift Boat group] also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade. But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. ''Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three,'' Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...DA10894DC404482

On CNN’s Capital Gang, Al Hunt specifically addressed Schacte’s claims:

quote:

HUNT (8/28/04): I talked to those two enlisted men today. I talked to Pat Runyon and Bill Zaladonis. They both were on that boat December 2, 1968. They say there is no way that [Schachte] could have been on that boat. And they describe in vivid detail that night... Moreover, Schachte has changed his story. A year ago, he talked to Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe, and he said that there was a firefight. He didn't say he was in the boat. He said Kerry was hit—quote, "hit”—though it wasn't very serious. Now he says there wasn't a firefight and it was a self-inflicted wound. Moreover, he went and he said that he—when he saw Kerry 20 years later in Washington, he was with a top aide of Fritz Hollings, Ashley Thrift. Ashley Thrift I talked to today and he said, No way. I wasn’t there. So I think that—I think the admiral is either mistaken or he's lying.

So … who’s next? Lambert? He’s a phony and a fraud if you would like for me to talk about it? O’neill? A joke with no first hand accounts whatsoever. Letson? Someone making claims through hearsay … can’t even corroborate fellow swift vet stories. Hoffman? Discredited by his own performance evaluations. Who else is there?

Contrast this with the general ease that republicans dismiss accounts from military officials who poke criticism at Bush:

1) Retired General William Turnipseed and his administrative officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, said they had no memory of Bush ever reporting. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," Turnipseed said. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

2) Albert Lloyd Jr., a retired colonel who was the Texas Air Guard's personnel director from 1969 to 1995, said he does not know whether Bush performed duty in Alabama. "If he did, his drill attendance should have been certified and sent to Ellington, and there would have been a record. We cannot find the records to show he fulfilled the requirements in Alabama," he said. Lloyd, who has studied the records extensively, said he is an admirer of the governor and believes "the governor honestly served his country and fulfilled his commitment."

3) In May 1973, his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force Base [Texas], Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

It seems that many republicans here have little problem dismissing their claims because there is a certain amount of uncertainty in their accounts, and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, if you’re going to be a skeptic with respect to partisan accusations that raise doubt, than at least be consistent with your skepticism. Otherwise the hypocrisy boils a little too close to the surface.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by torontotrance but then should McCain be a warhero in your mind? Yes it opens old wounds but 90% of the people fighting that war had no fucking clue why they were there or what they were going to suffer. That war did damage to the vietnam landscape, ruined villages, killed lots of people on both sides, pushed the anti vietnam war issue in the states. Frankly let Kerry go on about his service, he served his country and nearly got killed doing it, when lots of the people that he served with in vietnam came home in bodybags or did not come home at all. You can debate the merits of his medals all you want but Kerry had the balls to join the army and go over and fight for his country and lived to tell the story.

no question McCain should be a hero but lets put this in perspective.
in 1971, when Kerry was telling every news camera that would listen and more importantly before the United States Senate and cameras that the entire United States military is commiting attrocities and war crimes and raping and whatnot. John McCain and others were sitting in a POW cell in Hanoi. i would have been pissed and McCain surely was.

do you not think he did a diservice them and the thousands of other
soldiers that fought over there? there are a lot of soldiers that still do.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no question McCain should be a hero but lets put this in perspective. in 1971, when Kerry was telling every news camera that would listen and more importantly before the United States Senate and cameras that the entire United States military is commiting attrocities and war crimes and raping and whatnot. John McCain and others were sitting in a POW cell in Hanoi. i would have been pissed and McCain surely was. do you not think he did a diservice them and the thousands of other soldiers that fought over there? there are a lot of soldiers that still do.

And with all due respect to those soldiers and sailers who served their country but have a problem with Kerry's statements, I feel they are being a little misguided by what Kerry actually had said.

It's easy to take snippets from Kerry's speech and take them out of context. What Kerry spoke of in his 1971 testimony was NOT atrocities that he had personally witnessed, as the Smear Boat ads would like us to believe, but testimony from soldiers during an anti-war gathering in Detroit days earlier:

quote:

Though the ad makes it appear as if Kerry is recounting atrocities he witnessed, he was in fact reciting claims made by soldiers earlier that year during an anti-war gathering in Detroit. "They had personally raped, cut off heads, cut off ears," he told senators. Reflecting on those comments this year, Kerry said they were too harsh. "I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. ... The words were honest, but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in April. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9455173.htm

And if you take a look at his official blog, you can see the following (note the part from Gen. Tommy Franks):

quote:

* Gen Tommy Franks: Certain that activities described by Kerry did take place: “I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam...He was a young officer over there, and I'm not sure that -- that activities like that didn't take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure that they did. … I wouldn't say that the things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam. I think that things didn't go right in Vietnam.” [Hannity and Colmes, 8/3/2004] ... In 1971 Kerry Condemned America’s Political & Military Leadership—Not His Fellow Veterans Kerry’s Testimony Was an Indictment of America’s Political Leadership—Not Fellow Veterans. “We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.” – John Kerry [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 4/22/71] Kerry Believed Responsibility Did Not Lie With Veterans. Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, on Lieutenant Calley is what he did quite obviously was a horrible, horrible, horrible thing and I have no bone to pick with the fact that he was prosecuted. But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere. I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies with the men who encourage body counts. [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 4/22/71] Kerry Clearly Referred to the Political Leadership at the Time. JUDY WOODRUFF: “They are saying, in effect, you were accusing American troops of war crimes.” JOHN KERRY: “No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership. I said to the Senate, where is the leadership of our country? And it's the leaders who are responsible, not the soldiers. I never said that. I've always fought for the soldiers. In fact, not only did we oppose the war, but we proudly stood up and fought for the additions to the GI Bill so that vets would be able to use it. We fought for the V.A. Hospitals. I wrote the Agent Orange legislation with Tom Daschle. I helped with the post-Vietnam stress syndrome outreach centers. I'm proud of the record of fighting for soldiers and for veterans. And the fact is if we want to redebate the war on Vietnam in 2004, I'm ready for that. It was a mistake, and I'm proud of having stood up and shared with America my perceptions of what was happening.” [CNN, Inside Politics, 2/19/04] Kerry’s Testimony Was Well Received and Complimented by Senators of Both Parties: I believe they deserve to be heard and listened to by the Congress and by the officials in the executive branch and by the public generally. … I want also to congratulate Mr. Kerry, you, and your associates upon the restraint that you have shown, certainly in the hearing the other day when there were a great many of your people here. I think you conducted yourselves in a most commendable manner throughout this week. [Senator J. W. Fulbright (D-AR)] I think that this committee, and particularly Chairman Fulbright, deserve a huge debt of gratitude from you and everyone of your men who are here because when he conducted hearings some years ago when we were fighting in Vietnam. … Finally, in connection with Lieutenant Calley, which is a very emotional issue in this country, I was struck by your passing reference to that incident. Wouldn't you agree with me though that what he did in herding old men, women and children into a trench and then shooting them was a little bit beyond the perimeter of even what has been going on in this war and that that action should be discouraged. There are other actions not that extreme that have gone on and have been permitted. If we had not taken action or cognizance of it, it would have been even worse. It would have indicated we encouraged this kind of action. [Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI)] Mr. Kerry, thank you too for coming. You have made more than clear something that I think always has been true: that the war never had any justification in terms of Indochina itself. [Senator Clifford Case (R-NJ)] The moral and morale issues you have raised will have to be finally acted upon by the committee. I think it always fires us to a deeper sense of emergency and dedication when we hear from a young man like yourself in what we know to be the reflection of the attitude of so many others who have served in a way which the American people so clearly understand. [Senator Jacob Javitz (R-NY)] http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresp...516.html#002516

And if you or any veteran believes Kerry or the soldiers whom he was reporting from Detroit were lying about atrocities, well that is simply revisionist history:

quote:

Some atrocities by US forces have been documented beyond question. Kerry's 1971 testimony came less than one month after Army Lt. William Calley had been convicted in a highly publicized military trial of the murder of the murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai hamlet on March 16 1968, when upwards of 300 unarmed men, women and children were killed by the inexperienced soldiers of the Americal Division's Charley Company. And since Kerry testified, ample evidence of other atrocities has come to light: Son Thang: In 1998, for example, Marine Corps veteran Gary D. Solis published the book Son Thang: An American War Crime describing the court-martial of four US Marines for the apparently unprovoked killing 16 women and children on the night of February 19, 1970 in a hamlet about 20 miles south of Danang. The four Marines testified that they were under orders by their patrol leader to shoot the villagers. A young Oliver North appeared as a character witness and helped acquit the leader of all charges, but three were convicted. Tiger Force: The Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize this year for a series published in October, 2003 reporting that atrocities were committed by an elite US Army "Tiger Force" unit that the Blade said killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage in 1967. "Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings," the Blade reported. "Investigators concluded that 18 soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. But no one was charged." "Hundreds" of others: In December 2003 The New York Times quoted Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University who has been studying government archives, as saying the records are filled with accounts of atrocities similar to those described by the Toledo Blade series. "I stumbled across the incidents The Blade reported," Turse was quoted as saying. "I read through that case a year, year and a half ago, and it really didn't stand out. There was nothing that made it stand out from anything else. That's the scary thing. It was just one of hundreds." "Exact Same Stories": Keith Nolan, author of 10 published books on Vietnam, says he's heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Nolan told FactCheck.org that since 1978 he's interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. "I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over," he said. "Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn't really surprise anyone." http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244

I too would love to believe that there were no atrocities committed, and that each and every American soldier and sailer were merely innocent of such charges.

Clearly and unfortunately, this is not the case. Whether or not they were merely following orders from their superiors, atrocities had, in fact, been committed.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

look, i'm not defending the historical record of atrocities committed during the war. the fact remains that vterans were pissed off and wounded way before the Democratic convention and way before the nominee apparent presented his case for a Vietnam war hero president.

furthermore, nothing "out of context" of Kerry's Senate testimony dishonored Vets still fighting and being tortured including McCain, the testimony itself did. O'niel proved that thirty years ago.

so to argue your red herrings on whether or not this swiftboat thing is contrived or staged, to me and the anti-kerry "the Vietnam warhero" vets is bullshit.

If Kerry wants to be president, there are going to be some Vietnam vets who feel they have been dishonored by him that have something to say about it. thats another fact you can throw a red herring at

Last edited by Q5echo on Aug-30-2004 at 19:42

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo look, i'm not defending the historical record of atrocities committed during the war. the fact remains that vterans were pissed off and wounded way before the Democratic convention and way before the nominee apparent presented his case for a Vietnam war hero president.

That fact may certainly remain, as is their misguidedness toward Kerry being the culprit of their anger.

Many veterans, including Gen. Tommy Franks, agrees with Kerry. Even more tend to view Kerry's testimony as a means of saving American lives. Hell, even Nixon and Kissinger was talking about getting the hell outa Dodge around that time:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plain...59025258540.xml

So to have all that anger towards Kerry's anti-war remarks is terribly misguided. Our government knew it was a damn mess, but stalled and quibbled on the best method of pulling out. Their anger should be stemmed more at our government instead of Kerry.

quote:

furthermore, nothing "out of context" of Kerry's Senate testimony dishonored Vets still fighting and being tortured including McCain, the testimony itself did. O'niel proved that thirty years ago.

That really is a matter of opinion. From what I saw in O'Neill and Kerry's debate was a different story. Looked more to me like O'Neill was whining and denying all charges from Kerry himself, even though atrocities like the My Lai massacre were well known by that time.

If anything, O'Neill merely proved how much of a Nixon/conservative bitch he really was. But again, the Smear Boaters did a splendid job taking things out of context in their ads, which is more or less what I am specifically referring to here:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244

quote:

so to argue your red herrings on whether or not this swiftboat thing is contrived or staged, to me and the anti-kerry "the Vietnam warhero" vets is bullshit.

Because some vets may have a misguided sense of hatred towards the wrong person, which I feel I have demonstrated, I somehow have created a Red Herring?

It is irrelevant what "others" feel without plausibly demonstrating exactly why they feel that way. You are demonstrating the logical fallacy of argument from population here. If they have some real substance behind their anger towards Kerry's statements outside of what I've already stated, present it now.

Otherwise, your appeal to how others feel without demonstrating exactly the substance behind their feelings is a rather empty argument on your part.

quote:

If Kerry wants to be president, there are going to be some Vietnam vets who feel they have been dishonored by him that have something to say about it.

Just out of curiousity, do you think those same veterans have something to say about Bush's preferential treatment into the National Guard (http://www.austin4kerry.org/Barnes/index.htm), scoring in the 25th percentile on his entrance exams but somehow jumped ahead of others (whom a number eventually fought and died in Vietnam in his place), specifically requested NOT to be transferred to Hanoi, has a 3-5 month hole of accountability in his Guard service, and refuses to allow the AP Press to examine copies of his Guard records in Austin? I certainly hope they also don't hold the same double standard.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 That fact may certainly remain, as is their misguidedness toward Kerry being the culprit of their anger. So to have all that anger towards Kerry's anti-war remarks is terribly misguided. Our government knew it was a damn mess, but stalled and quibbled on the best method of pulling out. Their anger should be stemmed more at our government instead of Kerry.

so what your saying basically is that vietnam veterans that oppose kerry are all misguided. right? that for thirty years they've been under the wrong impression of him? having fought and suffered and watching their friends fight and suffer as Kerry kerry dishonors their bretheren missing in action including McCain before the Senate and the world, supporting Communist Vietnam aggression by proxy, they misunderstood right?

thats more than ballsy. thats pretty offencive. coming from me, thats saying a lot.

quote:

That really is a matter of opinion. From what I saw in O'Neill and Kerry's debate was a different story. Looked more to me like O'Neill was whining and denying all charges from Kerry himself, even though atrocities like the My Lai massacre were well known by that time.

again, this proves that the debate started long before anyone had anything to prove about running for office. or maybe Kerry's ambition was was just then coming to fruittion? thats an opinion.

quote:

Because some vets may have a misguided sense of hatred towards the wrong person, which I feel I have demonstrated, I somehow have created a Red Herring?

you've demonstrated your knack for marginalizing Vietnams veterans right to oppose who they see as unfit to lead as commander in chief. someone who has described himself on a platform in a way they see as dishonest. something your completly entitled to do but i must say it really comes off as arrogant to think that they have been misguided all these years.

quote:

It is irrelevant what "others" feel without plausibly demonstrating exactly why they feel that way. You are demonstrating the logical fallacy of argument from population here. If they have some real substance behind their anger towards Kerry's statements outside of what I've already stated, present it now. Otherwise, your appeal to how others feel without demonstrating exactly the substance behind their feelings is a rather empty argument on your part.

c'mon dude, do you really want me to call out your hypocracy in this statement? why are we even talking about this then? why are there people on both sides arguing this issue? the fact that people all over the United States debating this on prime time airwaves demonstrates my obligation not to present shit to you. the vets are real. their opposition is real.

quote:

Just out of curiousity, do you think those same veterans have something to say about Bush's preferential treatment into the National Guard (http://www.austin4kerry.org/Barnes/index.htm), scoring in the 25th percentile on his entrance exams but somehow jumped ahead of others (whom a number eventually fought and died in Vietnam in his place), specifically requested NOT to be transferred to Hanoi, has a 3-5 month hole of accountability in his Guard service, and refuses to allow the AP Press to examine copies of his Guard records in Austin? I certainly hope they also don't hold the same double standard.

you can be curious all you want. i'm still waiting for this to become a real issue . until then you can throw that red herring in the livewell.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag oh please can you think of a democratic frontrunner that hasn't been called a flip-flopper by the republicans in recent history? it's their favorite insult. well that and "liberal"

well, they ARE both correct.

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so what your saying basically is that vietnam veterans that oppose kerry are all misguided. right?

If those veterans believe that Kerry was out to dishonor them, rather than point directly to the government for the atrocities being committed, that is precisely what I am saying.

quote:

that for thirty years they've been under the wrong impression of him? having fought and suffered and watching their friends fight and suffer as Kerry kerry dishonors their bretheren missing in action including McCain before the Senate and the world, supporting Communist Vietnam aggression by proxy, they misunderstood right?

You really should be careful utilizing McCain in your argument here. True, McCain has stated that what Kerry has said in his testimony is subject for debate, but don't think that McCain was entirely against Kerry and the rest of the anti-war vets. If that were the case, I sincerely doubt McCain would view Kerry as one of his closest friends (his words, not mine).

Regardless, I specifically debate the point of Kerry "dishonoring" his bretheren in his testimony. Indeed, the case can be made (which I am making, BTW) that testimonies like Kerry's pointed towards the direct negative aspects of our failed policy in that war, which was expressed in all political circles at that time (note my remarks on Nixon/Kissinger earlier). Therefore, the case can be made that testimonies like Kerry's, whom reported of atrocities being committed from other veterans in a meeting in Detroit, assisted a more quicker withdrawal from Vietnam, and thus saved more veterans' lives.

And you haven't made a very convincing argument that Kerry's actions supported a Communist Vietnam aggression. If our policy was a failed one (which according to Nixon and other hardline conservatives, it certainly was), I can not see how Kerry coming out and calling a spade a spade is supporting the enemy by any means. Rather, he is directly pointing to our policy as a failed one, and it was putting way too many lives at steak.

Our stance in that war was a half-ass one at best. Be sure to put the blame on that aspect where it belongs - squarely on the shoulders of our government (Johnson if you want to be specific). If we had an all-out offense on N. Vietnam, much like the way we had against the N. Koreans in the Korean War, the end result would likely be very different, and we would likely not have individuals like Kerry giving testimony about the consequences of our failed policy.

But that was not the case. To be blunt, our Vietnam policy sucked, and we were incredibly reluctant to be fully committed. To put the blame on Kerry and to state that he supported the Communists by proxy by calling out our government for their shortsightedness is, well, a bit shortsighted.

quote:

thats more than ballsy. thats pretty offencive. coming from me, thats saying a lot.

My statements are not just my own. Here's a bit of anectodal evidence for you - they come from my father, a devout conservative. He served his tour in Vietnam in the 101st Airborne Division, where he started in the infantry unit for 2 months before being pulled into the Band (he played trombone). Three months after he was pulled, men whom he was very close to participated in the Tiger Force massacre. His letters to my mother revealing some of the details that his buddies corresponded to him are fairly disturbing, to say the least. He lost 3 of his close friends, and many more aquaintences in the war. He too, was spit on and discriminated against after the war.

But there's one thing he did tell me the other day when we started talking about this whole Smear Boat thing - Kerry was absolutely right in his testimony.

I think he should know. I think General Tommy Franks should know. I think many other Vietnam vets should know. For all those who disagree with Kerry's statements, I honestly can't speak for them, nor can I completely understand their rationale. You haven't really presented their rationale yet, however, so I really cannot comment further until you do.

quote:

again, this proves that the debate started long before anyone had anything to prove about running for office. or maybe Kerry's ambition was was just then coming to fruittion? thats an opinion.

I respect your opinion, and I wish I could respect O'Neill's, but it's outlandish for him to comment on such ambitions on Kerry without substantive evidence to support such comments. But then again, that is entirely what this group is all about.

quote:

you've demonstrated your knack for marginalizing Vietnams veterans right to oppose who they see as unfit to lead as commander in chief. someone who has described himself on a platform in a way they see as dishonest. something your completly entitled to do but i must say it really comes off as arrogant to think that they have been misguided all these years.

All hell, I've been called a lot worse.

But look, let me address this at another angle. Perhaps I don't understand specifically what some of these veterans have specifically towards Kerry. From what I've addressed thus far, I'm more or less refuting the 2nd Smear Boat commercial and it's implications on Kerry. I feel I've demonstrated (as factcheck.org has demonstrated) that this commercial is misleading and has a propensity to mislead the audience towards negative feelings to Kerry.

If this type of propaganda has a negative effect on a veteran towards Kerry, I stand by my comment that the veteran or anyone else for that matter is misguided, perhaps unwillingly, and I do so with supporting evidence.

If, however, there is more to the veteran's negative feelings toward Kerry that I haven't addressed, well then present that other evidence here and let's address it. I'm not saying that there isn't any, but we have yet to talk about it if there's more to the story.

quote:

c'mon dude, do you really want me to call out your hypocracy in this statement?

Umm, ok, sure.

quote:

why are we even talking about this then?

Well I thought we were having a little chat on this issue, weren't we? This is the debate forum, right? This is where you or I present an argument, and we attempt to debate that argument with supporting evidence and logic, right?

quote:

Why aree there people on both sides arguing this issue?

I really wish you'd stop drawing from other people. Are you going to discuss this issue with me or not? Since you are siding with the vets against Kerry, are you going to present their reasoning or not?

quote:

the fact that people all over the United States debating this on prime time airwaves

The fact that people are all over the airwaves debating this merely shows the media has a hard-on for sensationalistic bullshit like this which has little to do with real, present day issues that have a real, present day impact on you and me.

You remember that case about all those shark-attacks some years ago, right? You knew that that particular year, there were actually LESS shark attacks than the previous years, right? You wouldn't have known it given all the damn sensationalism.

Christ, it's the election year, and all bets are off when it comes to the media and the coverage of issues. They want the hot fucking story, regardless of whether or not it's a real issue that has an effect on your neighbor losing his job. It's a sad reality, but the almighty dollar and high ratings supercedes all.

**falls off soapbox**

quote:

demonstrates my obligation not to present shit to you.

Well that certainly won't win you any brownie points for your side of the debate here. You really need to understand and present your argument a little better, esp. when you seemingly feel so passionate about it.

quote:

the vets are real. their opposition is real.

Well I certainly don't doubt their opposition, but I question their motives, based on what you've argued so far. If there's more here than what we've already discussed, then let's discuss it and go from there.

quote:

you can be curious all you want. i'm still waiting for this to become a real issue . until then you can throw that red herring in the livewell.

Hypocrite.

You seem so easy to dismiss the charges against Bush, whom was so "supportive" of the Vietnam War but was too chickenshit to fight it, but somehow cling onto the idea that Kerry was wrong to not only support the war, enlist and fight for our cause, and then be able to have enough first-hand and second-hand evidence to call our failed policies for what they really were?

I call shenanigans.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so what your saying basically is that vietnam veterans that oppose kerry are all misguided. right? that for thirty years they've been under the wrong impression of him? having fought and suffered and watching their friends fight and suffer as Kerry kerry dishonors their bretheren missing in action including McCain before the Senate and the world, supporting Communist Vietnam aggression by proxy, they misunderstood right? thats more than ballsy. thats pretty offencive. coming from me, thats saying a lot.

I'm not sure what MisterOpus thinks, but I'll go out and say it. If Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry under the mistaken impression that he stated in his testimony to congress that everybody in the military was guilty of war crimes or committing atrocities than they are MISGUIDED. Don't try a fallacious appeal to authority by insinuating that Vietnam vets would know any better than us and that their motivations for being against or for Kerry are completely absent of any partisan influence or ideology. For starters, why don't you read Kerry's testimony yourself so you can actually understand what he said rather than have it presented to you in a nice, neat package that coincides with what you believe in? The passage in question is as follows:

quote:

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. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

Nowhere in his statement does he accuse the widespread military of committing atrocities. Therefore any veteran who thinks that Kerry accused them all of atrocities is, simply put, a person lacking in reading/listening comprehension. A brave person perhaps, but they still lack simple reading/listening comprehension.

quote:

you've demonstrated your knack for marginalizing Vietnams veterans right to oppose who they see as unfit to lead as commander in chief. someone who has described himself on a platform in a way they see as dishonest. something your completly entitled to do but i must say it really comes off as arrogant to think that they have been misguided all these years.

The swiftboat veterans deserve to be marginilized for the simple reason that they are LYING. They are attempting to provide false impressions of having first-hand accounts of Kerry's actions when they are in NO position to give such accounts. Trying to spread this out and insinuate that by discrediting these few vets one is discrediting all vietnam vets is sheer ludicrosity.

quote:

c'mon dude, do you really want me to call out your hypocracy in this statement? why are we even talking about this then? why are there people on both sides arguing this issue? the fact that people all over the United States debating this on prime time airwaves demonstrates my obligation not to present shit to you. the vets are real. their opposition is real.

Sigh their PARTISAN opposition is real, their FACTS are not.

___________________
Retro ...

so the Vietnam vets that oppose John Kerry are misguided (a polite way of saying naive or ignorant) because they couldn't appreciate the political nuance of his 1971 testimony regarding Nixon's failed strategy. (we're not even gonna mention his words and actions outside of that testimony that year. because if they couldn't appreciate the nuance of that, well to bad right?)

and occrider, i'm accusing YOU of taking his '71 testimony transcipt out of context, f**k it, you and opus. why, because the context in question has nothing to do with you or i or how you see it in hindsight, but the people who were there and some of those people are still pretty pissed off about being reminded of it. you may know a lot of things, but the Vietnam vets that take issue with John Kerry's abrupt tour of Vietnam and the actions he spearheaded afterwards have just a little more insight to complexities of having friends die and tortured at the hands of people that fed off of what John Kerry did and said.

they oppose John Kerry for president, not because they feel they need opinion about Kerry to be heard (mind you there's thousands of them) but because they wish...??? yeah, i have yet to hear an alterior motive other than they want Bush to remain in office. which is stating the obvious because, lets face it, who else is running against Bush?

the swift boat vets deserve to be marginalized huh? again? man thats pretty fucked up if you ask me. "the swiftboat vets deserve to be marginalized" why not? they were all "marginalized" the first time they came back from Vietnam. they "deserve to be marginalized because they all lie to gain a partisan upperhand" am i hearing that right? they don't wish to be heard on their merits as officers and enlisted brothers in arms. they lie on a national spotlight to humiliate one person for political purposes. jesus you people kill me.

quote:

Warner said his first experienced Kerry's anti-American rhetoric in 1971 when he was a Marine first lieutenant suffering in solitary confinement in the Skid Row punishment camp. His F-4 fighter had been shot down three and a half years earlier, and since that time he had been tortured and interrogated regularly. He was in a special punishment camp at the time with 35 other POWs who had been uncooperative when their captors tried to prohibit religious observances in their cells. 1. One morning--Warner thinks it was a Saturday--his captors brought him out for an unusually long three-hour interrogation, during which they made him read the transcript of a statement by a U.S. Navy officer and Vietnam Veteran speaking in the United States. The speech included a litany of war crimes American soldiers were committing in Vietnam. However, Warner acknowledges that the statement could have come from of a number of speeches Kerry gave during his career as an anti-war protester. Tom Collins, another Vietnam POW whose plane was shot down in 1965, was made to listen to Kerry's testimony on tape during his captivity. He explained that the North Vietnamese were constantly trying to elicit confessions of war crimes from Americans, promising them better treatment. "What they wanted to do was get us to make statements that they could use for propaganda, no matter what it took to get it" he said. "They would torture us, some were even killed for it...For over seven years, their goal was to get propaganda out of me. And then I see somebody like John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans [Against the War] giving them the same propaganda they want me to give them, free of charge, on American television." "He knew he was putting us at risk," Warner went on. "And he was demanding unilateral withdrawal, which means our value as bargaining chips would be gone. And what do you think would have happened to us then?" "We can forgive and forget," said Collins. "But then when he decides to bring it up and run for the highest office in the land based upon outright lies, we're not going to stand for that."

quote:

Bring it on, John Oliver North August 27, 2004 "Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry Dear John, As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign. I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved. This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished." Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger. But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John. When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities. On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed." And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners." Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John: Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973. Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973. Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973. John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief. One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families." Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?