I’ve read the book and examined the SBVT site in detail. If everything they say against Kerry’s service in Vietnam is 100% true I would still have no compaint against Kerry’s service.
I look at the Rasmann incident where Kerry pulled him into the boat, and I don’t care what version is true. I don’t care if Kerry came back in a hail of gunfire, singlehandly, drove off the Viet Cong while blood was running down the gunnels. I don’t care if Kerry came back after pissing his pants and running away at the sound of the mine exploding and nobody fired a single bullet against him.
The fact remains that Kerry was there, doing his duty and he pulled a distressed American soldier into his boat under what were surely stressful and dangerous circumstances. Good job Mr. Kerry. Thank you.
On the other side of the coin I do take issue with Kerry’s congressional testimony. I don’t argue with his right to do it. However, by criticizing how other soldiers have comported themselves he is fairly left open to criticism himself on his own actions as well as to the truth and merits of the tetimony he gave.
Certainly other veterans who served are fairly entitled to respond as the see fit.
Personally, I would have preferred that they attacked solely the substance of his criticisms, rather than the substance of his service.
(No disrespect intended to the brave men and women of the Coast Guard – they had a necessary job and some of them did get activated in sent to 'Nam. And no disrespect intended to the recipients of deferments – they were there for a reason and those were the rules. It was perfectly honorable to take a deferment or wear a CG uniform.)
[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the SDMB Scylla.
There’s an interesting little tidbit on the SBVT this evening. It turns out that two of their members, Kenneth Cordier and Paul Galanti, serve on the VA’s ‘Former POW Advisory Committee’. According to Cordier:
Now according to the VA’s calendar of events, the Former POW Advisory Committee met in Washington DC on May 28- May 30, 2004. The SBVFT got it’s start start on May 4, 2004 at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC. I wonder who paid for the Swifties trip to DC, and who they met with in the 4 days between the VA meetings and their news conference?
Do you also take issue with the men and women who blew the whistle and who have testified, and will be testifying, regarding the Abu Ghraib/Gitmo/Afghanistan abuses perpetrated by our soldiers?
His right? You don’t think he had a duty to speak?
Such a mild and inoffensive choice of words gives one pause, especially with one who is normally quite careful in his choice of words. One has to wonder why such delicacy seems appropriate when discussing horrific crimes. “Comported” implies matters of etiquette and diplomacy. Hardly meets the gravity of the situation.
Unless one means to suggest that this tesimony was untrue, or exaggerated. Do you mean to suggest such? If it were untrue, nothing more than propaganda for a political end, no one would be quicker to reach for a rope than I. Do I misread your meaning?
I would only if they were not accountable for their testimony, and if the those accused, and those with contradictory testimony were not allowed rebuttal.
You do not. I believe he gave false testimony at the Fulbright hearing. I believe that the Wintersoldier investigation that he held used an insufficient standard of evidence in gathering its materials concerning war crimes and that it was negligent and irresponsible to present as fact undocumented hearsay from uncredentialed persons.
Subsequent investigations showed that the evidence upon which Mr. Kerry based his testimony (Re: Wintersoldier) was largely falsified and wholly undocumented.
Well, good heavens, man! Why didn’t you say so! You have the clearly impartial authority of the Freepers? Whose candor and straightforward non-partisanship is the stuff of legend! And here I thought you might be basing your opinion on sources less than reliable! But no! It is the very Freepers themselves, the very paragons of political purity!
What need have we for such as the Toledo Blade, with thier ill-gotten Pulitzer? (I include the link for purposes of comparison only, that you might share friend Scylla’s disdain and contempt for such blatant political propaganda!)
Kenneth Cordier! What an amazing coincidence! Doesn’t he have exactly the same name as that fellow who suddenly resigned from GeeDubya’s campaign? Boy, what are the odds!
What specific flaws do you find in the material cited?
What need have we for such as the Toledo Blade, with thier ill-gotten Pulitzer? (I include the link for purposes of comparison only, that you might share friend Scylla’s disdain and contempt for such blatant political propaganda!)
To my knowledge no one is asserting that some specific atrocities did not occur. What is at issue was Mr. Kerry’s claim that they were commonplace, not the exception and that they occured with the full knowledge and encouragement of the chain of command.
Thank you for that link and excerpt. I don’t beleive that I’m misinformed though. As you’ll note I responded to some of the points you made while you were gathering them, and in fact used a quote from your excerpt.
I don’t feel that I’m misinformed. I am aware that atrocities occured. That is not really the issue, and I think that we can have agreement on it.
Kerry characterizes these atrocities as commonplace rather than the exception, and himself concedes that he was excessive. I feel on strong ground that he was irresponsible in the gathering of his evidence during the Wintersoldier investigation and in his characterization of it during the Fulbright testimony.
I feel that in choosing to make such a testimony he had the duty to be careful and accurate rather than excessive and angry in his characterizations, and that he was not.
I feel that it is doubly so in a time of war, and while I appreciate Mr. Kerry’s backing off of his tesitmony to some degree, I do not feel that it is enough, nor that it excuses his excesses.
Further, I feel that in a wartime and as a ready reservist it was improper and probably highly illegal for Mr. Kerry to negotiate with foreign powers in Paris as he did on two occasions when he met with members of the North Vietnamese Government concerning the war. He seems to recognize this behavior as marginal in his testimony to the Fulbright committee. I feel that such recognition does not excuse it.
Finally, having undergone SERE training while enlisted Kerry had full knowledge that his public testimony against his fellow soldiers and his activities with the North Vietnamese government could and most likely would be used against POWS currently held by the enemy. Because of this, his duty was to be careful and accurate in his testimony, which he was not. I can think of no rational explanation for how he justifies meeting with the North Vietnamese. Perhaps the most telling thing about this particular chain of events is how it was recognized by the North Vietnamese themselves. They consider Mr. Kerry a hero of the war that helped win it for them, and he is memorialized in their war remnants museum.
Well, lets clarify a few things first. I’ve danced a few waltzes with you and have found it is less agonizing if we settle the ground rules first. For instance, do you expect me, or anyone in their right mind, to accept the Freepers as a source of nonpartisan, unbiased information?
Because if the answer is “yes”, or any variation thereof, its probably best if we just leave this thread to such persons as agree with that notion, that they made trade theories on Hilary’s Satanism and Black Helicopters.
“Commonplace” wants definition as well. In your own backhanded way, you have admitted that some “specific atrocities” might have occurred. But your double negative syntax doesn’t quite rise to that, you only say that no one is saying they didn’t. Which isn’t quite the same thing, now is it? So lets be clear: did such things occur? Once? Twice? A hundred? What, precisely do you mean by “commonplace”?
And, of course, a multitude of sins can be hidden inside the phrase “full knowledge and encouragement”. Its a pit, covered in leaves and twigs, with big sharp sticks protruding up from the bottom, for the unwary and innocent. Been there, done that, once is more than enough.
How about we accept the principles established by the United States in the Yamashita trial? That a commanding officer, and every officer in the chain of command, has responsibility for the actions of thier subordinates, regardless of their personal knowledge of war crimes, or even complete lack thereof.
You are neither nonpartisan nor unbiased. Nor am I for that matter. That is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of me, you, or the freepers. If you have a specific issue with the cited material as I’ve cited it, feel free to make it, and expect me to address it.
“Commonplace” wants definition as well. In your own backhanded way, you have admitted that some “specific atrocities” might have occurred. But your double negative syntax doesn’t quite rise to that, you only say that no one is saying they didn’t. Which isn’t quite the same thing, now is it? So lets be clear: did such things occur? Once? Twice? A hundred? What, precisely do you mean by “commonplace”?
Kerry said: “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.” (Referring to atrocities and "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 "
So by “commonplace” I am using short-hand for “not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day to day basis.”
Ok?
Not really. It’s referring directly to Kerry’s quote concerning the “full awareness of officers at all levels of command,” and “…American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions,” (full context here: http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=WarCrimes,) so I think that “knowledge and encouragement” is a fair parsing of Kerry’s words.
I’m not sufficiently familiar with the case to accept it.
For the record Elucidator I am trying to apply the same standards of evidence to Kerry as I did in our innumerable debates concerning Bush. IMO the case to be made against Kerry concerning his service in Vietnam is insufficient to merit the charges they’ve weighed against him. Kerry could clear this up by releasing his full records. But, like Bush, I feel his under no compulsion to do so. The Swifties should prove their case. They have not shown that he served with dishonor. They should not make the accusation that he did.
Further, I am fully aware that the words being used against him are culled from specifically because of their value against him. I recognize that you lived through the time period in question while I was in diapers.
Nevertheless, I think that Kerry’s words and actions upon his return with VVAW are unworthy of the service he rendered and of his fellow veterans who had served and were still serving. Kerry himself seems to recognize this and has addressed it to some degree.
How we interpret this and what choices we make based on it are going to be personal and subject to our own judgements.
Personally, I think Kerry’s activities with VVAW represent the low point of his career. How he juggles (or fails to juggle) the battling memes of noble warrior and weary protester embittered by personal atrocities is going to largely color the remainder of the election process for better or for worse.
Oddly enough, my view is precisely the opposite. I see a man who craved a political career, a born political animal, in many respect similar to Bill Clinton. And was perfectly willing to throw his career in the shitter to speak truth to power. In comparison to that, Clinton and Bush both look like puling cowards.
As to your using the same adamantine standards of proof that you insisted by applied to GeeDubya (i.e., documents, eyewitnesses, affidavits, confessions written in blood, DNA test to prove the source of the blood, direct testimony of God Almighty, etc.), I hasten to note that all you have provided so far is sources known to all here as being sworn enemies of Sen Kerry: nothing but Freepers and SwiftVets. If those are going to be your standards, you’re off to a mighty weak start. Unless you amend that oversight PDQ, you got diddly squat.
And if you do mean what you say about using the same standards of evidence you demanded during the Harken Debacle (aka “The Long March”), then don’t you have to prove your case? You say Kerry was lying, yes? It is your assertion, is it not. Isn’t the burden of proof on you, in this instance, as it was on me in the previous? That lies somewhere between the daunting and the impossible.
Are you sure you’ve given this enough thought? Your skills in the defensive posture are formidable, as no one knows better than myself. But if the burden of proof is on you, you haven’t got a prayer.
Now, wouldn’t it be slightly relevant mentioning why Kerry’s picture is in that museum ? The photo that’s making the rounds over at Freep and other sites of that character was taken in 1993 (for those keeping score at home, that’s a couple of decades after the Vietnam war) where John Kerry chaired the bipartisan Senate Select Committee with the (rather obviously thankless) job of trying to lay the POW/MIA issue to rest. As part of the committee’s work, Kerry and others went to Hanoi to try to open communications channels, gain access for body recovery crews etc.
Incidentally, John McCain was on the committee and on the same trip to Vietnam, although for some reason that little factoid doesn’t get as much airtime. (The right can tolerate McCain again, it seems. Dragging his name in the mud was strictly a 2000 phenomenon.)
Friend Scylla is tenderhearted, and ever mindful of overburdening the hamsters. It is important that we know that Mr. Kerry is a hero to the Communist Vietnamese, it is not important that we be burdened with trivial exculpatory information.
(Nice catch, by the way. Good show, that. Pip, pip.)
Your feelings concerning Swiftvets and Freerupublic nothwithstanding, you need to respond by showing me what is wrong with the substance of the cites I’ve produced by engaging them and demonstrating fault. Deprecating them out of hand is simply an ad hominem attack and therefore fallacious.
Well yes. That’s why I have no quarrel with Kerry’s Vietnam service. Such charges as levelled by the Swiftvets must carry a very high standard of evidence. One they have failed to meet, IMO. For example, as I read what they had to say about his service, I realized that they made a very compelling case. They just failed to prove it. So my assumption is that Kerry’s Service was as it has seemed for the last 30 years. Heroic.
Certainly in the Harkens thread, and the National Guard thread your stance was that Bush was pretty much guilty and that innocence needed to be proven.
Kerry’s Wintersoldier testimony is a matter of public record, however.
I appreciate the compliment. Indeed, my Kung Fu is strong. The burden of proof re: the Wintersoldier thing isn’t that tough though. Kerry hangs himself on the record. He did not follow responsible rules of evidence in gathering the material for his testimony, failing to verify that those testifying were in fact actual combat veterans. He admits to meeting with North Vietnamese representatives and discussing terms of peace during a time of war in his own testimony and several times since. IANA lawyer but it seems to me that this is specifically illegal. When taken with the context that Kerry was an Ex-navy officer (and I beleive still affiliated with the Ready reserves at the time,) and a veteran of Sere training, he was fully informed that his words and actions could and would most likely be used against him as regards to POWS and could consist of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That, I beleive is treason.
Several POWS are on the record pointing out that Kerry’s testimony was used as an instrument against them and as proof that they were war criminals by the Vietnamese. Some say that his actions extended the war and caused more US casualties.
From POW Paul Galanti in the LA Times, Feb 17, 2004:
""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 citied the antiwar speeches as “an example of why we should cross over to (their) side.”
"The Viet Cong didn’t think they had to win the war on the battlefield."Galanti said, “because thanks to these protesters they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington.”
He says Kerry broke a covenant among servicemen never to make public criticisms that might jeopardize those still in battle or in the hands of the enemy.
Because he did, Galanti said, “John Kerry was a traitor to the men he served with.”
Now retired and living in Richmond, VA., Galanti, 64, refuses to cool his ire toward Kerry. “I don’t plan to set it aside. I don’t know anyone who does,” he said. “The Vietnam memorial has thousands of additional names due to John Kerry and others like him.”
You can read about it here:
