Kerry will self-destruct

[Beagle]

Kill the messenger. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004709) It's from a notorious conservative source (WSJ "opinionjournal.com").

That's why I posted it here, so you could tell me just how right wing I am. Oh, and stupid. But, I am old enough to know a really good "issue" ad by a POW group when I hear one. Kerry has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of being a presidential candidate whose speeches have actually been used as an instrument of torture against Americans. The Los Angeles Times reports on Kerry's April 22, 1971, appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which we noted last week:

Dressed in his combat fatigues and ribbons, [Kerry] told Congress that U.S. soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . randomly shot at civilians . . . in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." He later acknowledged that he did not witness the crimes himself but had heard about them from others. . . .

Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous "Hanoi Hilton" prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in June 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war.

During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as "an example of why we should cross over to [their] side."

Whereas those who've attended Edwards events report that he's a captivating speaker, listening to Kerry speak is like being in captivity. I await my just punishment, but no Kerry speeches.

[MMI]

You want a defense of the man without actually quoting him so as to reveal what lies behind the liberal usage of ellipsis (and by conservatives no less)?

Short answer is that the quote is extremely misleading - he is quoting people and in the testimony he makes it clear he is quoting people.

From http://pages.xtn.net/~wingman/docs/kerryst.htm

I am assuming that testimony before Congress is public record and therefore I can quote the first two paragraphs in their entirety.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations

April 23, 1971


I would like to talk on behalf of 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. These were 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 and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they 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 Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside 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



I am guessing that Beagle would not consider the following to be a fair summary of his OP.
Kill ... Kerry
torture ... Americans.
U.S. soldiers . . .acknowledged that. . . Edwards . . . is . . . in captivity.


As to whether or not acknowledging atrocities committed by one's own side is appropriate, I kind of feel the world needs all the Campbell-Bannerman s it can get.

[PhiloVance]

hey, nobody's perfect.

::d&r::

[MMI]

After my previous post I realized that my excessively elliptical quote of the OP could be construed as wishing death on someone. That was certainly not my intent and I apologize to any who might be offended by it. I (seriously) would have reported the post except that there is no little exclamation point icon on the post. (I realize this is no doubt by intent, as what idiot would want to report their own post.)

[elucidator]

If Jane Fonda and gay marriage is all you got, you guys are sooooo doomed.

This shit really chaps my hide. I heard this crap all before, all this "aid and comfort to the enemy" drivel. If telling the truth is not patriotic, your loyalty is misplaced.

By the way, my recollection of his testimony before the Senate differs from yours, I don't recall that he was wearing fatigues. Got a photo?

[Count Blucher]

listening to Kerry speak is like being in captivity.
And we should all be so lucky as to have to listen to Shrub's "Meet The Press" eloquence for Another four years?

[bordelond]

By the way, my recollection of his testimony before the Senate differs from yours, I don't recall that he was wearing fatigues. Got a photo?

Beagle is not going from memory. The LA Times is being quoted by the editorial's author. The article mentioning Kerry's wearing of fatigues appears in yesterday's LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/la-na-vietnam17feb17,1,5556450.story) (free registration required). A b/w picture of Kerry in fatigues addressing the Senate panel appears to the right of the article.

Clicking on the picture reveals the following caption:

On April 22, 1971, the day before he threw away his combat ribbons, Kerry testifies before a Senate panel. “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” he asked. (AP)

[GIGObuster]

Kill the messenger. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004709) It's from a notorious conservative source (WSJ "opinionjournal.com").

That's why I posted it here, so you could tell me just how right wing I am. Oh, and stupid.

... Nah, too easy.

But, I am old enough to know a really good "issue" ad by a POW group when I hear one. I await my just punishment, but no Kerry speeches.
Clemenceau once said, "He who is not liberal in his youth has no heart; he who does not become conservative with age has no head." After seeing old extreme conservatives in power (and in message boards) not reflecting on why they continue to depend on very dubious sources of information for their actions (or talking points), I realize now that Clemenceu was wrong.

As the fearless leader would say:

There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again. - George Bush

Oh, never mind…


That opinion piece in the WSJ is a good example of a messenger that is only telling part of the truth. The result, as I have said hundreds of times before, is a lie.

[kaylasdad99]

By the way, my recollection of his testimony before the Senate differs from yours, I don't recall that he was wearing fatigues. Got a photo?Just in case you can't be bothered remembering your login id and password (I know I usually can't be), here's another site with that photo. About halfway down the page. (http://www.8bitjoystick.com/groundzero/archives/2003_08.php)

[Giraffe]

I don't get it. Why should Kerry be ashamed of having been a POW?

[elucidator]

Yeppers, point taken. It was worth it to read about Dick Nixon pissing and moaning about Kerry to Haldeman. Thanks!

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I don't get it. Why should Kerry be ashamed of having been a POW?

He wasn't a POW. His speech was used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes against the POWs.

[Giraffe]

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

[vibrotronica]

Kerry has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of being a presidential candidate whose speeches have actually been used as an instrument of torture against Americans.
George W. Bush has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of having been caught lying to the American people to start a war less than a year after he told those lies.

[Tars Tarkas]

at least he showed up for war.

[Governor Quinn]

I actually agree with the OP. Kerry's campaign could, indeed, self-destruct.

However, this isn't what will cause said self-destruction.

[John Mace]

I don't think either side is served by Dredging up (hah!) Vietnam era activities.

By the logic of this article, the My Lai masacre trial could have been used as fodder by the NV to torture American soldiers. This whole "Jane Fonda" tactic is a loser.

Besides, Kerry's 19 yrs of senate voting will offer the Pubs plenty of amunition to use against him withour resorting to this junk.

[Tars Tarkas]

This just in: Kerry to be used to deliver IMF message.

[Truth Seeker]

Kerry has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of being a presidential candidate whose speeches have actually been used as an instrument of torture against Americans.
Apparently, you've never heard Al Gore give a speech.

[elucidator]

You know, kaylasdad, I looked at that picture and it rang a bell. I've examined closely with special perception enhancement techniques.....

Tucker Carlson is John Kerry's love child!!

(Don't tell Drudge...)

[Already in Use]

So Kerry's speeches have been used as torture? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Sesame Street music (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3042907.stm) has been used to torture people as well. Anything can be torture given the right context. But the fact is that Kerry was testifying in the hopes that he might prevent more young Americans from getting sent off to die. That's a damnable offense? What is this, Bizarro World?

[SnoopyFan]

Kerry will indeed self-destruct. Hopefully when it happens, it will be too late for the Dems to find a replacement and they'll be forced to keep him on for the election and a major asskicking will take place.

However, it won't be over his speeches. Oy.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Kerry will indeed self-destruct. Hopefully when it happens, it will be too late for the Dems to find a replacement and they'll be forced to keep him on for the election and a major asskicking will take place.

However, it won't be over his speeches. Oy.
What will it be over?

[Who_me?]

What will it be over?


Kerry reusing dental floss... or something similarly serious...

[rjung]

His speech was used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes against the POWs.
Good god almighty! How dare the North Vietnamese monitor the words and thoughts of the citizens of an open society and repeat them?! Shock! Horrors!

Obviously, the best way to prevent any such future treasonous use of our citizens' words against ourselves is to ban all dissenting speech! If you've got nothing good to say about the President and the nation, then shut the fuck up you treasonous assholes!






...oops, sorry, channelling Ann Coulter for a minute there. Yuck. Now I gotta go gargle.

With bleach.

[Measure for Measure]

Leaving the usual Republican smears aside, I'd like to suggest that Edwards, in fact, may be more electable than Kerry.

Edwards is a good speaker and hails from the South.

Kerry is a mediocre to average orator and hails from New England. Northeastern Democrats have a habit of losing.

IMHO, Kerry is a seasoned and thoughtful leader would make better decisions in office than Edwards.

But neither would reliably set aside evidence in favor of their ideological pre-dispositions like Bush does. For deficit reduction and national security reasons, Edwards has my primary vote: he has a better shot at unseating Bush.
---
I urge Republicans to organize a write-in ballot for McCain, Powell, Lugar or Alexander.

[Measure for Measure]

IMHO, Kerry is a seasoned and thoughtful leader who would make better decisions in office than Edwards.

[Netbrian]

Kerry will indeed self-destruct. Hopefully when it happens, it will be too late for the Dems to find a replacement and they'll be forced to keep him on for the election and a major asskicking will take place.

However, it won't be over his speeches. Oy.

One of your most lovable tendencies is to take hard-line conservative agitprop, and then declare it as complete and utter fact.

Oh, that along with your tendency to hit and run at topics.

Brian, who'd be perfectly happy with either Edwards or Kerry. Preferably, both.

[Charlie Tan]

The more the GOP perceive Kerry as a threat, the more vicious the attacks will get. Judging by GOP posters here, GWB is heading for a sure win. So the question remains - if they're so confident, why not just shrug at Kerry (or Edwards) and smile all the way to November?

[Desmostylus]

Will Kerry self-destruct? That's a definite maybe. Certainly the Bushies must hope so:02/18/2004 - USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm)

2. If Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for?

Likely Voters:

Kerry 55
Bush 43
So I guess there's hope there for the Bushies. But wait a minute:02/18/2004 - USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm)

3. If North Carolina Senator John Edwards were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for?

Likely Voters:

Edwards 54
Bush 44I can remember the recent polls where an "unnamed Democratic candidate" would win out over Bush, and how those polls were dismissed as unrealistic. Turns out it's true. People will vote for ABB (Anyone But Bush).

But wait, there's still hope for the Bushies:02/18/2004 President's approval ratings continue to sag (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-18-poll_x.htm)

Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington, said that although the poll findings suggest Bush is in trouble, it is too early to consider that a forecast of the Nov. 2 election. The economy and Iraq are unpredictable factors, and the campaign has yet to take shape, he said. Yep, there's the thing. All the Bushies have to do is wait for silmultaneous miracles to occur in Iraq and the employment numbers. They don't seem to have any sort of plan about Iraq or employment, but hey, just you wait! That non-existent plan's gonna take shape one of these days. Just you Dems watch out. ;)

[ElvisL1ves]

:shrug: His campaign speeches will be used to torture Tighty Righties for the next 9 months, too.

[Metacom]

They don't seem to have any sort of plan about Iraq or employment, but hey, just you wait!
Disgusting liberal nonsense!

The plan in Iraq is to transform the country into a WMD-free secular Democracy within four months, and the employment plan is to wait for the massive business growth caused by wealthy people investing their tax cuts. It'll happen any day now......

Also, it's not fair to bash Bush without giving him credit for his social plan: 1.5 billion to help the children of heterosexual couples, and 270 million to tell young people not to have sex before marriage!

[elf6c]

What will it be over?

WMD, Halliburton, Enron, Jobs, Deficit-- oops you meant Kerry!

Love the panic from the far right wing. The lengths they are going to to try invent something is amazing.

Hey guys, found those WMD's yet? How's that deficit going? The Iraq occupation is paying for itself right? How about all those secret no-Bid contracts to the VP's old company- that worked out ok right? Afganistan then? Anti-gay bigotry? Hmm- how about the treasonous revelation of a spy's indentity cause Shrub got caught fibbing on Iraq's imaginary Nuke program- how's that investigationcoming? Or the one into the adminstration's misteps on 9/11? How about those promises to protect us from big government, oops- oh yeah the Patriot Act and the creepy Ashcroft are doing wonders there.

And do you really want to bring up the war issue when your rich, cowardly little daddy's boy used his father's connections to dodge the war, then dodge his obligations.

[filmore]

Obviously, the best way to prevent any such future treasonous use of our citizens' words against ourselves is to ban all dissenting speech! If you've got nothing good to say about the President and the nation, then shut the fuck up you treasonous assholes!


This is so funny because a lot of people actually have that opinion. Or tragic, I suppose.

[rjung]

This is so funny because a lot of people actually have that opinion. Or tragic, I suppose.
All tragedy, no comedy, IMO.

I blame talk radio.

[Matchka]

Disgusting liberal nonsense!

The plan in Iraq is to transform the country into a WMD-free secular Democracy within four months, and the employment plan is to wait for the massive business growth caused by wealthy people investing their tax cuts. It'll happen any day now......

Also, it's not fair to bash Bush without giving him credit for his social plan: 1.5 billion to help the children of heterosexual couples, and 270 million to tell young people not to have sex before marriage!


Metacom, I had a can of lighter fluid with your name on it until I was halfway through your post. :)

Say...Speaking of the Hanoi Hilton, anyone have a link to any comments the excellent Mr. McCain might have regarding our Mr. Kerry?

Just curious.

[xenophon41]

Say...Speaking of the Hanoi Hilton, anyone have a link to any comments the excellent Mr. McCain might have regarding our Mr. Kerry?

Just curious.
Well, here's one (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/14/171818.shtml) from a biased source (Newsmax; biased against John Kerry), which cites McCain as a defender of Kerry.

Here's another biased source (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_0630.html) (Kerry's own website), which quotes McCain:

Asked if Kerry was the Democratic candidate most closely resembling him, McCain demurred.

``I don't know,'' he said. ``He and I are very good personal friends, so my objectivity is probably skewed.''

McCain said he would not be surprised if political foes and the press try to pick apart or distort Kerry's combat record.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Metacom, I had a can of lighter fluid with your name on it until I was halfway through your post. :)

Say...Speaking of the Hanoi Hilton, anyone have a link to any comments the excellent Mr. McCain might have regarding our Mr. Kerry?

Just curious.
It's a little indirect but McCain relaesed a pretty scathing attack (http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccain_pr_13feb.htm) on the so-called "Vietnam Vets Against John Kerry" last week. He was especially harsh on group organizer, Ted Sampley:
"I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."
It's not really an endorsement of Kerry (which would not be expected) but it's a blistering assault on those who are attacking Kerry's war record.

[dropzone]

I have to admit all the attacks on "one of America’s most radical appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War" (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12215) have been making me laugh in a sad, ironic manner. Did the people who make such claims actually KNOW any of those guys? RADICAL? Shit-oh-dear, they made the Grandmothers Against the War look radical.* The ones I knew were politically moderate to conservative. They were just against the war. And by the time the VVAW formed most of the country was turning against the war. If Kerry was guilty of anything it was jumping on the bandwagon. And the modern cons forget that their St Richard was elected on an "end the war" platform.


* - Okay, I'll admit that some of the grannies had been Commies back in the 30s and were still pretty far left but who's gonna diss grandmothers?

[Spavined Gelding]

So far, and admittedly we are not very far into it, all the anti-Kerry people have produced is wishful thinking along the lines of Senator Kerry’s campaign is doomed because he attended an anti-war rally with Jane Fonda, because he threw his service ribbons, because the North Vietnamese used his speech to the Congressional committee to propagandize POW, because he had an illicit relationship with an employee, because he uses big words and deals in concepts that are complex, because he is a New England liberal, because this and because that. It is wishful thinking. None of the rumors, half truths and slanders have worked, although Rush was blathering about the young woman in Kenya on Wednesday morning as if the Sun’s discredited s exposé was verified and double refined truth. Some of our friends are hoping for a miracle so hard that they have hallucinated reality out of conjecture.

What strikes me is that Carl Rove and his surrogates might well have shot their wad already and the only scandal they have is the weak tea that has already been spilled. That means that, assuming that Senator Kerry is his party’s nominee for President, sooner or later President Bush is going to have to face him man to man in a discussion of the great issues of the day. Based of the President’s performance catching soft balls on Meet the Press is not going to be pretty. The hard core, Bush adherent’s best hope is that Senator Kerry is struck by lightening before that confrontation happens. Our friends might as well predict a lightening strike as a campaign destroyed by c scandal or hubris. The Bush camp can’t afford to have their boy go up against Senator Kerry in the open field.

What does scare me is not Senator Kerry and any proclivities he might have, but rather the immense war chest that the President and his friends have accumulated over the past three years. That money has to be spent before the national convention. After that the spending limits kick in to level the playing field. I’m not at all sure that Senator Kerry can contend with the barrage of half truths that will be dropped on the TV watching public between now and the GOP convention. I say half truths because it is my experience that that is what almost all political ads are and because the whole truth will cause President Bush’s self destruction.

[bmoak]

It's a little indirect but McCain relaesed a pretty scathing attack (http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccain_pr_13feb.htm) on the so-called "Vietnam Vets Against John Kerry" last week. He was especially harsh on group organizer, Ted Sampley:

It's not really an endorsement of Kerry (which would not be expected) but it's a blistering assault on those who are attacking Kerry's war record.

Ted Sampley (http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm) is quite a character and his issues with Kerry and McCain go back to the Senate Special Committee on POW-MIA affiars in the early 90s , which Kerry chaired and McCain was a member of. Initially, McCain was the the target of Sampley's ire, and was targeted in a series of articles tarnishing his patriotism and accusing him of being a "Manchurian Candidate" (http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm), copted by the KGB during his captivity. (For a contrary look at these accusations, read this (http://www.miafacts.org/mccain.htm).

Sampley's charges languished until McCain began his run for the presidency. Then they started to percolate throughout the conservative media and commentary base (NewsMax, Front Page, TownHall, etc.), which seemed to accept the story uncritically. The accusations never really hit the mainstream media, but was reprinted on right-wing sites a lot and possibly did real harm to McCain during the primaries.

Now Sampley trots out his new organization (he has several) to get the smear machine against Kerry, his other long-time enemy, going. He'll probably get more mainstream media attention this time, but if Republican operatives are depending on Sampley to carry the anti-Kerry standard it could backfire, especailly if media sources look at his background and not blithely accept his stories.

[Measure for Measure]

What does scare me is not Senator Kerry and any proclivities he might have, but rather the immense war chest that the President and his friends have accumulated over the past three years. That money has to be spent before the national convention. After that the spending limits kick in to level the playing field. I’m not at all sure that Senator Kerry can contend with the barrage of half truths that will be dropped on the TV watching public between now and the GOP convention.Right. So the issue facing Democratic Primary voters is: "Who can better withstand the Republican smear brigade, Kerry or Edwards?"

(Also: I thought that Bush had turned down matching funds so that the hard money spending limits do not apply. :confused: )

[Spavined Gelding]

(Also: I thought that Bush had turned down matching funds so that the hard money spending limits do not apply. :confused: )

Relying on a story on NPR last week, it is my understanding that since both President Bush and Senator Kerry have opted out of public funding they can both spend what ever amount they want up through their respective party's convention but that after the convention each is limited in what they can spend whether they are taking public money or not. Maybe somebody with an expertise in this stuff can give us a definitive answer. I may have misunderstood the NPR story but I think that is what the supposed expert who was doing the talking had to say. His point is that from now until the Republican convention the President might bury Senator Kerry in advertizing because there is no point to saving it up for the general election.

And speaking of the "Republican smear brigade," our friend Beagle has brought up the prospect of a Kerry self destruction in General Questions, on the topic of Bush allied web sight depreciating Senator Kerry's record in Vietnam (e.g., he wasn't awarded the decorations in Vietnam--of course he didn't get them until well after the events and after he had left Vietnam, there is a procedure, you know). In the GQ he suggests that there are "other" scandles being held in reserve to dump on Kerry at some more advantages moment. How our friend knows that he does not tell. If he is privy to the internal workings of the GOP propaganda machine you would think that he would keep his mouth shut so as not to give away the ambush. If he isn't privy to the plan then he doesn't know any more that he is told each day by Rush and the boys and he is blowing smoke. Having uncovered the ambush you would think that if he is to maintain any credibility he would tell us what these reserved mud balls might be. Otherwise we must conclude that our friend is once more engaged ia an exercise in wishful thinking, friends, wishful thinking.

[rjung]

I'm sure that in the mind of Beagle and the other Bushistas, Kerry's choice of having a bagel or cereal for breakfast is a "scandal" just waiting to be dumped on the six o'clock news.

[Beagle]

George W. Bush has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of having been caught lying to the American people to start a war less than a year after he told those lies. That's what my father called it when he was flying missions against German submarines while the United States was "neutral".

BTW, at least half of the comments here have ignored the issue. Not the testimony in front of the 1971 committee, but its use as an instrument of propaganda against actual US POWs. I know that sometimes English is a difficult language, but this is seriously malfeasance. Hey, rubes, read the article!

[Desmostylus]

BTW, at least half of the comments here have ignored the issue. Not the testimony in front of the 1971 committee, but its use as an instrument of propaganda against actual US POWs. I know that sometimes English is a difficult language, but this is seriously malfeasance.Malfeasance on who's part? Seriously, I think people are ignoring the "issue" because they don't think there is one, and that you're completely nuts.

[Beagle]

Funny, I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984 -- my first election.

You fucknugged closed-minded leftists wouldn't know an independent thought if it fell out of a tree and hit you in the head.

HEY, MORONS, SOME PEOPLE CARE ABOUT POWs -- and lying that gets them tortured.

[Mtgman]

HEY, MORONS, SOME PEOPLE CARE ABOUT POWs -- and lying that gets them tortured.Establish the following premises in support of your above statement if you would please.

1. Kerry's statement before Congress about acts committed in Vietnam was a lie.
2. POWs in Viet Cong custody were tortured some/more as a result of Kerry's statements.

Enjoy,
Steven

[manhattan]

So Kerry's speeches have been used as torture? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Nothing. Taranto's daily column, which I enjoy immensely and recommend, is a mix of serious, snarky and funny. Mostly the latter two (his bye-kus are great -- his "what would XX do without YY" headling riffs are hilarious). This tidbit fits squarely into the "snarky" column. Why someone decided to start a whole thread over it is a question best left to that person. It's kind of like quoting Al Franken. How seriously some people some people in this thread are taking it given that it's in the BBQ Pit and not GD is best left to them.

[MMI]

BTW, at least half of the comments here have ignored the issue. Not the testimony in front of the 1971 committee, but its use as an instrument of propaganda against actual US POWs. I know that sometimes English is a difficult language, but this is seriously malfeasance. Hey, rubes, read the article!

So, should the civil rights movement been shut down lest reports of difficulties demoralize the troops? Should the troops in-country be denied access to radios capable of non-official business, lest they be swayed by the siren song of propoganda? Perhaps all reports of casulaties (and all untoward events) should be suppressed, lest the American people lose faith in their government or the war effort?

Should all reports of police brutality and corruption be suppressed, lest public confidence be shaken and the good cops morale be injured? Are any protests at all allowed over anything, or is the danger of perceptions of disunity being used against us just too horrific to contemplate.

You are not accusing Kerry of lying, as far as I can tell. You are suggesting that some how he is responsible for the fact that his testimony before congress on the conduct of the war in Vietnam was used as propoganda against POWS. Yes, had he not testified, those particular words would not be a potential torture device. In which case no doubt the North Vietnamese would have given up on torture?

In you were John Kerry what would you have done?

[Measure for Measure]

Actually, Beagle is using kid-gloves. So will I.

Certain Veterans may feel conflicted about Kerry. On the one hand, he served honorably in Vietnam.

On the other hand, he allied himself with hippie-freaks when our boys were dying in Vietnam. (Or so they will smear.) Policywise, that's understandable. Viserally - well, welcome to the 432nd Battle of the so-called Culture War.

OTOH, Kerry is such a square that maybe the Jane Fonda accusation won't stick.

I guess the election will be about gay marriage and the Super Bowl.

[sturmhauke]

BTW, at least half of the comments here have ignored the issue. Not the testimony in front of the 1971 committee, but its use as an instrument of propaganda against actual US POWs. I know that sometimes English is a difficult language, but this is seriously malfeasance. Hey, rubes, read the article!
Why don't you answer this question: If some American POWs were tortured while listening to Kerry's speech, how the fuck is that Kerry's fault? He didn't deliver the speech in person, the torturers played a recording of it. If someone tried to smack some sense into your head with an encyclopedia set, are you gonna blame Britannica?

[Beagle]

When Kerry was testifying in front of the Senate in 1971, there were ELEVEN TV cameras covering his comments -- INCLUDING SOVIET COVERAGE. (Eleven was practically all the advanced TV cameras at the time)

His comments WERE LIES -- and he knew it. His own statements made him a culprit in crimes against humanity, if they were true. He, himself, said it was a systematic problem throughout the entire leadership structure -- I guess, except HIMSELF.

He was too stupid to know that the barbaric North Vietnamese would use his comments as a reason to torture his "comrades-in-arms"? FUCKING HELL, HE WAS! He just didn't care. Similarly his estimate that "2,000 would die" as a result of the US leaving SE Asia was only wrong by a factor of 1,000.

My father knew that the United States was winning WWII, because every time the Americans captured an island he would be beaten. I have a feeling that if someone like Kerry had existed at the end of WWII, had Dad still managed to survive prison camp, he would have killed him.

"Life without, fine!" "That will be the Crown Plaza compared to what this rat fuck put me through."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

His comments WERE LIES -- and he knew it.
Fucking CITE??

What did Kerry say that was a lie? Out with it.

Kerry was trying to end the war but he also had an obligation to speak out if atrocities were being committed by US soldiers which they fucking were.

Should Kerry have ignored those atrocities? Should he have suppressed the findings of his investigation?

Are you sure you're not a Freeper? Because blaming Kerry for crimes committed agianst POWs is so ridiculously twisted and partisan that I have to wonder.

[Beagle]

Fucking research his denials. You are the best example of a PARTISAN NIMROD I can think of.

Are you capable of internet research? Your posts indicate not.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Fucking research his denials. You are the best example of a PARTISAN NIMROD I can think of.

Are you capable of internet research? Your posts indicate not.
Has no one explained to how this board works?

YOU are the one making the assertion, ie. that Kerry "lied" in his testimony before congress. YOU, then have the burden to back up your assertion.

You also know that personal insults don't belong in GD. Quit acting like a newbie.

BTW, I can't be a "partisan" because I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of any political party.

[elucidator]

Good God, Beagle, have you entirely lost all contact with the mother ship? I've seen some pretty heavily rightarded stuff on these boards, in my time, but I'm beginning to seriously question your sanity.

What in the world does the Japanese record on POW's, appalling as it is, have to do with John Kerry?

And are you seriously trying to suggest that when John Kerry spoke of atrocities committed by some American soldiers in 'Nam, he was making it up? Seriously? This isn't some misguided attempt at a very, very bad joke?

I thought this "war protestors are traitors" drivel was gone, never to return. Its like a rotting corpse strolling into my living room and sitting on my couch.

Your last two posts left a slime trail on my monitor. I urge you to reconsider.

[annaplurabelle]

His comments WERE LIES -- and he knew it. His own statements made him a culprit in crimes against humanity, if they were true. He, himself, said it was a systematic problem throughout the entire leadership structure -- I guess, except HIMSELF.Lies? (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040215/SRTIGERFORCE/102150175) From the Toledo Blade/Sunday, February 15, 2004
Investigators will question ex-GIs about killing spree
Rumsfeld refers case to secretary of Army

WASHINGTON - In a case that has reached the top levels of the Pentagon, military investigators will begin interviewing former soldiers of an elite platoon accused of slaughtering scores of unarmed civilians in the Vietnam War.

The move represents the first effort by the military to talk to soldiers since a Blade series in October revealed the platoon’s brutal sweep through 40 villages where civilians were tortured and killed.

The newspaper found that field commanders knew of the soldiers’ actions, and in some cases, encouraged the violence.

Though the Army spent 4 1/2 years investigating the special force starting in 1971 - substantiating 20 war crimes against 18 soldiers - the case never reached a military court and no one was charged.

As part of the new inquiry, the Army has appointed an investigator to look into why the original Army inquiry was dropped in 1975 with no charges filed.Here's a link (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE) to the original series published last year:THE TOLEDO Blade newspaper ran a four-part investigative series in October 2003. In their eight-month investigation, Blade reporters Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss reviewed thousands of classified Army documents, National Archive records and radio logs, and interviewed more than 100 former Tiger Force soldiers and Vietnamese civilians.

They found not only that Tiger Force was responsible for horrifying war crimes against the Vietnamese people, but that the Army and U.S. government did nothing to stop them.

The Blade's investigation began after the newspaper obtained 22 pages of classified Army records detailing atrocities by Tiger Force. The records of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command were just the start.Want more? Link (http://hnn.us/articles/1802.html):
The Vietnam War Crimes You Never Heard Of
By Nick Turse
As a historian writing his dissertation on U.S. war crimes and atrocities during the Vietnam War, I have been immersed in just the sort of archival materials the Toledo Blade used in its pieces, but not simply for one incident but hundreds if not thousands of analogous events. I can safely, and sadly, say that the "Tiger Force" atrocities are merely the tip of the iceberg in regard to U.S.-perpetrated war crimes in Vietnam. However, much of the mainstream historical literature dealing with Vietnam War atrocities (and accompanying cover-ups and/or sham investigations), has been marginalized to a great extent -- aside from obligatory remarks concerning the My Lai massacre, which is, itself, often treated as an isolated event.

Military records demonstrate that the "Tiger Force" atrocities are only the tip of a vast submerged history of atrocities in Vietnam. In fact, while most atrocities were likely never chronicled or reported, the archival record is still rife with incidents analogous to those profiled in the Blade articles, including the following atrocities chronicled in formerly classified Army documents:

--A November 1966 incident in which an officer in the Army's Fourth Infantry Division, severed an ear from a Vietnamese corpse and affixed it to the radio antenna of a jeep as an ornament. The officer was given a non-judicial punishment and a letter of reprimand.

--An August 1967 atrocity in which a 13-year-old Vietnamese child was raped by American MI interrogator of the Army's 196th Infantry Brigade. The soldier was convicted only of indecent acts with a child and assault. He served seven months and sixteen days for his crime.

--A September 1967 incident in which an American sergeant killed two Vietnamese children -- executing one at point blank range with a bullet to the head. Tried by general court martial in 1970, the sergeant pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, unpremeditated murder. He was, however, sentenced to no punishment.

--An atrocity that took place on February 4, 1968, just over a month before the My Lai massacre, in the same province by a man from the same division (Americal). The soldier admitted to his commanding officer and other men of his unit that he gunned down three civilians as they worked in a field. A CID investigation substantiated his confession and charges of premeditated murder were preferred against him. The soldier requested a discharge, which was granted by the commanding general of the Americal Division, in lieu of court martial proceedings.

--A series of atrocities similar to, and occurring the same year as, the "Tiger Force" war crimes in which one unit allegedly engaged in an orgy of murder, rape and mutilation, over the course of several months.

While not yielding the high-end body count estimate of the "Tiger Force" series of atrocities, the above incidents begin to demonstrate the ubiquity of the commission of atrocities on the part of American forces during the Vietnam War.On a lighter note:
Fucking research his denials.Research denials??? I love the perverse logic of this, so here's the result of some quick "research" (http://www.satiresearch.com/go.asp?sid=24675):
February 17, 2004
John Kerry Scandal: More Women Who Did Not Have An Affair With Senator Step Forward
John Kerry battled again today to fend off allegations that won't throw his frontrunner status in the Democratic primaries into turmoil as several more women admitted not to having an affair with the Massachusetts senator.

The women, aged 21 to 40, claimed that on repeated occasions John Kerry never touched them, made unwanted advances or placed them in an awkward position. :rolleyes:

[schplebordnik]

And are you seriously trying to suggest that when John Kerry spoke of atrocities committed by some American soldiers in 'Nam, he was making it up?

Full text of his comments are here:

http://www.urich.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

I'd be interested in having someone show some support for the following statements he made:

"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."

"They told the stories at times they 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."

"Blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties"

[elucidator]

Tell you what you do, pal. Amble on over to Google and enter something along the lines of "US soldiers war crimes Viet Nam". Take a sandwhich with you, you're going to be a while.

It happened. Not because American soldiers are any worse than anyone else's soldiers, they most assuredly are not. It happened because when you soak any human being in cruelty and brutality they become cruel and brutal. I daresay very few of us can be entirely sure how we would respond under the same circumstances.

Kerry told the truth. It is a bitter and shameful truth, but the truth, nonetheless.

[annaplurabelle]

I'd be interested in having someone show some support for the following statements he made:

"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."

"They told the stories at times they 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."Some highlights from my earlier cites (just above your post):--Grenades were dropped in earthen bunkers where women and children were hiding and unarmed farmers were executed in their fields. Prisoners were beaten and shot - their ears and scalps severed for keepsakes.

--Women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers. 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 inquiry found that, in addition to using "electrical shock by means of a field telephone," an all too commonly used method of torture by Americans during the war, MI personnel also struck detainees with their fists, sticks and boards and employed a form of water torture which impaired prisoners' ability to breath.

--Sam Ybarra, a "notorious suspect," who was named in seven of the thirty "Tiger Force" war crimes allegations investigated by the Army -- including the rape and fatal stabbing of a 13-year-old girl and the brutal killing of a 15-year-old boy. Yet, Ybarra's notorious reputation may well pale in comparison to that of Sergeant Roy E. "the Bummer" Bumgarner, a soldier who served with the 1st Cavalry Division and later the 173d Airborne Brigade. According to a former commander, "the Bummer" was rumored to have "personally killed over 1,500 people" during a forty-two week stretch in Vietnam.

...Unlike Sam Ybarra, who had been discharged from the military by the time the allegations against him came to light and then refused to cooperate with investigators, "the Bummer" was charged with premeditated murder and tried by general court martial. He was convicted only of manslaughter and his punishment consisted merely of a demotion in rank and a fine of $97 a month for six months. Moreover, after six months, Bumgarner promptly re-enlisted in the Army. His first and only choice of assignments -- Vietnam. Records indicate he got his wish!

...Pvt. Sam Ybarra slit the throat of a prisoner with a hunting knife before scalping him - placing the scalp on the end of a rifle, soldiers said in sworn statements. Ybarra refused to talk to Army investigators about the case.

...Another prisoner was ordered to dig bunkers, then beaten with a shovel before he was shot to death, records state.

...Ybarra shot and killed a 15-year-old boy near the village of Duc Pho, reports state. He later told soldiers he shot the youth because he wanted the teenager's tennis shoes. The shoes didn't fit, but Ybarra ended up carrying out what became a ritual among platoon members: He cut off the teenager's ears and placed them in a ration bag, Specialist Carpenter told investigators.

--During the Army's investigation of Tiger Force, 27 soldiers said the severing of ears from dead Vietnamese became an accepted practice. One reason: to scare the Vietnamese. Platoon members strung the ears on shoe laces to wear around their necks, reports state. Former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators: "There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears."

--Records show soldiers began another gruesome practice: Kicking out the teeth of dead civilians for their gold fillings.

...Days after the attack on the farmers, U.S. planes flew over the valley, dumping thousands of gallons of defoliants to ensure no one would grow rice there during the war.

--A 13-year-old girl's throat was slashed after she was sexually assaulted, and a young mother was shot to death after soldiers torched her hut.

--An unarmed teenager was shot in the back after a platoon sergeant ordered the youth to leave a village, and a baby was decapitated so that a soldier could remove a necklace.

--Two elderly men killed during an unprovoked attack on a hamlet near Tam Ky. One was beheaded and the other, who was wounded, was shot by medic Barry Bowman in a "mercy killing," he said.

--An elderly man shot to death by Private Colligan near Chu Lai when the soldier wanted to test a new 38-caliber handgun on a live target, Mr. Fischer said.Keep in mind, this is just one investigation of one unit. If you want more, take elucidator's advice. But you might want to hold off on the sandwich, unless you've got a strong stomach....

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think a little reading comprehension is in order for Schplebordnik.

Kerry testified that others had told him of atrocities during his Winter Soldier Investigation. To prove him a liar you would have to show that others hadn't told him that. As long as he was reporting what he was told in the course of 150 interviews with other Vietnam vets then his testimony was truthful. Even if the vets who Kerry interviewed were lying to the WSI, that does not make Kerry a liar.

Quit sliming war heroes.

[schplebordnik]

I think a little reading comprehension is in order for Schplebordnik.

Kerry testified that others had told him of atrocities during his Winter Soldier Investigation. To prove him a liar you would have to show that others hadn't told him that. As long as he was reporting what he was told in the course of 150 interviews with other Vietnam vets then his testimony was truthful. Even if the vets who Kerry interviewed were lying to the WSI, that does not make Kerry a liar.

Quit sliming war heroes.

When did I slime him, or say he was a liar? Who needs reading comprehension lessons?

I'm more interested in whether the things he reported to Congress were accurate statements of what was happening in Vietnam. I have no doubt that soldiers in Vietnam did things that amounted to war crimes (My Lai is but one example). His testimony was that war crimes were day-to-day occurrances that were known and tolerated at all levels of the chain of command. Seems to me that saying that, when war crimes were isolated incidents that were for the most part punished would be a sliming of a considerable number of war heroes.

[schplebordnik]

Keep in mind, this is just one investigation of one unit. If you want more, take elucidator's advice. But you might want to hold off on the sandwich, unless you've got a strong stomach....

So are you saying then that if one investigation of one unit yielded these results, a similar investigation of any particular unit would yield the same?

How about the units of the following individuals, all junior officers in the chain of command:

Max Cleland
Bob Kerry
John Kerry
Wes Clark
Colin Powell
John McCain?

Let's get it out right now -- were these individuals complict in, or know of and ignore, war crimes?

[schplebordnik]

It does not appear that Kerry qualified the following statement with "I've been told by others":

"Blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties"

That clearly is not an accurate statement, by a long shot:

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwc10.htm

[annaplurabelle]

So are you saying then that if one investigation of one unit yielded these results, a similar investigation of any particular unit would yield the same?Diogenes is right - you don't know how to read, do you?

I'm saying there are more cites on the net documenting similar atrocities in many other units (I didn't say all units).

What I posted was on page 1 of elucidators suggested google search (my second original cite touched on that as well, if you had bothered to read it).

[Beagle]

All Kerry ever did was deny personal knowledge of the atrocities which he claimed were near universal. Within the last few days his office has said that he stands by everything he said. Jane Fonda apologized. They are so often mentioned in the same article, or photoshopped onto a podium together, I got confused on the level of denial.

John Kerry and his Senate allies did a great job arguing for an Iraq war in 1998. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1998_record&page=S1912&position=all) Toppling Saddam is a major theme. Contempt for the air strikes (military strikes) is expressed in very political language. "Covert" means are not ruled out. You know, start a bloody civil war or stuff like that.

Kerry's ability to unadroitly stumble from one side of an issue to the other has worked so far. Maybe he'll win.

[Desmostylus]

They are so often mentioned in the same article, or photoshopped onto a podium together, I got confused on the level of denial. You sure that your confusion isn't caused by something a little more personal, like say your IQ or your state of mental health?

[sturmhauke]

His comments WERE LIES -- and he knew it...

He was too stupid to know that the barbaric North Vietnamese would use his comments as a reason to torture his "comrades-in-arms"?
The partisan nimrod is you. Regardless of whether Kerry lied or not, the only people responsible for torturing POWs are the torturers and their superiors. Kerry didn't go over there and say, "Hey, torture these guys or I'll blow you motherfuckers up, put you back together, and do it again." He gave a speech. In the US. I don't know what dumbass universe you live in where one guy can be a torturer in one country, and some other guy in some other country says something about the first guy, and that somehow makes the second guy responsible for the torture? I mean really, where the fuck does that thought come from? Did your mommy drop a Star Trek prop on your head when you were a baby or what?

[Zoe]

On the other hand, he allied himself with hippie-freaks when our boys were dying in Vietnam.

And if more people had allied themselves with the "hippie-freaks" sooner, thousands of our men and women would still be alive. That's one of the reasons we were protesting. Did you think that we didn't lose people we loved in that war?

We "hippie-freaks" are in our fifties and sixties now. Did you think we just vaporized? You just don't recognize us anymore. Look around you at the polls. Our age group is good about voting and we've always been politically active. And who do you think we will be voting for?

[Beagle]

You'd know crazy if you saw it. Based on your wonderful demeanor on the internet, I'd suggest you not do much face-to-face in the real world.

Kerry Decries Bush Attacks (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040222/ap_on_el_pr/kerry&cid=694&ncid=716)

One, which haven't started yet. Two, would be in direct response to McAuliffe's allegations. But, most importantly, three, would only be fair. Kerry wants to hug a Vietnam vet at every campaign stop, but ignore the ones that think he got thousands of their friends killed.

I don't blame him.

[rjung]

Just to recap... if I understand him correctly, Beagle claims that John Kerry is an evil traitorous American because he said stuff that "the enemy" were able to use to advance their causes.

Am I right? Is that the gist of his current argument?

Well, then, Beagle, where's your ire for Ann Coulter, whose infamous "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" quote has been used by Islamic fundamentalists in their recruitment efforts?

Weapons of Mass Deception, Rampton & Stauber, p.146
Shortly after Coulter's column appeared, it resurfaced on the website f the Mujahideen Lashkar-e-Taiba -- one of the largest militant Islamist groups in Pakistan -- which works closely with Al Qaeda. ... The reproduction of Coluter's column used bold, red letters to highlight the sentence that said to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." To make the point even stronger, the webmaster added a comment: "We told you so. Is anyone listening out there? The noose is already around our necks. The preparation for genocide of ALL Muslims has begun... Remember these words because it is coming. The only safe refuge you have is Allah."

Can't wait for the righteous indignation against Ann that you'll be sharing with us any minute now, Beagle. :rolleyes:

[Miller]

You'd know crazy if you saw it. Based on your wonderful demeanor on the internet, I'd suggest you not do much face-to-face in the real world.

Kerry Decries Bush Attacks (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040222/ap_on_el_pr/kerry&cid=694&ncid=716)

One, which haven't started yet. Two, would be in direct response to McAuliffe's allegations. But, most importantly, three, would only be fair.

Which has what, exactly, to do with the rest of this thread?

Kerry wants to hug a Vietnam vet at every campaign stop, but ignore the ones that think he got thousands of their friends killed.

I don't blame him.

Umm, if I were a Vietnam Vet who thought Kerry had got thousands of my friends killed, I wouldn't want him to hug me. As usual, what's your point?

[Spavined Gelding]

Beagle, if you could control your rage for a moment and pay attention it would be a big help.

Every one of the incidents, and plenty more like them, were common knowledge in the active army during Vietnam. Some of those incidents appeared on national TV, particularly on the CBS evening news. The incidents ranged from mutilating corpses (mostly taking ears as trophies--some guys were dumb enough or callous enough to take photos of themselves holding strings of ears, like a good catch of bluegills, and try to send the photographs home), to heaving prisoners out of helicopters to encourage the others to talk, to machine gunning peasants working in paddies if they ran, to fragging huts without bothering to see who was inside, to horrors like MyLi.

Sooner or later you have to recognize that it happened. It happened because junior officers and NCOs did not or could not control their people, because troops in the field were frustrated, because there was no place in the country that was a safe rear area where you could let your guard down. It happened because senior commanders were forced into a situation where success was based on body count without much concern about what the body was about when it became an entry in the ledger. It is worth noting that one of the factors that lead credibility to the eye witness reports of MyLi and lead to an investigation was that there were lots of bodies reported but few weapons captured.

I will also tell you that there was the same sort of rage directed toward the officers who made the decision to take the MyLi cases to trial, the young JAGC officers who tried the cases and the people who testified. I understand the unwillingness to launder dirty linen but to say it isn't dirty, or worse than that, to say that it is only dirty because it is washed in public, is an approach that defies reason.

If you are going to continue to post along the lines of your messages in this thread we are going to have to get a new pictogram--a dog foaming at the mouth.

[elf6c]

Fucking research his denials. You are the best example of a PARTISAN NIMROD I can think of.

Are you capable of internet research? Your posts indicate not.

Coming from a clown that has yet to provide one legitimate cite for absurd right-wing Freeper dogma, that's rich.

Kerry was in Vietnam, that gives him the right to speak the fuck up for a war that was mistake in his estimation. At least he served which is more then you can say for Bush or Cheney. Would you like to discuss their military records? Is cowering in a undisclosed location a record?

:rolleyes:

[manhattan]

Can I please jump in this trainwreck just long enough to remind people that Nimrod = hunter. A mighty hunter. Noah's grandkid, a British submarine hunter (http://www.airpictorial.com/pages/nimrod.html), that sort of thing. Bugs was expressing sarcastic derision with his tone of voice, not his choice of words.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[dropzone]

We "hippie-freaks" are in our fifties and sixties now. Did you think we just vaporized? You just don't recognize us anymore. Look around you at the polls. Our age group is good about voting and we've always been politically active. And who do you think we will be voting for?And some chickens will come home to roost! :D

Ain't nobody here but us chickens.

[dropzone]

Can I please jump in this trainwreck just long enough to remind people that Nimrod = hunter. Yeah, and "maroon" is just a color. Mr Bunny took these innocent words and transformed their meanings for several generations. Get used to it. ;)

[elf6c]

John Kerry and his Senate allies did a great job arguing for an Iraq war in 1998. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1998_record&page=S1912&position=all) Toppling Saddam is a major theme. Contempt for the air strikes (military strikes) is expressed in very political language. "Covert" means are not ruled out. You know, start a bloody civil war or stuff like that.

Kerry's ability to unadroitly stumble from one side of an issue to the other has worked so far. Maybe he'll win.

Woo Hoo- lets watch the GOP flip flop then: seeing they opposed bombing Saddam when Clinton did it, those conservatives all must be treasonous traitors, right?

From an older thread:

________
Speaking of apologies- when Clinton bombed Iraq various high ranking Republicans claimed he was "wagging the dog" and we shouldn't have bombed them or Al Queda. Seeing Bush later invaded Iraq even though nothing changed but the health of the economy, I am expecting those apologies to Clinton and the American people any day now.

Cites:

http://slate.msn.com/id/11384/

Quote:
1. Overt Cynicism. The politician accuses Clinton of wagging the dog. Example: "It is obvious that he is doing this for political reasons" (Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.).

2. Cynicism by innuendo. The accuser phrases the dog-wagging charge obliquely so that he can deny having made it. Example: "We have had either hostilities or threatened hostilities at interesting times throughout the last year" (incoming House Speaker Bob Livingston).

3. Backhanded cynicism. The accuser implies dog-wagging by saying either a) he can't bring himself to believe Clinton would wag the dog; or b) the White House has assured him it's not so. Example: "While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process ... [b]oth the timing and the policy are subject to question" (Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott).

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

Feel the Irony-- feel it:

Quote:
There are at least ten reasons why America should not now make war on Iraq, even if it were certain that such an effort would be "successful":

1) President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.

2) Let's not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.

3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.

4) Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.

....

8) The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.

9) If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?

10) War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our "allies" join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/mar99/psrmar99.html

Quote:
First, it's a "wag the dog" public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the "life is truer than fiction" movie Wag the Dog. The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to "move on" from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ision082198.htm

Quote:
The White House yesterday asserted that Clinton's decision to bomb suspected terrorist installations was in no way linked to or affected by the Lewinsky controversy. At a minimum, however, the response to Clinton's action showed how his legal and personal problems have altered the prism through which his presidential decisions are viewed.

Several Republicans yesterday raised the issue expressly. Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said: "After months of lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions -- stonewalling -- it raised into doubt everything he does and everything he says," Coats said.

Administration officials said yesterday they had anticipated criticism that Clinton was following a "Wag the Dog" strategy -- so-named after the recent movie in which a president tries to draw attention away from a sexual scandal by staging a phony war -- but had no choice but to ignore it.

The same speculation arose last February made when Clinton contemplated military action against Iraq.

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/12/cov_17newsb.html

Quote:
In a speech to the nation, President Clinton defended his attack on Iraq, saying a "strong, sustained series of airstrikes" against Iraq was necessary to punish Saddam Hussein for his refusal to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. Only minutes into "Operation Desert Fox," Republicans were crying "Wag the Dog." Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., joined other leading Republicans in claiming he could not support the attack because he couldn't be sure it wasn't politically motivated, although Lott had been briefed three weeks ago about the possibility of an attack if Saddam defied the United Nations.

And I wonder what a search of "wag the dog" would bring up here. Seeing Al Queda and Iraq are now deemed such critical threats, and alledge non-complance with UN resolutions are now ground for an invasion versus missle strikes and am sure all those Republicans will now apologize for their treasonous(1) political outbursts.

(1) irony fully intended.

Follow the fun:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=188617&page=2

This ones fun too:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=187955

[MMI]

It does not appear that Kerry qualified the following statement with "I've been told by others":

"Blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties"

That clearly is not an accurate statement, by a long shot:

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwc10.htm

Your cite does indicates that during the early years of the Vietnam war (4-5 years before Kerry's testimony) blacks were substantially overrepresented in the casualty pool - over 20% of casualaties were black but only 11% of soldiers and marines were black. And later on blacks continued to suffer casualties at a slightly higher rate than would be expected solely based on their participation in the military at a whole. What records would have been available to Kerry I do not know.

I think that your cite definitely shows that what he said is not literally true, but to simply call him a liar also misses the point.