Latest swiftboatvets lie
 

The new commercials for swiftboat vets shows women stating that Kerry condemned all soldiers in Vietnam, etc., etc.

Here's what actually happened:

-----------------------
27 Year-Old Kerry Testified Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Kerry was asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the war in Vietnam. There, he made a passionate and eloquent case for ending the war, in which he said: “How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 4/22/71 ]

At That Point in the War, 45,000 Americans Had Died. At the time that Kerry testified before the committee, over 45,000 American soldiers had already died in the war. [Combat Area Casualties Current File (CACCF) in the Records of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, National Archives And Record Administration]

Another 12,000 American Soldiers Would Die Before Wars End. Between the time Kerry testified and the war's final resolution, another 12,000 American soldiers died. [Combat Area Casualties Current File (CACCF) in the Records of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, National Archives And Record Administration]

Kerry, Who Had Seen Friends Die in Vietnam, Was Fighting to End a War that Was Wrong. Kerry saw combat action in Vietnam, and had seen friends die in battle. Upon returning to the States, Kerry had the courage to stand up and fight against a war that was wrong, and take that case all the way to the United States Senate. As Kerry said in his testimony, “Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, ‘the first President to lose a war.' We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Kerry also fought to gain recognition for Vietnam Veterans in Congress.

Kerry not only criticized the absence of leadership in the war, he also criticized the administration's abandonment of those who fought saying, “This administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifice we made for this country. In their blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam . We do not need their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of limbs are witnesses enough for others and for ourselves.” KERRY GAVE POWERFUL TESTIMONY ON THE WAR, PRAISED FOR COURAGE

Kerry Stated That He Was Reporting on What Others Had Seen in Vietnam.
In his testimony, Kerry stated: “ 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.” [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 4/22/71]

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 .
“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]

Senators Praised Kerry for his Courage.
After his testimony, Kerry was praised by Senators of both parties on the Committee including Democratic Senators Pell and Fulbright and Republican Senators Case and Javits. [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 4/22/71]

------------------

Pretty impressive for a 27-year-old. Wonder what GWB was doing at the same time? Since the prez has said everything he did before age 43 was a 'youghful indiscretion' we really can't examine that.

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971

Hmm,

If he wasn't talking about these ladies husbands, then who WAS he talking about? I'm sure they enjoyed hearing Kerry's BS through the loudspeaker while imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton.

Something that's never addressed is WHY IN THE HELL you would publicly declare this crap(even if partially true) while our guys were over there? What good could possibly come from it? The ONLY possible motivation was to turn our public against their own troops, sweet ass what a pathetic excuse for a man!

opportunism for personal gain knows no bounds. Kerry was simply making a name for himself

Would you have called for stopping the war after the war was over? Maybe wait until the last MIA was found before condeming the war? If you were a true patriot in Nazi Germany and wanted to get rid of Hitler, would you have waited until after the war is over to do something about it? (no analogy intended).

Military leaders would say sacrificing a few lives to save many is good strategy. If we had ended the war earlier, despite having POWs, maybe those 12,000 boys would be alive today. If we hadn't gone to war, 50,000 would have contributed to our society in inumerable ways we'll never know. Thousands of kids and women would have fathers and husbands. And that's only on our side.

Is war nature's way to curb world population or man's penchant for domination?

Sherwood

It had nothing to do with stopping the war. You think he was trying to convince congress to end the war because our soldiers were mean? Your against the war, fine say so and follow your heart, but don't paint our own guys as the scurge of the earth in order to have our public turn against them.

if you are under any misconception whatsoever that Kerry's actions in any way would have shortened the war or saved any American lives, you are seriously deluding yourself. if anything, actions of people with the likes of Kerry and Hanoi Jane only lengthened the conflict as their support helped to make the North Vietnamese quite intransigent at the negotiating table

Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, in the National Review, February 26, 2004

Paul Galanti...after 7 years inprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton.

"Something that's never addressed is WHY IN THE HELL you would publicly declare this crap (even if partially true) while our guys were over there?"

So, when should we have brought up VN war atrocities? After the war was over? I guess the Nazi's would have casually mentioned Auswitz after the war too (if they had won).

Kerry testified in what, '71? We didn't exit until '73. Meanwhile, how many more cases would have occurred? His testimony may not have made a big difference, but I think it was just another stake in the heart of that unjust war. It was a gutsy move, especially by someone who was so boldly (according to some) seeking a political career. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

I don't understand the anger against those who wanted the VN war to stop. Instead, the anger should be directed toward the leaders who took us there and kept us there. I realize many soldiers feel betrayed by the lack of confidence, but the blame is misplaced, just like criticism of Iraq today has nothing to do with our soldiers but with the leaders who put them there.

Iraq: 2004. Was it not acceptable to mention Abu Garib either? Tell me we should have waited until we were outa there, and only then reveal what happened. Is this acceptable?

Depending on your point of view, that's either courageous or cowardice.

Sherwood

Wow!

. . .and so "America last" Sherwood, completely glosses over this and states " His testimony may not have made a big difference,"

Sherwood, In light of Fint's two posts there, how can you trivialize what Kerry did? How can you respond with comparisons of Auswitz. Oh, right, the US considers shooting a cow a "war crime" . . . like yeah, thats just like Auswitz. :rolleyes:

If the US leader (the ones which you and kerry say were responsible for all the Vietnam war crimes) wanted to to pull an Auswitz; Vietnam would be radioactive to this day.

The rest -- Is it just me, or does it seem that the Kerry apologists left here are to be dropping like flies, in dropping all semblance of intellectual honesty?

If I saw what those men saw I would shout it from the hill tops.
His testimony,and others like it, does not make us weak.
It returns to us the dignity and honor that we chose to give up

When the next Swiftvets ad comes out (soon) we'll see if most Americans agree with you.

You guys are totally missing the point. Be against the war, fine... Noone is going to begrudge you for doing what you think is right. But to demoralize our men and embolden their captors and enemy forces by dehumanizing our own boys is unforgivable.

But, guys he's a war hero...
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/B01.jpg
...someone's war hero.

What are we saying, don't speak the truth? I thought the truth would set you free.

Michael

We're supposed to believe the handful of swiftvets that agree with Kerry vs the hundreds that don't agree. There are three different stories for all of Kerry's war exploits: The version Kerry told at the time and is told in his biography, the version kerry now remembers, and the version the Swift Vets are giving.

Someone here is lying or distorting the truth... Which is more likely: Kerry and his 12 band of brothers all remember the same story, or are lying about it; or the 250+ Swift Vets who dispute Kerry's side are all in on it together, all of them are lying.

Is it harder to get 12 people to 'remember' something the same way or to get 250+ people to 'remember' or blatently lie about events?

flintstone, I don't know where you dug up this crap but I was there during the anti-war movement and we thought for ourselves then and were very suspicous of people trying to tell us what to do.
This crap is some wishfull thinking on this guys part and trying to "bask in some glory" of his so called past.

amazing what you believe.

As for the protest movement, most GI's were in favor of us standing upto the "establishment". You forget that the GI's were DRAFTED! In other words, they had no choice but to be there. They applauded our efforts to stop the war and bring them home.
But you don't understand any of that, you just get involved in some meaningless talk about how wrong Kerry was for stating his views and how it hurt a few prisoners. It helped to stop the war and so if a few prisoners didn't like it, well the thousands of GI's that didn't have to die or be maimed thanked him.

Geoff

I didn't realize there were 250+ people there. I thought there was two sides to it from those that were there.

And is it harder to get 12 people to "remember" something the same way or get 250+ people to "remember" or blatently lie about events? Well, it depends. In any observed occurrence, people will disagree with what they saw. Defense attorneys expose this all the time. Therefore, of the people that were there and actually saw what happened, there will be varrying degrees of what they saw. Are any of them wrong, not really. It's how they perceived what occurred.

However, it is easy to get massive amounts of people to "remember" something that didn't exist. Easily. As long as they have an agenda other than the truth. One of the Bush supporters that was there even came out publically and stated that he saw what occurred according to the official military report.

I wasn't there. I can't say what happened. If the records say it happened one way, I have to take it as such and move on. There will never be any definitive proof, so I move on.

Both sides are great at taking things out of context, distorting the facts, etc. Let's just agree that they are both guilty and decide on the positions that have come out through the debate.

Now, was Bush wired during the second debate... He sure did put up a better performance. ;)

The US held trials at Nuremburg and convicted people who didn't have the moral courage to do what Kerry did in 1971.

Kerry was such a threat to Nixon --who dragged the war out and sacrificed over 10,000 young Americans for his own personal 'legacy' -- such a threat that Nixon sought out a young political operative to attack him in 1971.

Can you guess the name of the man Nixon chose? Or what he's doing today?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1097529250.gif oh man, tech; that is thee most twisted spin I have ever seen.

moral courage !? . . .Kerry!? http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1097529250.gif

He was looking for FACE-TIME . . .he was (is) a whore for the cameras.

If kerry had a modicum of moral courage, he would have NEVER ENGAGED IN WAR CRIMES TO BEGIN WITH.

(for the record, I think that he lied about his war crimes too . . . because HE IS A WHORE FOR THE CAMERA)

Island 911

I disagree with you. But, the point is your opinion and I can't tell you that your opinion is wrong.

However, what Politician doesn't love the camera or come from a well known family. Isn't that the way they get the exposure to be running in the first place?

Michael

SO its okay then, to sell-out your country, as long as it gets you "the exposure to be running in the first place?"

Just as okay to be contributing to the drug problem and then become president of the US.

Past is the past, let's move on.

Move on?

Hold on. .. Let me see if I've got this:

You suggest that my opinion, about kerry being an opportunistic, camera-whore sell-out, is wrong . ..

But then claim; all politicians love the camera need to do what they will to get the exposure to be running in the first place

?

Exactly right, if Kerry had seen war crimes, which he claims were rampant all over the country, he should have stood up THEN and demanded that it stop. Instead, he three-purple-hearted his way out in 4 months and then led an anti-war effort based on the experience. If, in fact, he saw war crimes, it would be a crime for him not to have reported them, as an officer.

Island 911

Let me try it again. I'm saying that I disagree with your opinion. But that I can't say that your opinion is wrong. It's your opinion. Sorry to confuse you with my writing.

And yes, I'm saying that politicians have to love the camera to win elections, or, have the name recognition. Forbes had no political experience but won as mayor of NY due to his name.

Michael

EDIT: I must be having a bad day. Everything I say gets interpreted as a slight. I guess I just don't know how to talk to a passionate conservative.

so now I'm confused, am I?

I could say that you're full of BS . . but no, I shouldn't tell you that.

I could say that you will pretend that your statements are not leading . . but I can't tell you that.

I could say that you're likely to pretend to back away from leading statements. . but I won't tell you that.

I could say that by now you've gotten my point by now . . but I can't tell you that.

:cool:

Military commander of the North Vietnamese forces, General Vo Nguyen Giap, in his 1985 memoir of the war. Giap wrote that

Steve Pitkin, Vietnam Veteran:

So we would have won the VN war if we had the resolve and stayed the course.

Then what? Here are a list of possibilities:

We chalk that up as another win and VN becomes "democratic" and "free"
We add to the body and casualty count on both sides
The war is officially over, but insurgents continue killing soldiers at the rate of 1000/year and civilians at unknown levels
We own Viet Nam, then send huge amounts of foreign aid and infrastructure to rebuild the country in exchange for their natural resources and cheap labor
We continue the war in China, Laos and Cambodia
The American diet now includes govt. subsidized rice with every meal

The Swift Boat vets aren't so pissed and avoid writing a book
Nixon does not resign. Instead he is re-elected; also becomes the president of VN
Henry Kissinger also becomes Secretary of State of VN primarily because he likes Chinese food; but VN cuisine is close enough until China surrenders
McDonalds and KFC are on every other street corner followed by Starbucks some years later

John Wayne produces follow up movies to Green Beret: Green Berets II, III and IV
Sylvester Stallone in "Rambo, First Blood" movie bombs at the box office (doesn't make sense); 2nd Blood is not in anybody's consciousness, but Stallone goes on to win an Academy Award for best actor and best screenplay in movie, "Driven".
Walmart conducts business as usual

Sherwood

Walmart:) . .now theres a change of subject.

back to China, Laos and Cambodia .. .

Vietnam was a battle; a battle in the war against the spread of communism.

Communism was swallowing up countries and walling them off. . ..Communist govt's shooting those who tried to escape.

Yet John Kerry, in that little-picture pee brain of his, didn't care to see the big picture. All he saw was that he could get some face-time by SELLING OUT his country, as a wolf under Doves feathers. . .viciously attacking the US military under the disguise of "ending the war".

Again, Vietnam was one battle-ground in the (big picture) war against Communism.

Kerry could not have done better for the communists.

. . .and now what's the meathead doing? "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"

This guy kerry has ONE TRICK. . . he is like a one-hit-wonder from 70's . . . so why not elect Janis Joplin And Bobby McGee for a stronger america -kerry is pathetic.

Yet John Kerry, in that little-picture pee brain of his, didn't care to see the big picture. All he saw was that he could get some face-time by SELLING OUT his country, as a wolf under Doves feathers. . .viciously attacking the US military under the disguise of "ending the war".

Again, Vietnam was one battle-ground in the (big picture) war against Communism.

Sorry Island, I'm gonna have to dispute that one too.

The US left Vietnam, and the war against Communism was still won. In fact, the war against communism was won by letting the fact that Communism is a poor allocator of resources push it over the edge. China survives because it is communism (very) lite.

My conclusion: there was no need to go to war in Vietnam in the first place. Mind you, I'm not old enough to know (full disclosure ;)).

The big picture is that pulling out of Vietnam asap was the right thing to do. Kerry, quite possibly, was RIGHT.

It seems to me, that under your rationale that, because Kerry was an activist over a controversial issue, he was a camera-whore sell-out? Would you also include actvists such as Ghandi, Princess Di, MLK, and others for speaking up and getting camera attention? What qualifies a person to disagree and speak out, in your opinion, or should we all just shut-up and take what they hand us?

According to the North Vietnamese leadership of the time...exactly the opposite is true. They were defeated and ready to quit until thir alliues, the Kerry/Fonda folks gave them the encouragement to continue. They decided then, that if they were willing to sacrifice enough lives of their people and ours...that our own people would demand that we withdraw....They were correct.

Although we eventually sacrificed a great deal of SE Asia along with South Vietnam....our efforts were still enough to halt the worldwise communist expansion.

Pulling out when we did resulted in the wholesale slaughter of noncommunist allies in the region.

It is different when a person lies and sacrifices his brothers in arms...just for the publicity. You insult the others with the comparison.

Kerry serving, or Bush serving? I liked Bush better when he drank like a fish and did coke.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1097589556.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1097589579.jpg

ditto

Flint wrote:
"our efforts were still enough to halt the worldwise communist expansion."

Did you see the movie, "The Fog of War"? This was Robert McNamara's view, then and now of the VN war (Secretary of Defense under Kennedy/Johnson).

http://blog.karzyn.com/archives/000078.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/02/28/morris/index_np.html

As is the case now in Iraq, the perceptions on both sides were driven by their own distorted view of the world. In VN, we thought it was communist expansion. They thought we were replacing the French as colonists.

In Iraq, we thought it was WMD. Hussein thought we knew Iraq didn't have any in the years after Desert Storm and we would keep the status quo in Iraq to continue offsetting Iran's threat in the region (no friend of Iraq).

In other words, one's truth is based on one's beliefs and perceptions. We should learn valuable lessons from history.

Sherwood