Well…my, my, my.
Look what the cat drug in!
Hey, Scylla! Where’ve you been hiding all this time?
Yes, of course. That is when the photo is taken. No one is disputing that that I am aware of. That is clearly stated in Unfit for Command and also on the web at Freerublic. The context of the picture is in the War Remnants museum protesters section crediting those who helped the North Vietnamese win the war.
Documentation and discussion here:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545
and here:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040604194804799
The context seems well-documented.
Scylla, you’ve been gone a while, so I’ll forgive you not having quite gotten up to speed around here, but we’ve soundly proven the SBVs to be nothing but liars – no, make that damn liars – in this thread, in particular. They’ve been completely discredited as witnesses, therefore, there is absolutely no way in hell I’ll ever accept any “cite” provided by them as having any merit whatsoever. We may not be unbiased, but I expect that the sources we use to at least make an attempt to be neutral. Using the SBVs and the Freepers to bolster your arguments against Kerry is like trying to get away with using Fred Phelps as a cite about homosexuality, or David Duke about race relations. Forget it – ain’t gonna fly around here. Especially since it is their claims we’re discussing here, citing them in support of them is rather redundant and irrelevant, wouldn’t you say?
Secondly, if you quoted my cite, I’m having a hard time finding it, so if it’s there and I’ve overlooked it, I apologize. But either way, you’ve clearly either glossed over or ignored the following, contained therein:
[quote]
[ul][li]“Hundreds” of others: In December 2003 The New York Times quoted Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University who has been studying government archives, as saying the records are filled with accounts of atrocities similar to those described by the Toledo Blade series. “I stumbled across the incidents The Blade reported,” Turse was quoted as saying. “I read through that case a year, year and a half ago, and it really didn’t stand out. There was nothing that made it stand out from anything else. That’s the scary thing. It was just one of hundreds.”[/li][li]“Exact Same Stories”: Keith Nolan, author of 10 published books on Vietnam, says he’s heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Nolan told FactCheck.org that since 1978 he’s interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. “I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over,” he said. “Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn’t really surprise anyone.”[/ul][/li][/quote]
Sounds like research has borne out that the atrocities, were, in fact, rather commonplace (though no one ever claimed they were universal).
Thirdly, Kerry did not “back off” his actual testimony, nor was he “inaccurate,” as you claim. He only said he regretted that the language he used was rather harsh.
And lastly, as my wonderful husband has pointed out (hi Honey!), you are also mistaken about the appreciation the Vietnamese have for John Kerry.
Just like old times.
I see we already have joined Irresistible Force ('luce and shayna) to Immovable Object (Scylla).
From the tone of the latter’s gathering arguments, it would appear that before this is over we’ll be treated to two standard right-wing propaganda points:
1 - That many members of the VVAW were not, in fact, vets.
2 - That they were dupes of the North Vietnamese, anyway.
I see we’ve already been treated to the “dissent is treason” line. Which I’m sure is why Mccain is such a good buddy of Kerry. At least that’s the impression you’d get from reading the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages back during the Republican primaries in 2000.
It should be noted that vets are frequently distrusted: the most notorious of these episodes of distrust occurred during the Korean War, when brainwashing of POW’s was suspected. 21 GI’s refused to repatriate, and as a result the Army set up a program to “debrainwash” returning GI’s, an effort which the young Eugene Mccarthy, (D) Minnesota, described as “an atrocity perpetrated by our own officials.”* (It should be noted here that the original Manchurian Candidate was a paranoid fantasy of a returning Korean vet brainwashed into becoming a killing machine by those diabolical commie fiends.) In 1956, the Army finally acknowledged that “The exhaustive efforts of several government agencies failed to reveal even one conclusively documented case of actual ‘brainwashing’ of an American prisoner of war in Korea.”**
In short, the Vet is to be honored as long as he comes home and confines his political activities to joining the American Legion and bringing out his medals and parading on Memorial Day and voting straight-line Republican. Behavior that differs from this will earn him scorn, ridicule, and, if he persists, outright accusations of treason.
Contrary to popular belief, it’s been that way for quite some time.
*The 21 “Turncoat GI’s”: see page 2
** VFW Magazine: Courage Under Communist Captivity
Yes. I’ve read the thread. I understand that you have pronounced the Swifties as liars and uncredible, but there’s a large explanatory gap between the fact and the deed. Saying it, doesn’t make it so.
For example, the article in the Billings Gazette is presented as proof that the Swifties are lying. Unfortunately no one in that thread followed up to see if there was another side to the story, or if the Swifties had a response.
They do:
http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7009&highlight=billings+gazette
You may feel that they are fully discredited and therefore utterly dismissable. By the same token I may decide that sources I don’t like are utterly dismissable and refuse to engage them. Then you and I would have nothing to discuss. We could just sit in our own seperate insular worlds believing what we choose, closed to dissenting voices.
Then you shouldn’t debate me. I expect my sources to be engaged on their substance not your preconceptions or opinion of the source. We can’t have a meaningul discussion based on selective perception.
I don’t think your cite bears that out. I could simply say that I refuse to accept the NYT or Keith Nolan and leave it at that, but I hardly find their research conclusive or compelling.
Let’s not parse words. When Kerry says “I think our soldiers served as nobly, on the whole, as in any war.” That is in direct opposition to his testimony at the Fulbright commission wherein he states that “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,” he is specifically indicting the entire officer corps that served in Vietnam, saying that they were aware and complacent.
He also states here:
http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=WarCrimes
That it was his job to fire at civilians, villages and sampans. He claims there was a meeting with General Abrams to discuss the atrocities they were ordered to commit, but that appears to be an outright lie. They had no such orders and that was not the purpose of the meeting.
As I pointed out earlier, I am aware of when the picture was actually taken. That is moot. The context of the picture as it is displayed is what is germaine. If you click on my earlier cites from my previous posts, you can see what I’m talking about. If you don’t like the fact that they are on the Freerublic web site and refuse to consider them, it’s gonna be tough for us to discuss it.
But your sensei is a girly-man.
Only relevent so far as the individual testimony is concerned. If you toss out the testimony of such persons as can be proven to be “ringers”, only their testimony is affected. Which is to say, if you can prove all of the WinSol witnesses were liars, your case is made so far as the WinSol testimony is concerned. But you’ve not done so, nor is it likely that you will. Do advise us if you can.
Further, by concentrating on the procedural issues, you evade the real question: was it true? If the testimony so offered were the only evidence, and that testimony tainted, we would not be having this discussion. But as the Queen of the Jungle has pointed out, the sheer volume of testimony and documentation is mountainous.
No, you are not. Your opinion on its legality is irrelevent, and a waste of hamster. Was Lt. Kerry prosecuted for treason? No? How very odd. Are we to believe that this is due to the kindly nature and generosity of Richard M. Asshole? That Lt. Kerry might well have been prosecuted, but the hand was stayed, because the President was a man of kindly disposition, with a noted generosity and forbearance when it comes to his political enemies? At the risk of thunderous understatement, I think not. Hence, we are pretty safe ground to assume that if he could have been prosecuted, he would have. He couldn’t, he wasn’t, and your point has the significance of a sparrow fart in a high wind.
It is clear that you do. However worshipfully we may regard your opinion, it’s not enough. Lt. Kerry might well have been subject to prosecution if he had presented himself as having authority to speak on behalf of the US government, but of course he did not, nor is there any chance in hell he would have been believed if he had. Lt. Kerry might have been discussing the surrender of Canada to the NVA, for all the relevence this has.
Some say the Earth is flat. Some say evolution is the bunk. Some say the SwiftVets are paragons of candor and honesty. Is it your contention that the NVA and VC were on the brink of surrender, a mighty victory at hand, but only the treasonous actions of the American protest movement prevented such? Please clarify that point, it is extraordinary, one must be certain of your intent.
And of course you are aware, are you not, that you are accusing me of treason, as well? Have a care, tread lightly. Rest assured, I will not stand for it.
And be careful in your definitions: you are close to saying that any dissent during time of war, whether officially declared or not, is treason. Frankly, I don’t think you dare. Even your own legendary aptitude for raw chutzpah must have it’s limits. I respectfully suggest you drop that line of argument. May we expect your concurrence on that point, before we waste further time?
Or do you propose that all such persons who criticized President Clinton during the Balkan Crisis are guilty of treason, and should be dragged before us for trial? Which is to say, the bulk of the Republican Party? And, unless I’m very much mistaken, yourself.
I suggest that the SwiftVets are known to play fast and loose with the truth, in furtherance of their political agenda. To that end, I call the testimony of an acknowledged expert in the matter of truth:
So…we are given to understand that in the one instance, the SwiftVets testimony does not meet standards of evidence that you are willing to accept, but we are nonetheless obligated to counter each and every charge they level in the other instance, despite the fact that you acknowledge that they are not credible.
Because you say so? Forgive please, but I am, as yet, unwilling to accept you as final arbiter of truth, barring evidence of walking on water, raising the dead, or some other equally miraculous activity.
And again, you offer nothing by way of cite but sources already discredited. The FreeRepublic political goon squad has been debunked again and again. But if they are credible, if they have evidence beyond their own adamant insistence, then you should have no difficulty. If I present you with a snippet from the Democratic Underground, you would be entirely within your rights to treat it with scorn and derision. I expect the same intellectual courtesy from you, that you do not present me with a thoroughly partisan and provably fallacious gaggle of goons as though they were worthy of consideration as witnesses.
If you can do better than that, do so, if you can’t, admit it and slink away.
For such persons who are interested in the aforementioned “Yamashita Standard”, the following link is provided:
To summarize for the lazy, by the lazy…
Gen Yamashita was charged with war crimes for the actions of his subordinates as the Phillipines fell to the US. He pled not guilty, on the basis that he was unaware of such crimes, and, indeed, no credible evidence could be offered that he was. His prosecutors maintained that as an occupying army’s commander, he had an obligation to be aware of the actions of his subordinates, right down to the lowliest enlisted man, and that he was therefore responsible, personally, for all thier actions, whether he was directly aware of them or not.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court, which produced the “Yamashita Standard”, that is, a commander is obliged to take affirmative steps to ensure that he is aware of his subordinates activities, and must prevent such activities that are a violation of war crimes standards. Ignorance is no defense, he is personally responsible notwithstanding. Gen Yamashita was subsequently hanged as a war criminal.
Naturally, if this standard were to be adhered to, it might well create problems for such persons as were officers and commanders in the Viet Nam era. One Colin Powell, for instance.
Nonsense. Balderdash. Tommyrot. As you say. The standard of evidence remains the same no matter who does the accusing. Kerry had to be responsible in the gathering of his evidence. Categorically, he was not. We do not have to disprove Kerry’s evidence. He has to prove it. Collecting hearsay from dubious sources unverified and undocumented without afidavit is irresponsible. Presenting such evidence before the Senate during war as a condemnation of our own soldiers is unforgiveable. The standards must indeed be high. In spite of the fact that the Swiftvets have signed eyewitness afidavits from people who actually witnessed the events described, IMO they do not serve to convlusively overturn Kerry’s stature as a decorated and worthy veteran.
Kerry himself did not go so far in the gathering of his evidence. How can we possibly credit the one and not the other without employing contradictory standards?
Frankly, at what level atrocities occured is not at issue. What is at issue is the particular veracity and credibility of Kerry’s testimony and the diligence he employed in getting it. You may consider this weaseling, but frankly it’s beyond my scope to accurately and generally characterize the entire Vietnam war and what occured. I want to stick to Kerry said. He specifically indicts the entire officer corps. He has poor grounds for doing so. His own cofounder of VVAW was himself defrocked as fraudulent, claiming to be a combat pilot when in fact he was a mechanic who had never been to Vietnam. His tribunals were packed with imposters telling made up stories, and no attempt was made to document their veracity. I’ve already cited this at Wintersoldier.com. If you don’t wish to deal with it specifically, we have nothing to talk about.
The fact that you say it’s dismissable doesn’t make it so.
Kerry also states that he witnessed and participated in atrocities. As a soldier he had a duty not to. He had a duty to report and stop atrocities. Instead he chose to do nothing while they were occuring and make complaint before the Senate in a forum that denied rebuttal (despite O’neil’s specific requests.) He did so under circumstances tainted by the self-interest of a political career, at a time of war to the detriment of his fellows that remained in harm’s way. I find it very suspect.
Congratulations. You’ve just solved innumerable debates. By the same logic Bush would have been prosecuted for his failure to show up for duty in Alabama had he been guilty. Had he been guilty with Harkens he would have been prosecuted. Therefore he is innocent of both charges.
The fact that a man is not prosecuted doesn’t he mean he’s not prosecutable, nor does it mean he’s not guilty. Surely we can agree to that.
The legal proscription against entering into negotiations with foreign powers has no such codicile saying it’s ok as long as you don’t claim athority. It’s also on Wintersoldier, but if you don’t like them I invite you to look up the wording on a site you do like.
I am saying no such thing. POWs who were there at the Hanoi Hilton and spent years being tortured under inhuman conditions are making such statements. I think they’re fairly qualified. But you don’t like the cites…
I have accused you of nothing here. Let’s dispense with the histrionics, please.
I am by no means saying such a thing, nor am I coming close to it. Dissent is fine. Falsifying testimony before the Senate is not. Negotiating with foreign powers is not. Meeting with the enemy is not.
An unworthy straw man. I am being specific.
You keep saying that they are known this, and known that. I don’t see the proof. I am not calling them liars either. I am saying that they have failed to prove their case against Kerry concerning his service in Vietnam.
I didn’t say they were not credible. I said they failed to prove their case. If I gave the impression that I thought they were lying, I apologize.
Blah blah blah “Uncredible” blah blah blah “debunked” Blah blah blah “Liars”
That’s just ad hominem attack Elucidator. I am happy and comfortable using these cites for the specific things I have used them for. Your or my personal opinion of the Freepers or the Swiftvets are moot. What you think of them is moot. Their quality as human beings is moot. Who funded them is moot.
The content is what’s at issue. We keep going around on this. Why don’t we try to be nice.
I wish to debate this content. If you wish to as well, let’s get on with it. If you do not, you don’t have to participate. If you do wish to participate then please stop complaining that you don’t like the cites.
“Swifvets” is easy, but who are these “Freepers”?
elucidator and pantom have said it so well, but I wish to wrap up here, none-the-less. (Hi 'luci! Hi pantom!)
Incorrect. We have not “pronounced” the SBVs as liars and uncredible, we have proven the SBVs to be liars and uncredible.
This is absurd. That’d be like me trying to get away with proving John Kerry’s side of the story by simply quoting John Kerry and referring you back to his website. Do you mean to tell me that if I were to just declare that I believe John Kerry because “he has another side” to the SBV’s story, that you’d accept that as reasonable evidence? (No need to answer – it’s rhetorical, I already know what your answer will be.)
Again with the “feeling” nonsense. Facts and feelings aren’t the same thing. The SBVs have been discredited by numerous 3rd party witnesses, as well as the written record (of all parties, including their own). If they are proven liars, then I am not obliged in any way to accept any of their claims. And if you choose to rely on proven liars, then I am not interested in further discussion with you.
Good day, sir.
Well, let me put it this way. Every single American, myself included, cannot go to England without at some point making a snide comment about handing them their asses in the Revolution. Most of us can’t go to Spain without saying something along the line of “I claim this land in the name of America!” So how long do you think it’s going to take for us to let go of Vietnam?
So you claim. I haven’t seen it. Repeating the meme doesn’t make it true.
That’s a neat trick. What I would say to this is that merely presenting a story claiming that two people who supposedly endorsed Swiftvets actually do not, is not the same thing as presenting proof. One must actually ask “How did this happen?” Had you clicked on my link you would have seen that Swiftvets claims to be in posession of emails from those two parties that endorse the letter, and that they had to reply in the affirmative in order to be included, which they, or someone else did from their computer. They seem quite willing to share this information. They also state that their email is readily accessible and contrary to the claims in the article they have received no email expressing an unwillingness to participate.
Nobody however asked them. Nobody bothered to check out the story to see if it had merit. One needs to do these things if one is to claim one has proof that they are fabricating something. Making the claim without due diligence is irresponsible.
Was that what I was going to say?
“Proof” has a pretty high standard. You and Elucidator seem awful eager to dismiss the charges made and so far absolutely refuse to engage in any of the substance of either the Freeper or Swiftvet evidence.
Instead you simply repeat the claim that they have magically been proven false and liars and wholly dismissable by numerous (yet unnamed) third parties.
This does not hold with the high tradittion of fighting ignorance.
Thank you. It was truly my pleasure. Though I disagree with your main premise here, your arguments and discourse have been plain and elegant. I hope you have a great holiday.
The problem here is that it is you who is using ignorance when many here already found the “evidence” the swifters brought to the table to be contradictory at best, and total lies at worst. There were two threads in the past week to deal with this. In this case, I have to say that it is you who is trying to repeat already discredited flipp-flooper swifter points and pretend it will make it real. She, elucidator and many others, wrought fort evidence of the swifter’s mendacity. You ignoring all that effort, saying that we refuse to engage the “evidence”, is indeed worse than just a kettle calling a pot black.
In case you still claim ignorance, see this:
Just replace your name for the one of Sam Stone in the thread, and have fun ignoring the other points and evidence we had against the swifters, at least we will save plenty of time for the “debate” here.
No, really, what the heck are the “Freepers”?
Not at all. First off the claim that either site has been “disproven,” is a large and sweeping claim. Careful debaters make careful claims. People interested in truth make careful claims.
I am in some lack of credulity that several hundred veterans, former POWs, military men, and other interested parties are categorically proven liars simply by the fact they have posted or given information which supports a view which displeases Shayna or Elucidator, or yourself.
Many of these people served full terms in Vietnam and were there much longer than Kerry’s 4 months. Some spent several years as POWS. Some were career military men. One served as a gunner with Kerry on the same boat (thus disproving the “They didn’t serve on the same boat with him” theme.) These are his cocaptains and commanders. Their testimony and opinion holds at least as much validity and they deserve the right to be heard just as much as Kerry does.
Secondly, the threads to date have dealt with Kerry in Vietnam. My belief is that no conclusion can be reached unless Kerry releases all his records. I see no compelling reason why he should. I have no complaint with Kerry’s service in Vietnam.
I have taken the time to read the thread, read the book, visit Kerry’s website, visit the the Swift and Freeper websites, and I’d like to talk about it. The tack I would like to take is not to rehash Kerry’s Vietnam experiences but his actions with VVAW. So far this has not been discussed in great detail. This sector lends itself much more to debate as Kerry’s testimony is a matter of record as is his execrable book “The New Soldier.” I do not see how the fact that both of these are duplicated on Websites y’all don’t like contradicts their veracity as prime documents and evidence. Their veracity is verifiable through multiple sources.
Similarly, Kerry’s statements on the record and to the press are easily verifiable.
His claim that the Swiftboats mission was to fire on villages and Sampans committing atrocities is a blatant lie. His claim that the meeting with General Abrams was to prevent a mutiny (my paraphrasing here) based on soul sickness over committed atrocities is also a lie. His claim that 60-80% of Vietnam Veterans went through the day stoned and on narcotics is also a lie. His claim that the entire officer corps was complicit in atrocities is also a lie.
His testimony and cooperation with the North Vietnamese, negotiating with them twice was in violation of US laws and possibly the Uniform Military Code of Justice as well and may consitute giving succor and aid to the enemy. It certainly hurt his fellow veterans and POWS than serving.
I don’t think these things are in serious dispute. They exist in original documents and testimony and are corroborated by multiple sources.
One can say “Oh that’s on the Freeper site. I don’t like those guys, and Swiftboats are liars.” Those statements however do not constitute a rebuttal. Kerry’s testimony. His book. His statements to the press. His visits with the North Vietnamese. His negotiation. These things exist independant of Swiftvets and Freerepublic. These cites picking them up and discussing them or presenting the information in no way invalidates their existance. To pretend and ignore them otherwise is simple intellectual dishonesty.
People who post on the Freerepublic website.
Thanks.
http://www.freerepublic.com, where Scylla has apparently been hiding for awhile (ever find those WMD’s, amigo? the Freepers got any hot tips about where to look?). I really don’t recommend going there unless you have as high a tolerance for lies as he does. Speaking of Scylla, pal, you’d better catch up first before calling us wrong so cavalierly. Or, just go to the master Swifties-debunking site, http://www.eriposte.com, and save yourself further embarrassment.
Depends on the accusation, of course. If Kerry sits there and says “Spec. Aaraon A. Aardvaark did, on 1 June 1968, committ the following atrocity…” then yes, your standards would necessarily apply. Kerry was condemning a policy. A policy is not an individual, rules of evidence as regards culpability do not apply. You insist that he was condemning all our soldiers, when he specificly denies it. Hence, you claim to know Kerry’s intent better than he does himself. By what magic?
Wasn’t his evidence. He was reporting on proceedings he witnessed and participated in. You can fairly say he was convinced of the general truth of what he was hearing,but that doesn’t make it his. Besides, does Kerry have subpoena power, can he search records What investigatory power did he have that might meet your lofty standards? And didn’t the Senate committee have that capacity,if they so chose?
So you insist. I insist the truth of the matter is what concerns us, and the truth of the matter has been documented beyond all dispute, as you yourself accept. You want to argue over the definition of such words as “commonplace”, as if there were an acceptable level of atrocity.
Except for a Supreme Court decision, as referenced above.
He did. He reported to the very highest authority, us.
Mind reading. Not admissable. And if you think aligning oneself with the anti-war movement in 1971 was a deft political move, sure to garner massive praise and adulation, think again.
Depends. I thought, and said, that Mr. Bush received careful treatment during his Harken episode, which is plausible, if not proveable. Sen Kerry, on the other hand, was a Nixon enemy of the first water. If Nixon could have rat-fucked him, he would have, gleefully, cheerfully, and immediately. Which implies that he could not, most likely because no crime could be proved. Unless you wish to suggest that RMN did not pursue it out of the goodness of his…ah…heart.
Huh? American POW’s stated that the VC were about to surrender, but didn’t because of anti-war protests? What are you talking about? You rejoinder has no connection to the statement.
Be sure that you don’t and we shall. Your implication that the anti-war movement was treasonous floats on the breeze like a fart from a brontosaurus. As soon as you categorically deny such an intention, we can move on. But you will not get away with stating it, implying it, hinting at it, or sidling up to it. Period.
But you yourself claim that the issue is not falsification, but a lack of due diligence in verification. Might you stick to one charge at a time? That would be nice. The charge of negotiation is absurd, Kerry was not empowered to negotiate, he knew that, the NV knew that, how could he possibly have “negotiated”?
You don’t read the papers? You didn’t read the aforementioned thread? Pretty much qualifies as “willful ignorance”, don’t you think? The cites are given: NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, etc. Your cites are Freeper, Swifties, Freeper, Swifties. And behind that, nothing but your shrill insistence that we accept their word for it, despite your admission that they put forth a weak case against Mr. Kerry’s service. Have they withdrawn their accusations? That would certainly be indicative of honorable intent, I would be impressed. Have they?