I don’t know how any American over the age of thirty can think that this election is business as usual.
I have not seen such division in our country since the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s. Nor have I seen such frightening tactics used before, although the campaign of 1972 was ugly.
A lot of people who should be asking for evidence are not. I don’t understand that kind of mindless acceptance.
I don’t know who posted those words, so this is not a personal attack. But the content of those sentences is the most disturbed line of thinking that I have read in Great Debates since I have been participating here. If we can’t depend on the testimony of the man who was rescued…THEN WHAT? We take someone else’s word instead about who did the rescuing???
Sigh.
May I suggest a reading of the testimony from the War Crimes Tribunal in 1967?
Or perhaps a review of Naval Records. (That’s why they are kept, isn’t it?)
This is shameful. Why are so many of you ignoring the comments of John McCain on the dishonesty of these ads? In what way does he not qualify as unbiased? He’s a state Bush campaign chairman, a Republican, a Vietnam Vet, a POW, a Senator…Hello?
But what, exactly, is your point, Snakespirit? Spavined offered his personal experience in support of his contention, that disgraceful behavior in Viet Nam was widely known, widely recognized. You dispute his anecdote by bringing to bear your own experience but you don’t make any further claims?
'Cause, frankly, whether or not cutting off heads was “doctrine” or not is pretty small potatoes against the overall point.
Are you, or are you not, claiming that contention to be false? Was Kerry lying in his testimony to the Senate? Did the soldiers who testified at the “Winter Soldier” hearings, were they lying? If such things were uncommon during your tour of duty, does that mean they remained uncommon after 1968?
What’s wrong with holding the position that more freedom is better than less freedom even if it produces some unsavory or even offensive stuff? That’s exactly what the 1st amendment is all about. You know-- “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it” and all that.
That was me. And let’s at least be clear here. I’m not calling Rassmann a liar. I’m saying he’s not necessarily the best witness, given that A) he’s not a sailor and wouldn’t understand what was going on on the river, and B) he was swallowing river water and trying to stay alive. In addition, his testimony is CLEARLY wrong. He says all the boats left, and Kerry came back. The other boats didn’t leave. They couldn’t, because one of them was blown out of the water and couldn’t move, and the men on that boat were being rescued. Again, I don’t think he’s lying - I think he was standing on a boat one minute, and the next he was in the water and he saw the stern of Kerry’s boat motoring away from him and he heard machine guns going off and he was terrified, and then he saw Kerry coming back like an avenging angel and was pulled out of the water and now is honorably defending that man. The problem is, he’s just a poor witness. On the other hand, we have ten eyewitnesses (according to O’neill) who agree on their version of what happened, including three of the four skippers of the other boats , who had been in engagements just like that one on multiple occasions, saying that it just didn’t happen that way. They say that the minute the mine went off, Kerry bugged out while they tried to rescue the other boat. Then Kerry came back, picked up the last straggler in the water (three others were already pulled out safely).
Kerry then wrote up the after-action report, portraying himself heroically and the others less so. That is their claim. Two other eyewitnesses dispute part of that and say there was fire. So we have a conundrum. Except that the physical evidence such that we can reconstruct verifies their story and not Kerry’s.
It seems to me that YOU are the one who is automatically assuming that these other people are lying. I’m trying to reconcile two opposing sets of ‘facts’. So far, I’m siding with the Swiftvets. Not just because there are more of them, but because the primary witness against them is John Kerry himself, and he’s already been caught in numerous lies in this little episode, so forgive me if I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt. First we had ‘Christmas in Cambodia’. Then we have the little problem that his own journals contradict his medical report for his 3rd purple heart.
And the Cambodia story is important. As Pat Buchanan (a person I normally dislike) said aptly today, “How does someone have a ‘Road To Damascus’ moment that didn’t happen?” Kerry has described that night as one of the defining moments of his life - the moment when the sheer absurdity of being deep in Cambodia on Christmas of all days finally pulled the scales from his eyes and allowed him to see the giant tapestry of lies that was the Vietnam war. You can’t credibly go from that to, “Well, I was near the border sometime, and I’m sure I was in Cambodia some other time although I can’t really remember when it was.”
The only reason you guys are treating him as an unimpeachable witness is because you want him to be President.
And let’s talk about leadership, shall we? This is a man who volunteered for Vietnam, took a position of responsibility, and then used a technicality to abandon his command after four months. He wasn’t a draftee. He was supposed to be a professional sailor. I believe he is the only sailor out of a unit of almost 300 men who went home early who wasn’t disabled. Among the men of his unit, most saw that act to be dishonorable in itself, regardless of the other allegations.
This is false in two different ways. First, the Swift Boat Tour was Kerry’s SECOND tour. He had already done a year before that. He was officially accredited with 16 months of combat duty so spare us the “four months” canard already.
Secondly, Kerry did not “use a technicality” to go home. He is not the one who requested the transfer. It was standard policy for anyone who had been wounded three times and you know this.
I believe we’ve covered the Cambodian non-issue a number of times, but I don’t remember the other thing you raise. Can you remind me? Any other examples you can think of? Two ain’t exactly “numerous”.
“… Except that the physical evidence such that we can reconstruct verifies their story and not Kerry’s…”
And that would be what, exactly? The absence of bullet holes? But there were bullet holes. Oh, those were yesterday’s bullet holes. According to the unimpeachable testimony of Mr. Lonsdale. Who accepted his award for bravery under fire, fire he now claims didn’t exist. The one who claims to be able to peer into Kerry’s mind, and see the plan aforming (There oftimes appears to be an extraordinary belief in clairovoyance on the Board…).
At what range, Sam will an AK 47 punch a hole into a Swift Boat? I’d kind of expect them to be able to withstand small arms fire. But you have certain evidence to the contrary, yes? Certainly you wouldn’t try to besmirch Kerry’s reputation without that knowledge at hand! Perish the thought! It is only in your pell-mell rush to remain open-minded, you neglected to cite it.
From the Swiftees’ perspective, they could care less what he did before. The fact is, he showed up in their unit as a professional, volunteer sailor, and bailed early.
You have a cite for that? Because I have now read from several sources that Kerry requested to leave.
1 - We don’t know who wrote the after action report. Sam asserts that we do.
2 - The physical evidence does not verify the S-V story
3 - Sam is prepared to side with the S-V’s by his own account because J-K has been caught in numerous little lies. Odd that, considering that the S-V’s have been caught in numerous large lies.
4 - The medical journals/ own report is a non-starter.
Not so far as Sam has explained, it’s not. Kerry tells a story about how he came to oppose the Vietnam war. It’s not true in a dramatic but irrelevant particular. So what?
Projection much?
Kerry isn’t the witness. The credible evidence:
material documentation and
disinterested witnesses that have come forth freely and unprompted.
But let’s digress into S-V territory. The real reason they oppose Kerry for president is because of his testimony on the Vietnam war. Was that testimony false? Unimportant?
What is the attitude of persons who value truth to Kerry’s testimony on the Vietnam war.
Do truth-lovin’ folks join the S-V’s in wishing that Kerry had never given that testimony?
Who is … for truth. ? Not that group of Vets, that is for sure. How dare they claim to be ‘for truth’.
Sam wrote
I simply don’t believe this. Not because none of the men said so at the time. Not because there is no survey of what most thought, Not because Sam provides no cite. No it’s because Sam keeps making unfounded assertions of this kind.
Generally Sam’s errors are consistent. The posts draw conclusions beyond those warranted by the facts. Need I give examples? Rather, in each case Sam concludes that Kerry is unfit for command.
Why? On the basis of loose conjecture and an unlikely assessment of the evidence. It might be rate of gunfire, penetration power of an AK 47 at 100m, navigability of the Mekong, whatever. What possible relevance could these conclusions have, even if they were well founded? Which they aren’t.
Errors are OK, but Sam’s errors are consistently, without exception pejorative of Kerry. That’s why I don’t believe Sam is bona fide.
By extension, that may be why the major media feel the same way. Now having turned as one against the S-Vs, the story is in its dying days.
My point is clear, as stated. It was not “doctrine” to chop off heads. That’s not small potatoes, that was his allegation, which he has backed off from, somewhat, saying that it was his experience in ROTC.
I can speak personally for me and my unit in 1968. He speaks from his experience in ROTC training for 1965. And from second hand reports he hints at. Sure, VietNam had atrocities, but were they “doctrine?” If they were then how come so many of us missed out on the training?
Frankly, those concessions looked to me like the product of compulsion.
Instead I’ll reduce my questions to one:
Why are the S-V’s lies innocuous compared to Kerry’s ‘in Cambodia’ recollection? Why does the latter fatally poison credibility and not the former?
Generally, being as the S-V’s beef is with Kerry’s congress testimony, why aren’t we discussing that?
I suggest the answer is that it was true. Important. Relevant.
But look, I entered the discussion because I saw Vietnam in the title and Cambodia mentioned in the thread. I knew next to zip about Kerry. From my disinterested pov this thread lead me to nothing less than esteem for the man.
What’s wrong with admitting that Bush supported “issue ads” by independent groups two years ago and opposes them now because it is a politically convenient way of distancing himself from his friends’ slime machine without actually having to acknowledge the slime?
And as we all know, Green Berets are big sissies who are incapable of recognizing a situation and sizing it up. Especially after they’ve gotten wet.
Again, those big silly Green Berets and all.
Yet nobody said a thing until O’Neill’s book (co-written with the crazy bigot mentioned earlier) came out. Suddenly, there are scads of people who are experts on precisely what happened 30+ years ago. Deftly cutting through the muddle and operating with laserlike intensity to find the truth. Tht’s why you’re here, right Sam? Only to operate in a support position for the Swifties and their fight for the truth?
Operating with laserlike precision to uncover the version of facts that lines up with what you want to believe.
But because they offer testimony against Kerry!
No forgiveness necessary. The very idea of you giving Kerry the benefit of this or any other doubt is laughable.
Yeah! You guys! As opposed to Sam here who treats utterances of Swifties as more believable because. . .well. . .because they, um, they disagree with Kerry. . .and Sam wants Bush to. . .to not lose. . .in his contest with Kerry.
Yes, let’s! Kerry saved a man’s life. In the hallowed halls of congress. Just walked into a situation, sized it up and acted. Kerry took a principled stand against a war that was a proxy for a US vs USSR (cue Benny, Bjorn and Tim) fight. Not in the late seventies when almost everyone agreed that it was a bad idea, but when he returned home from fighting in it. As has been pointed out, Swift Boat duty happened during his second tour. So pissing and moaning that he bailed after four months is more than just a skosh disingenuous.
Too, your screed seems to imply that professional sailors were a better breed than draftees. Here’s your chance to clear that up.
As to your beliefs, will you be providing a cite that backs them up? Or will they simply remain your beliefs, and therefore impervious to argument? Surely proving that Kerry was, “the only sailor out of a unit of almost 300 men who went home early who wasn’t disabled,” would be easy to back up. As to getting the testimony of most of the men in his unit inre their feelings that Kerry was dishonorable, well, I would guess that that particular little conversational bomb may just be left lying there.
So it’s a little of both. Kerry made a choice of where to go, as per regulations. He could have requested to stay, true, but decided not to after 16 months, a bronze star, a silver star, and 3 wounds. I’m not holding it against him, and can’t imagine how anyone else could, either… unless, of course, they were upset to be losing a great officer. It doesn’t make much sense to me that they’d be pissed off to get this dangerous madman out of their unit, but maybe I just don’t understand the military.
GLW, you do realize, don’t you, that you’re trying to convince someone who can sincerely claim that both the rescuer and rescuee are lying about the circumstances of a rescue, while guys who weren’t there and have flip-flopped their stories are currently telling the truth?
It’s a waste of time - after the amusement value has worn off, that is, which it certainly has by this time. SG’s assessment is dead on.
This part belongs in the soon-to-be-built Cecil Adams Memorial Great Debates Hall of Fame, though:
Referring to his own “belief” as a cite. Well, this is the forum for witnessing, after all.
Funny how virtually all of them say the opposite about their regard for him, though. They must be either lying or “confused”.
Nothing about being a Green Beret makes you a better witness while you’re floating in choppy water wearing heavy gear and boots, repeatedly diving to the river bottom because you think you’re being shot at. Pretty hard to figure out what’s happening 75 yards away.