You mean the bit you quoted? I am struggling to see how it is in any way relevant to whether or not John Kerry participated in war crimes. The dutiful reader will note that I did not address the larger issue of war crimes in Vietnam at all, nor will I address that red herring.
OK. Brutus, come to Jesus time. Give us the cite, show us the proof of where Kerry admits to direct personal involvement in war crimes. I’ll wait right here. 'Cause I’ve heard this bandied about, as though it were a proven, incontrovertible fact, no question about it.
If you’re going to start at the beginning and the top, you logically must first prosecute Jimmy Carter, who of course as President authorized various horrible deeds in Central America. I’d suggest that Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon are guilty of far greater crimes but they’re dead, and so is Reagan. Since Carter was before Bush, start with him and his cabinet.
Getting serious, I don’t think it’s possible for an honest discussion of Vietnam to take place. Those involved with it clearly can’t fully deal with the truth of the criminal nature of the war and various events that transpired there. It’s a wound that won’t heal in our lifetimes.
Yes, Kerry acknowledging that parts of that testimony were not accurate is not important, :rolleyes: taking into account the context when he said that, has to be ignored too…
[dr evil]
riiiiiiight!
[/dr evil].
Better to trust the swifters, that somehow, also ignored what Kerry said already on this point.
Do you know what he’s talking about, GIGO? Which quote is it that they claim states that he was personally, directly responsible for war crimes? I woulda thought something like that would be a real blockbuster. Anybody?
‘Cause I’m really curious now, and don’t want to go Googling all over Creation just to find some two-bit piece o’ crap from the Swifties again. Is that it, or is it something else? Anybody?
That’s it! That is what you’re talking about! Whew, boy, for a second there, I thought you actually had something! Should have known.
But there must be more? Surely you’ve got more than that. We’re talking massacre, and you want an indictment for arson? Hell, Brutus, Lynndie England’s up on a heavier beef than that!
Nah, you got something else, just trying to lull me into complacency then wham - you hit me with the real stuff, something like My Lai, or Son Thang, or some of that Tiger Force stuff in the Toledo Blade. Murder and mayhem stuff.
Boy, you sure fooled me! Had me going there, for a second. Good one!
Where in your cite does St. Kerry say that he DIDN’T take part in activities that violated the Geneva convention, contrary to his 1971 testimony? Bold that part, please. My old eyes can’t make heads or tails out of St. Kerry’s blah-blahs.
Just wow, man. You bend over backwards to accept anything St. Kerry says as God’s own semen and you suck it down like mother’s milk. Awesome. Your devotion to your religion is admirable.
Yes. I’ve seen such, but since Veterans like Paul Galanti who spent nearly five years in POW camps have their comments posted in forums like Freerepublic and Swiftvets, I doubt you’d bother to care. More importantly, General Giap seems to concur:
I’ve no more made the accusation than you’ve accused my mother of being French. Until such time as I do, kindly can the indignace. Meaningless and empty threats concerning accusations that I haven’t made except in your mind have no place here. I resent your attempt to mischaracterize my statements.
No. As I’ve demonstrated, Kerry both falsified testimony and statements to the press and failed to exercise due diligence in the evidence he did gather, and I feel free to point both out simultaneously.
As to how Kerry engaged in negotiations in which he was not empowered. It’s very simple. He went and he did it. He admitted it in his Fulbright testimony, and in subsequent interviews. Not only does he not deny it, he volunteers it. He met with them and discussed terms of surrender. Read the testimony. I’ve linked it. This point is not in contention. It is specifically an issue because he was not empowered. He took it upon himself to engage in said negotiations. That’s why it’s a crime.
Well, if you are unwilling to accept cites from Freerepublic of Swiftvets I don’t see how you can expect me to accpept the NYT word for it. Doubly this is the case when the the cites in question fail to fully investigate their claims, as I’ve shown by example with the Billings gazette.
To me this is clear: in 1971 (and I wonder if the taped thing came from his testimony, and not in other setting then) he did say that he participated in those things, but this was not the whole truth: He said so in this interview in April 2004, there was a stupid war going on, and it had to be stopped.
He said those things while a member of Veterans against the war, and he clearly says that he regrets his hyperbole and the fact that some testimony was discredited, to me that is enough, and it should have been enough for the stupid swifters, and as I said before:
I prefer to have a president that uses a white lie to end a war than having one that lies to gets us into one.
Well, you guys got one point on your side, for sure! Damn good bet ol’ GeeDubya didn’t take part in any “war crimes”. Maybe stiffed a hooker for a twenty dollar blowjob, maybe rolled over on his coke dealer…but he made damn sure he wasn’t gonna be involved in anything yucky like Kerry was!
Gotta admire a man who knows his own limitations like that. Well, at least SPOOFE does. Can’t say that I do.
Partcial quotes are deceptive. Here’s the whole quote in question:
Placed in proper context, I fail to see why anyone would find any of the above surprising to anyone even vaguely familiar with the Vietman War. Sure, he sounds more conciliatory 30 years down the line, but on the whole, what he said then, is well-documented now.
For instance, a bit more info on Free Fire Zones
Who’s ultimately to blame? I refer you back to the “Yamashita Standard,” summarized by 'luc in this post.
Anyway, time travel is all well and fine, but seeing how the whole Iraq situation has unfolded I can’t help but be amazed at how little knowledge was actually gained from that rather dark chapter in American history.
Certainly not much on the rather important issue of winning the “hearts and minds” of those you invade.
When one of the member of free republic turn then to be the author of the swifter’s book, you should realize you are using circular quoting, which is similar to circular logic, only more silly.
Once again, there is a very simple explanation for this. One only can come to the conclusion that Gardner is a liar based on the grounds you describe if one seeks that assumption and then stops there.
If one actually employs due diligence and seeks to understand what Gardner testifies to, there is no contradiction. One has to selectively examnine the facts to create it.
What that article shamedly fails to mention is that we are talking about two boats that Kerry skippered. The first boat is PC-F 44 which Gardner and Kerry served on. IIRC Gardner served on that boat under Kerry’s command for about three months. In other words Gardner served under Kerry’s command on this boat longer than any other enlisted man. This is the boat that Gardner left at dock.
Of course Kerry also skippered PV-F 94. The crew with him on that boat served with him a grand total of 54 days. Gardner testifies about events that occured on Pc-F 44. Since he was not on 94 he has no firsthand knowledge about what occured there during February and March of 1968.
Gardner’s testimony solely consists of the time he served under Kerry which was November 1968 through about January 23, 1969 thus excluding the Rasmussen incident.
There is no contradiction.
I have done this from memory, but you are free to reverify it. I mention this in detail with dates and boat names, because the article you cite originally struck me as pretty much putting the nail into Gardner’s testimony until I actually checked out what Gardner was talking about.
Hopefully, you will go to the effort to verify what I just said and see that it is largely correct and concede that this was a very one-sided article specifically constructed to selectively present facts in order to discredit Gardner’s otherwise damaging testimony.
“…North’s claim has been repeated as gospel in numerous articles, blogs, commentaries and pseudo-news reports, despite the fact the Giap memoir is bogus. According to WashingtonDispatch.com columnist Greg Lewis, who researched the alleged quotation, “No such volume exists.”…”
(emphasis gleefully added…)
“…For that matter, I haven’t been able to verify through Fox News that Colonel North actually made the comments he is said to have made and which I repeated…In the past, Gen. Giap is alleged to have made similar statements about Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite, though there is no verifiable evidence that he ever did. Revisionist historians take note. Check your sources, no matter how much you want to believe the lie…”
Wow. Just from reading what was posted here, all that nonsense is, well, nonsense. Gardner himself says he was never present for any of the incidents for which Kerry recieved any of his medals. As that’s what’s in dispute, your details on when Gardner served amount to, well, I don’t know what they amount to. Certainly less than nothing.
Please don’t insult me by saying I’m hiding in a freeper cave. I’ve examined the evidence quite carefully, on both sides. I’ve taken pain (knowing that I’m partisan) to extend Kerry the benefit of the doubt as is his due as a decorated war veteran
Insulting? The context I am using is Plato’s cave, and I also examined the evidence in the side of the critics of the swifters, (google is god) finding O’Neill was a stinky liar when he was saying he was no partisan, was what convinced me the swifters can not even claim sincerity in their beliefs about Kerry.
