Some highlights from my earlier cites (just above your post):
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…
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.
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?
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:
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).
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. 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.
You sure that your confusion isn’t caused by something a little more personal, like say your IQ or your state of mental health?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Can’t wait for the righteous indignation against Ann that you’ll be sharing with us any minute now, Beagle. :rolleyes:
Which has what, exactly, to do with the rest of this thread?
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?
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.
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:
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, 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.
And some chickens will come home to roost! 
Ain’t nobody here but us chickens.
Yeah, and “maroon” is just a color. Mr Bunny took these innocent words and transformed their meanings for several generations. Get used to it. 
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:
-
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.).
-
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).
-
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 … **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”:
-
President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.
-
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.
-
It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.
-
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.
…
-
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.
-
If we “succeed”, what have we gained? If we don’t begin a war, what have we lost?
-
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:
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.