Please do not put words in my mouth, or make it seem as if I said or agree with something I don’t. I know you don’t like to be called a liar, and if you don’t want me to call you one, you need to stop doing that, because I fairly consider such things lies. My position re: Gardner is that his statements don’t constitute a conclusive case against Kerry. Fair warning.
The whole Wintersoldier thing? No I do not think Kerry was being sincere. Had he been sincere he would not have mocked the Marines at Iwo Jima on the cover of his book. Had he been sincere he would have used due diligence in vetting his sources (and his compatriots at VVAW, notably the fighter pilot imposter Al Hubbard.) Had he been sincere he would have wanted John O’neil to testify as O’neil requested. He would have allowed the opportunit for rebuttal.
It was an opportunistic move, a springboard into politics.
That is an alternate interpretation. I don’t share it.
I have no idea what was going on in Kerry’s head when he betrayed himself, his country, his fellow servicemen and those in Pow prison camps and committed treason. I would guess that self-interest would be the primary motivator. In the final analysis I really don’t care why. The fact that he did it is enough.
If one did not hold you in such high esteem as I do, one might almost suspect a bit of disingenuousness. Yes, one very well might. Col. Day was a prisoner of war, and highly decorated. Does this mean he was privy to the strategic discussions of the N Vietnamese? Kurt Vonnegut was a prisoner of the Germans in WWII, does that mean his analysis of the strategic and diplomatic position of the Nazi regime must be taken as definitive?
Other than seeking to slur and besmirch Sen Kerry, have you any purpose to this? Does it prove anything at all?
“Is this guy a liar too?” Perhaps a better question is directed to you: “Is this sort of thing what you’re reduced to?”
elucidator, you’re being naive. You’re dealing with someone for whom dissent = treason. To quote from his hero of the day, Bud Day:
Note that his crossing over started with his assistance to the antiwar movement, not his talks with the Vietnamese. Forget this. You can’t reason with someone who thinks scum like this should be listened to for any reason. For people like this, liberty isn’t just dispensable, it’s a positive hindrance.
Further note: McCain has no chance of ever advancing in the Republican party beyond where he is now, unless of course he completely jettisons his conscience. That’s been done before, Lord knows, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what transpires on that front.
Yes, Scylla is reduced only to arguments to emotion.
Of course, good that he has realized that the “evidence” he talked at the beginning turned to be at best “hypothesis” of the swifters, and very weak ones at that. Even after all those scyllian contortions, the swifters remain liars.
Going back to the big picture: I have to say also that calling Kerry’s actions, after his tours of duty, treasonous, doesn’t even pass the hypothetical smell test, by the pedantic and “silly” fact that he was never taken prisoner or accused, or given a warrant for his arrest as a traitor. All this accusation is just that: an accusation, and based on the history of that sordid era, a weak one at best.
I don’t mean to restrict my question to that, but it is as good a springboard as any.
He “mocked” the Marines at Iwo Jima? Oh, my! But friend Scylla, in his haste to defend all that is good and decent, has once again neglected to provide a link. Allow me:
Here you can see the picture that he refers to. His use of the word “mock” is open to question, to say the very least. One might very well take the opinion that the staging of the picture refers to the famous photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. I do myself, I think that is clear.
But to me, the picture is intended to a different purpose altogether: that a new variety of veteran has sprung up, a dissenting veteran, but a veteran every bit as worthy, every bit as patriotic as any who have come before. He is welcome to his opinion, but there is the picture, you may judge for yourself.
As to “due diligence”, friend **Scylla ** insists that Sen Kerry was responsible to research all the testimony of the WinSol event. We have his word on this, he has scarce else. Sen Kerry was reporting on what he heard. Did anyone ask him “Have you vetted all these people, can you attest to their bona fides?” Indeed, why should they? A Senate panel has vastly more resources than Sen Kerry could possibly muster, if they wanted to know, they need not ask him.
Perhaps this is the work of that treasonous scoundrel, Sen Fullbright? And the dastardly Senators Symington, Pell, and Javits, none of whom, in their treachery, sought any further “due diligence”. Have they no share in this, given that their resources wildly outmatch Kerry’s?
Kerry’s testimony is available, will Scylla be so kind as to point out the passage wherein Kerry vouches for their reliability?
I did not know this! How extraordinary! Kerry ruled O’Neil’s testimony inadmissable before the Senate panel? Really?! Wow! I had no idea a mere witness held such power! Friend **Scylla ** can, no doubt, substantiate this rather exceptional claim, that Kerry had the authority and power to forbid testimony from O’Neill. Or, perhaps like so many of his previous claims, this one is not subject to the rules of “due diligence” that he so forcefully embodies.
The inquiry is to be carried out by the Inspector-General’s office of the US Navy, for which Senator Kerry served as a Swift Boat captain for four months in 1968, making two tours of duty. He was wounded in action and subsequently awarded three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. But, for the past month, the details of Senator Kerry’s military service in Vietnam have become shrouded in a controversy that the navy now feels warrants a full-blown search for the truth.
…the US Navy has now agreed to a request by Judicial Watch, a bipartisan lobby group, for a full inquiry.
Judicial Watch is calling for the navy to report before the elections, but navy officials are so far refusing to give any timetable for the inquiry.
The group’s president, Tom Fitton, sought an investigation in August into the “determination and final disposition of the awards granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, US Naval Reserve”, in response to the Swift Boat Veterans’ allegations.
A navy spokesman confirmed on Friday that the Inspector-General’s office at the Pentagon had authorised the inquiry. “There’s a feeling that it’s time to deal with this thoroughly, once and for all,” an official said.
Well, money talks, bullshit walks. But, bring on that investigation I say! After seeing how the accusations are reduced to lies and hypotheticals, my impression is that Kerry will be vindicated. Problem is, I do think this “investigation” will drag until after the election, which is the indented plan IMHO.
Three decades after an Army platoon repeatedly executed unarmed civilians and prisoners in Vietnam, a military lawyer has recommended the unit’s former commander be brought up on a war-crime charge.
In what would be an unprecedented event, retired Maj. James Hawkins could face a military court-martial regarding his actions commanding a platoon known as Tiger Force that killed hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children 37 years ago, The Blade has learned.
Mr. Hawkins was among 18 former Tiger Force soldiers accused by Army investigators of crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty during a 4 1/2-year Army investigation between 1971 and 1975. But the case was dropped by the Pentagon and concealed from the public until revealed in The Blade series, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
Records show that two soldiers in the platoon, Lt. Donald Wood of Findlay, and Sgt. Gerald Bruner of Colon, Mich., tried to stop the atrocities but were transferred from the platoon after they complained to superiors.
As a result of the Army’s investigation completed 29 years ago, murder charges were recommended against Mr. Hawkins and another high-ranking platoon member, Sgt. Harold Trout. After avoiding charges in 1975, the pair were promoted and eventually retired with full military pensions.
Army investigators recommended in June, 1975, that Mr. Hawkins be charged with the murder of the carpenter, identified in The Blade series as Dao Hue.
Five months later, Mr. Hawkins was summoned to the Pentagon with his supervising general, William Maddox, and told the case would be closed, Mr. Hawkins has said. A note in his Army criminal file says that “no beneficial or constructive results would be derived from criminal prosecution.”
Mr. Hawkins, by then a helicopter pilot, was promoted to major, retired in 1978, and began collecting his military pension. He was immediately rehired by the Army as a civilian flight instructor in Alabama, retired in 2001 to collect a second government pension, and moved to Florida.
So we’re going after the guys that did the dirty work. Necessary I’ll grant, but it’s a bit like Nuremberrg with Himmler as a state’s witness. When is it going to be Kissinger’s turn?
Regarding Sen Kerry’s “treasonous negotiations” with the NVietnamese in Paris:
Googling this is a tough row to hoe. Page after page of the sort of cites Scylla seems to regard as the very font of truth, i.e., FreeRepublic, SwiftVets, and the ubiquitous slime, Mr. Corsi, who’s opinions have already recieved far more attention than they are due.
This is as close to a source as I’ve come, and invite further reference:
Sen Kerry says he was aware that he had no capacity, no authority, to negotiate, and denies any attempt to do so. While I can understand a reluctance on the part of his political enemies to take him at his word, unless they can show substantial evidence otherwise, then they must be williing to admit that this is a question of opinion, not fact.
Thus far, no such evidence is before us.
Further, the reference to Sen McCarthy is intriguing, and I will investigate the question of whether his actions might be regarded as equally “treasonous”.
Stepping back from the detail that Elucidator and Sylla and others are admirably dueling over, here are my thoughts about the OP.
We will not be able to put Vietnam behind us because John Kerry will not allow it.
Early in the primary process, Kerry stuck his finger into the air and detected a shift to national security priorities following the September 11th attacks. Knowing he had a three decade record of voting to the left on national security issues, he had no choice but to highlight his Vietnam service. Any attempt to examine his Senate record or to take issue with his anti-war activities is met with accusations of “smearing” or that his “patriotism is being questioned”. His response to Dick Cheney’s speech at the RNC is an example. Kerry said “I’ll leave it to the american people to decide between someone with five deferments and someone with two tours of duty” or words to that effect. If being under fire is a sole qualification to be the President, there are thousands of people who have been under more fire for a longer period of time than Kerry has. Bob Dole comes to mind.
Kerry is running a “Wizard of Oz” campaign. “Pay no attention to that liberal behind the curtain.” Someone at the Democratic National Convention thought it was a good idea for Kerry to salute and intone that he was “reporting for duty”. He is now reaping the result of his intentional focus on his Vietnam service as one of the principal underpinnings of his justification for being qualified to be President.
I think accusations like this are almost (but not quite) as asinine as the whole SBVFT ordeal.
Kerry is running for presidency. People wanted to know what kind of leadership qualities he possesses/ed. He gave them his history as a Senator.
That wasn’t enough. (“Oh, he has done nothing in his 20 years in the Senate!” :rolleyes: )
So Kerry brought up his leadership qualities during the Vietnam War. When these start to get in the way of the Bush re-election campaigning, “Kerry just won’t let Vietnam die.” Give me a break.
If you don’t want to know about someone’s past leadership qualities, then don’t ask. If you do ask, then you have no reason to complain when they give you the details.
And don’t forget: one of the reasons this whole Vietnam thing is being dragged-out, is because of all the ridiculous accusations being made about the man’s military record. If he didn’t defend his record to the ‘T’, then I would be suspicious. However, since he is defending his record, people are claiming he won’t “let it go.”
Personally, I’m getting much more tired of hearing about how we’re going to “Stay the course”, than I am of hearing about Kerry’s Vietnam record.
So if Kerry hadn’t made an issue of his service, no one else would have mentioned it? Nor would they have attempted to make political hay out of Sen Kerry’s anti-war activism? If he hadn’t made such a big, hairy-ass deal about it, such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Safire, Novak…they would have been decorous and civil as well?
The Swifties would never have arose, then? Kerry’s political chicanery forced their hand, did it? Had it not been for Kerry’s trumpeting his military heroism, the Bushiviks would have conducted a campaign defined by prudence and decorum?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
If one did not hold you in such high esteem as I do, one might almost suspect a bit of disingenuousness. Yes, one very well might. Col. Day was a prisoner of war, and highly decorated. Does this mean he was privy to the strategic discussions of the N Vietnamese?
[quote]
He references North Vietnamese General Bui Tin. I’m not familiar with the reference though.
Well yeah. I’m puzzled. Beforehand you were questioning my statement that POWS were claiming the war was lengthened and lives were lost, then I showed you a link to the Col. North Diem Bien Phu thing. Then you are like all complaining that I wasn’t providing enough cites to back up what I said (I note looking at further posts that you’re still complaining that I’m not citing enough)
Now I give you a cite and your complaining about it, asking what the purpose is. If you ask for cites then you really shouldn’t complain when I go and get them for you, or wonder what they’re for when they’re delivered. I would expect you to acknowledge that I provided a cite. Perhaps you might express some appreciation for the fact that I have done so at your request.
I thought you wanted this!! The Oliver North thing wasn’t enough for you!
I went and I got this for you. You wanted cites. You weren’t happy with the other one. So I got you this. Backing up my statement. Just a few posts down you’re complaining that I’m not providing cites, while here you’re complaining when I do! Which is it?