New SBVFT ad -- will we never put Vietnam behind us?

Great Debates
161

Complaining about links again? You didn’t ask for one here, but nonetheless I gave one. It’s on display at Wintersoldier.com.

Well, I think the guys making funny faces kind of give it away.

[quote]
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.

[quote]

This is just silly. Kerry didn’t just hear this stuff. He conducted an “investigation.” This is not idle chit chat amongst friends, this is testifying on the record, before the senate. Are you claiming there’s no standard to evidence and he can just freely pass on as truth any old thing anybody says? It seems to me that if his own cofounder is an imposter and he doesn’t bother to check this out and see if he’s for real, and if he holds an “investigation” but doesn’t even bother to check his evidence in even casual fashion… than he’s pretty much an incompetent, and what he says isn’t worth anything.

It seems to me that just in this thread that you and others are unwilling to look at Swiftvets or Freepers because you consider them unreliable. You won’t look at a cite on the internet of all things because you think they’re unreliable yet just saying any old thing in front of senate is kosher and that he had no standard or responsibility to be credible?

Come now. Please.

He doesn’t. and it’s not reliable. That’s the problem. It’s a pile of shit. That’s what I’ve been saying.

In the early pages of Unfit for Command O’neil says he requested permission to speak at the at the hearing and included a synopsis of what he had to say refuting Kerry’s VVAW testimony. He was denied permission to speak. In his testimony Kerry makes mention (and don’t ask for the cite, please. Just read it and be familiar with it) that he wants to give a voice to these vets that haven’t been heard (or words to that effect.) I guess dissenting opinions and testimony doesn’t count though.

162

From the Fulbright testimony. Kerry’s own words"

163

Well let’s see, Elucidator. Kerry’s talking to the North Vietnamese concerning terms of withdrawals and return of POWs.

In all fairness it looks to me like a negotiation.

164

And here’s the standard:

I can see why you don’t like this Wintersoldier cite. They’ve gathered a lot of data.

165

Edited out of context? Like Michael Moore did with Dubya?

I guess turnabout is fair play.

I’ve changed my position. I thought that John Kerry (in spite of his flaws) was our hope for returning to sanity after the King George the IInd reign of stupidity.

You folks have enlightened me. Kerry is a pawn, without personal integrity, who will hand our government over to the Special Interests he serves.

John F. Kerry has consistantly done what was good for John F. Kerry, his country, his comrades and his constituints be damned. Thank you, other Kerry supporters, for opening my eyes. I withdraw my support for this creep.

Kerry is slime. Just like Bush.

We have no choice.

166

Could you elaborate or expand on this? It seems rather sudden.

I believe your reversal in not caused by Kerry’s team asserting that he was misquoted but rather that his Winter Soldier testimony was motivated by political ambition, not by anything genuine.

Is that so? Is there really firm evidence for that view?

For example elucidator has been at pains to point out the testimony was a very unpopular position at the time. It doesn’t look to me like something that was good for JK.

167

Unpopular to some, but extremely popular to others. Have you read the transcripts? The fawning and hero worship of the Democratic Senators? It was they whom he intended to please.

From the Chairman’s (Senator Fulbright) opening statement: “I have joined with some of my colleagues, specifically Senator Hart, in an effort to try to change the attitude of our Government toward your efforts in bringing to this committee and to the country your views about the war.”

Javits: “I think it is our job to see that you are suitably set up as an alternative so that you can do what you came here to do. I welcome the fact that you came and what you are doing.”

The first time Kerry was interrupted for applause, the Chairman said: “I hope you won’t interrupt. He is making a very significant statement. Let him proceed.”

When Kerry finished, the Chairman said, “You said you wished to communicate. I can’t imagine anyone communicating more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and beneficial to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.”

The committee then proceded to solicit Kerry’s advice about how the Congress should handle the Vietnam situation.

After some time, Senator Pell said, “As the witness knows, I have a very high personal regard for him and hope before his life ends he will be a colleague of ours in this body.”

Much of the remaining discussion amounted basically to the Senators tutoring Kerry about government, policy, and issues (as when they gently corrected his reference to ABM when he meant SST) or explaining to him how he could run for office without much money — even giving him examples like Representative Chiles. There was much discussion about the growth and groundswell of opposition to the war, especially from Pell and Fulbright. Kerry also briefly mentioned that he had already campaigned for a couple of weeks in one race, but did not say which it was.

Here is the full transcript:

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp

168

Nonsense. You have twisted my meaning lke a child’s clown twists balloon animals. The question isn’t whether such things were said, but whether they had any value. Your cite proves that Col Day said such and such, not that Col Day has any special knowledge of expertise we are bound to recognize. Which is the point of a cite, yes?

I understood that you were attempting to butress your otherwise flimsy argument, not that you were doing me some special service.

It was entertaining. It was also, as I have demonstrated, entirely devoid of significance. And your surprise and dismay when shown the emptiness of your cite clearly demonstrates that your self-proclaimed respect for “due diligence” is just so much Bushwah. You took him at this word, and for some reason expected me to, otherwise you wouldn’t have been ambushed by your very own authority.

And your contention that the book jacket illustration is meant to “mock” the Marines of the famous Iwo Jima photo is fatuous. (A staged photo, as if we needed more irony…) It is clearly itended to illustrate the title and theme of the book, that a new sort of soldier has evolved, a dissident soldier. As proof of intentional mockery, you offer us your own subjective interpretation of facial expressions! “Well, I think the guys making funny faces kind of give it away.”

That’s it? That’s your proof? To prove your contention, you point out that you are in agreement with you. Scylla, the World’s Foremost Authority!, to steal from Prof. Irwin Corey.

As to the WinSol investigation, it is indeed unfortunate if any of the testimony at the event were given by impostors. It hardly affects the issue at hand, which is the fact of atrocities committed with appalling frequency by US personnel. You may pretend, if you wish, that falsifying one witness falsifies them all, but we both know that isn’t true. (You do know that, right?) Would you have been happily satisfied if Sen Kerry had the Pulitzer Prize winning research of the Toledo Blade at hand?

All of it? Every word, every statement, all false? You and I know better, now don’t we? We only began having his argument due to your desperate need to define “commonplace” in a more forgiving light. If it were a “pile of shit”, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation!

But not by Kerry. If you have a beef, take it up with Sens. Javits, Symington, et. al. What, you think he bullied them into submission by sheer force of will?

How very openminded and fair of you! You are willing, if pressed, to agree with yourself that you are right! That’s big of you.

As the quote clearly indicates, Sen Kerry studied the question carefully, and came to the opinion that he was not conducting a “negotiation”. He asked a question: if this were so (a set date for troop withdrawal), what would be your response? You are determined to define this as a “negotiation”, and therefore treasonous.

A theoretical: if I were to e-mail Bin Laden, and ask “If American troops were not in Saudi, would this end our conflict?” and he were to answer “Yes” this means I have negotiated with the enemy? You serious?

They’ve gathered a lot of verbiage. The “data” part is open to question.

But all of this is in service of a pernicious and poisonous doctrine: that dissent in a time of war is disloyal, even treasonous. You lay the charge of “traitor” upon Kerry, upon Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, and last but surely least, myself.

Have you given this any thought at all? Do you mean to deliver the Republic securely into the hands of any scoundrel who attains the Oval Office by any means, then begins an elective war for whatever reason, fair or foul? And a patriot, like myself, who calls bullshit is a traitor? A traitor, Scylla? One could forgive an intemperate outburst, if ruefully withdrawn. But you have no such intent, no such apology is forthcoming. A more repulsive premise is difficult to imagine. Put plainly, you ought to be ashamed. Even a rabid, frothing Zellot would pause before such a ghastly accusation, but you sail blithely on. Shame on you.

169

Liberal’s opinion is conjecture at best. I’d prefer Snakespirit answer the question I asked of him. So far, though I’ve seen nothing persuasive to suggest Kerry’s Winter Soldier testimony was cynical. Nor that Kerry is secretly in thrall to any special interests.

Scylla, Scylla did you not accuse Kerry of Treason?

In support of which you present an enactment prohibiting, and I quote: Private correspondence with foreign governments, Hello?

Further and to entertain this academic exercise the relevant part of the offense “Private correspondence with foreign governments” is, and I quote: *with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government *.

How easy do you think it is to prove “intent” to the appropriate standard of proof? Here’s some free advice: Not very.

Actually both points settle on the same question. What was in Kerry’s mind at the time? Hardly the first line of enquiry one would pursue for damning revelations against the man.

170

Ohh pishaww with the histrionics. You’re really trying to get me to call you a traitor, aren’t you?

But you bet your ass I’m calling Kerry a traitor for his false wintersoldier accusations before the Senate, his false testimony, his meeting with representatives of the enemy during a time of war, discussing terms of withdrawal, and subsequent activities with VVAW. They constitute giving aid and succor to the enemy. It cost lives and extended the war.

Now, unless you have a resume like that, I don’t think it’s going to measure up to John Kerry, and merit the appellation of traitor. The greater bulk of the war protesters were merely duped or patsies to their traitorous brethren.

171

Which particular accusations are you characterizing as “false”? Please be specific, as this is a serious charge against a decorated veteran. (As you keep reminding us, such charges of false witness must be proven to a high standard.)

Again, cite please for which testimony was false. Decorated war hero, all that.

Legal citation please, showing that these meet the criteria for aid and comfort (or that “aid and succor” has a legal definition).

Cite please for the either amazingly uneducated or mind-blowingly self serving and vomitously hypocritical assertion that Kerry’s work -or any anti-war activies- extended the war. You’re not laboring under the belief that the war was at any point about to be “won” by the US are you?

You sure do like to throw those words “patsy” and “dupe” around. Just to satisfy your need to perceive word-parsing and deconstruction in counterarguments, let’s try and define those words. Would, for instance, someone who spends quite a bit of effort trying to buttress the arguments of a group whose major accusations have, without exception, been shown to be invented, false or unprovable, be considered a “patsy”? Or would he be more of a “dupe”?

172

Using this word casually is a good sign of someone not fit to use it at all.

173

Oh, I very much doubt that I measure up to Sen Kerry. But when it comes to accepting, as the Rolling Stones put it, “my fair share of abuse”, then so be it. As far as histrionics goes, that is subject to definition. A prudent man, not given to such as “histrionics”, would not fling accusations as you have, based on evidence that ranges from gossip to slander, buttressed by wildly exaggerated half-truths.

You accuse Kerry of “negotiations” with the enemy, and are pleased to define that as any contact with which you disapprove. If Kerry had contacted the NV to suggest they surrender, would you still be mustering a firing squad? I think not. Therefore, since it is absurd to suggest that any contact with the enemy qualifies as treason, it falls to you to prove…not suggest, not insist, not fling yourself on the unimpeachable candor of Ollie North…prove that something evil that way went. So far, you aren’t within a light year of doing so. You offer cites from sworn enemies of Sen Kerry, and are aggrieved that they are not taken as credible. I doubt if half-a-dozen Dopers would allow the Freepers on thier short list of credible sources. When pressed for cites beyond such outlets for wholesale propaganda, you consistently refer to the irrelevent, the slanted, and the false.

To be fair to your rhetorical skills, your argument probably cannot be improved by such attentions, it is fundamentally false, polishing will not avail.

You claim that any dissent offers aid and comfort to the enemy, and so you define treason. It is inescapable, then, that you regard anyone who so participated as treasonous, the only distinction being in degree of notoriety. To borrow the words of a worthy man, “If this be treason, make the most of it.”

(Though it would be surly not to note the generosity, the balm of your forgiving soul, that you would allow that me and mine are merely dupes and patsies. Please be assured it is met with the hearty scorn it richly deserves.)

174

This an interesting opinion.

As someone who’s read such a carefully narrowed collections of sources to reach this opinion, you strike me–once again–as utterly unequipped to participate productively in a debate such as the one you’re neckdeep in.

Furthermore, that your definition of “traitor” includes a decorated combat veteran who decries, in a perfectly appropriate venue, the unnecessary that he witnessed, and was among the few human beings qualified to do so–makes it even clearer that you’ve gone round the bend again, Scylla.

175

That’s unfortunate. If you should ever have to distinguish Genghis Khan from Santa Claus, you’ll be in a pickle.

176

He talked to North Vietnamese representatives concerning terms of peace. He admits it. In the Fulbright testimony, he’s proud of it. He did it twice!

What definition of negotiation do you use that excludes this?

What definition of contact do you use that excludes this?

I have made no such claim. In fact I have specifically disavowed such a stance. I’ve warned you about telling lies that concern me. I will not tolerate it.

“As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, “our most significant success.”
– Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, in the National Review, February 26, 2004”

From your favorite site:

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Quotes

177

That is the most damning cite on John Kerry that I’ve yet come across. He was damn lucky he was never imprisoned !

Wouldn’t that have made him ineligible for the presidency?

178

You would think so. Apparently not.

My favorites are at the bottom of the page. Actual audio from the Fulbright testimony wherein Kerry talks about being ordered to kill civilians with his .50 caliber machine guns which were his “only weapon,” and then confesses to war crimes.

Listen to Kerry hang himself in his own words! As a confessed war criminal, you’d think that would disqualify him, don’t you?

179

[QUOTE=xenophon41]

(blah blah blah) …the arguments of a group whose major accusations have, without exception, been shown to be invented, false or unprovable,

[QUOTE]

Every one? Really?

Well, here they are nicely summarized:

http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8023

Could you please go through them one by one for me, and tell me how they are all false and unproveable?

I’m afraid I’m not going to go chasing the cites you’ve asked for (apparently for annoyance value) since apparently you haven’t read the thread to see that I’ve supported much of what I said as I went, and more importantly because you were insulting and failed to ask nicely.

If you want me to do work on your behalf, you will have to be nice about it.

180

Here you go. All major charges of that group (that Kerry was a coward under fire, that he exaggerated his wounds to receive one, two or all three of his purple hearts, that he was distrusted by his colleagues and superiors, etc. ad nauseum) have been shown to be chimerical at best. But of course, you’ve read every post in that thread, the way I’ve read every post in this thread… right?

Let’s be clear here. When you provide citations and/or factually based arguments to support your assertions of treason, it is not on my behalf, nor is it to provide a service to 'luc, nor as a sop to the interested reader; it is the bare minimum required when one citizen makes such a charge against another. Particularly required when the object of such a charge is a decorated United States war veteran, a distinguished member of the United States Senate and a current Presidential candidate. If we are to tread lightly when evaluating the honesty of the Swift Boat Veterans (due to their service to this country), then we are damn sure to tread lightly when evaluating Senator Kerry’s conduct.

But, being so concerned with truth, as you’ve charged us to be, you surely agree that great care should be taken to support your condemnation of a decorated war hero?