Ahhhh yes,…very informative indeed. Point taken. Thanks for the insight.
Just wanted to clarify. You got nothing.
This reminds me of back in the fall of 2004, I was taking a film class. We were studying Birth of a Nation and the instructor asked, Do you think the Civil War was over when this movie was made? Is the Viet Nam war over now?? I can’t believe people are still fighting about this shit, but it did a fine job of putting BoaN in context.
Maybe. Just more than you.
At least I understand how a debate works. He who makes the assertion is burdened with proving its veracity. But I wouldn’t expect a dilettante like yourself—someone who thinks a debate board is his personal dartboard for sniping, throwing out usually unfunny bon mots, or a substitute for a failed career at The Comedy Store—to fully grasp that.
Well, I caught elucidator’s standup at the Mic 'n Stool, and let me tell you, he killed. A lot more prop jokes than you’d expect, though.
That was Carrot Top. My seconds, sir, will call on you in the morning. Choice of weapons is, of course, mine.
Pick verbs!! 
Hmmmm I think it was you who has made charges against Kerry on this board and have been asked to defend them. Of course if they’re only opinions not backed by facts that’s okay.
Buttwhistle. See, you’re a rather nasty piece of work. If you had something, you’d bring it so you could rub my nose in it and gloat. You’d crawl on your hands and knees across a field of broken glass for the opportunity. You couldn’t hold your own in a debate with a team from the Special Olympics. Hell, you’d lose to the bus they rode in!
clap…clap…clap…clap…
Emcee: "Uh, yeah, let’s here it for, for, whatever your name is. (Now scram, kid. And quick.) And now for our next act, Quentin The Quadrapalegic Mime…
My point is that Kerry never substantiated HIS claims. HE was the one making the claim. If someone wants to do it for him, they can be my guest. And I really don’t have that much desire to go back to the debate four years ago. If he is truly interested in seeing how hollow Kerry’s claims were, I provided him the link to the book that goes into it.
As far as your earlier points:
Aside from the fact that they would have supposedly shown the Swiftboat Vets to be wrong, he said he would. More than once.
I guess I don’t agree with your assessment that Bush lied to us. And that it is in no way meant to imply that he’s done anything good.
I disagree. Even if someone is trying to right a wrong, he can do it honorably or dishonorably. He chose dishonorably. And I don’t by for a second that his primary motivation was not insinuating himself in front of cameras.
I think that those who tortured our men in POW camps qualify as an enemy, don’t you. Or do you think the culture is so different that they imprison and torture allies.
And whether you’ve worn the uniform or not, you can subsequently act in a way as to impugn your own integrity. Kerry did that. Bud Day has not. Until he did the unthinkable and share his views regarding a darling of the left.
That’s too big a leap. According to that logic, as long as we can point to one atrocity, someone is free to ascribe myriad atrocities to the group at large, even though there is no evidence that the vast majority acted anything but honorably? I don’t think you really believe that.
You might be right. But I’ve heard that claim from more than one person. Now while you’re entitled to your opinion on this, I think it better to go with Day. I think he’s probably more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us.
I asked this earlier: if the truth (an assumption for now) affects an election, isn’t that a good thing? I have yet to see anyone point to what he said as being a lie or necessarily incorrect.
Whadda ya need, someone to pin your head inside a vice and stick prongs in your eyeballs to make them move from left to right?
I’m available. Just wanted to mention that.
So much weasel shit, so little time…
First, they were not Kerry’s claims. Kerry was invited to report on what he had heard at the Winter Soldier event. He was not then, nor had he ever been, empowered to investigate, he could not issue subppoenas for millitary records, he could not force testimony under oath with threat of perjury. He could only listen, and report what he heard.
He was reporting to people who did have such powers, but failed to use them. That isn’t his fault.
The Swiftboaters veracity has been rent asunder so often, only atoms and scraps remain.
And what would have been honorable? Silence? Yoiu’ve got much to say about how “dishonorable” were Kerry’s intentions, gathered largely by telepathic examination. What might he have done “honorably”?
Of course they were the enemy. Having an enemy does not free you from moral constraints. What of Mr Thompson, referenced above? Surely his revelations about My Lai gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy, so he should have simply hopped back on to this helicopter and let innocents be slaughtered? So as to avoid giving “aid and comfort” to an enemy?
What would you have done? If moral decisions were always easy, nitwits like you could make them.
That the vast majority of US soldiers acted honorably is not in question, however much you may wish it were. As well, the vast majority of US soldiers in Viet Nam were not in combat, and were not in a postion to commit any such actions. On that basis alone, there isn’t any question that the “vast majority” of American soldiers are innocent of such behavior. That you seek to frame the argument in that manner reveals your agenda. You are courageously attacking a claim not made.
Are you fucking kidding me? Someone spews shit that he hears, relates it as fact to an official preceding, and you give him a pass? It is not incumbent upon him to verify what he heard before relating it to that body, especially when it impugns so many innocent men not there to defend themselves. I guess we’re working with vastly different definitions of “honorable”.
The burden fell to him, before he talked his way into the limelight. I guess even they knew he was full of shit.
On the SDMB, sure. So what?
His throwing his medals over the wall, I’d say, was a highly principled way for him to make a strong point. They were his medals and in discarding those powerful symbols he made a point extremely well. (Of course, he undid any honor in that 30 years later, but that’s another matter). He could have done many things that people do all the time to protest. He could have gone on a hunger strike. He could have poured gasoline on himself in uniform at the Washington Mall and threatened to flick a lighter. He could have held vigil at Arlington. There are a million things he could have done. People think stuff up all the time and follow through with it. Out here in SF we had people scale the bridge and put banners on it. and over in Berkeley, some idiots were living in trees to prevent them from being cut down. He chose to malign men in good standing because he wanted to grandstand and he wanted juicy tidbits. Fuck that dishonorable scumbag.
Excellent. That is precisely my point! There may be hope for you yet.
I would not go that far. My Lai actually happened. We had the person responsible, Cally. These were not vague broadbrush accusations that he hoped would stick. They were specific and easily verified. When shit like that is done on this debate board, people have conniptions. Kerry doing it in the senate, no problem, because the war was bad.
There often very difficult. That’s why you have to be careful. That’s why one should err on the side of prudence, of honorable action. Cheating is low whether it has to do with sports or politics. Just because you or I happen to agree with a particular stance doesn’t mean that a person has carte blanche in effecting the change we desire. I think you know this—in fact, you said as much above—but I thought it would be a memorable refresher if a nitwit like me was the one to remind you of it.
Are you really going to pull the semantic bullshit that by vast majority of soldiers I didn’t mean those in combat, those that were in a position to commit the atrocities Lurch spewed? If so, “Pssst, your desperation is showing.”
I get it, but since you are the one claiming Kerry lied and behaved dishonorably in a debate then it does rest upon you to offer evidence. I’d say there’s a difference between him knowingly presenting false information and merely repeating stories he believed were true but hadn’t substantiated. The larger point, that atrocities were being committed by American troops remains true. So, I see no betrayal, dishonor, and no solace being offered to the enemy.
I don’t think he’s obligated in anyway to prove them wrong. If he said he would then it’s valid to expect him to follow through. I can believe he accepted a questionable purple heart but then again I don’t know the guidelines. The fact remains that he went and served while GWB avoided going. That makes the accusation that he didn’t bleed enough or for the right reason pretty hollow in comparison. If he had the balls and the smarts he’d have diffused it all right away bit he didn’t. He allowed himself to be put on the defensive when he should have taken the offense.
Some things may be questionable but when he tried to paint Saddam as some realistic threat to us he knew better. Hell, I’m an uneducated guitar player and it me didn’t take long to see it was bullshit.
No matter, we disagree on that.
If he intentionally presented information he knew was false I’d agree that’s dishonorable. So far I haven’t been shown that’s true. Your other accusation requires a bit of mind reading that we both know you can’t do. You don’t like him so you think the worst. I think it could be that he seriously felt the war was the wrong direction for the country since so many people were feeling that way back then. Was he aware that leading in that cause might help his career? Probably, but there were sure no guarantees of that at the time was there?
Okay, they were the enemy only because we made them that by attacking them and interfering in their country. The perceived threat to the US was never shown to be real. So, in the sense they were no threat to us before we went to attack them, they were not the enemy. Kerry was advocating an end to an unnecessary conflict, which would make them cease to be our enemy. It wasn’t to comfort an enemy. It was to remove an enemy by stopping the conflict.
Some people might say it was the wrong thing to do while we still had troops there, but I see that as more justification. Our leaders weren’t doing their job so the people had to step up and make their voices heard. Nothing dishonorable about that brand of patriotism.
You haven’t shown this to be true.
Bud Day is welcome to his opinion but IMO he impugned his integrity when he allowed himself to be used as a political tool to attack Kerry in order to continue another tragic and unnecessary war. Day plainly says Kerry’s stories were fabrications. Is that true? How does he know what troops were doing while he was a POW? If he doesn’t know then isn’t his accusation against Kerry a lie?
The rest is just emotional venom and conjecture and frankly hysterical bitter BS.
That’s not fact. That’s vitriol. I see no evidence to give it any credence. Especially when the same kind of language was being used to continue another tragic mistake. Even if I assume Day was telling the truth as he saw it, he still allowed himself and his bitterness to be used as a political dupe.
You’re right. I don’t think there was only one atrocity. Considering the thousands of soldiers that served there, died there, and were wounded and maimed there, and also the millions of Vietnamese, how many atrocities would it take? How many would be acceptable so we could look at them and say. …“see, it wasn’t that bad”
I’m not interested in nit picking facts. In war there are acts of horror and cruelty as well as nobility and heroism. I think we’d be dam naive to think American troops weren’t guilty of their share of the horror.
Is this a joke. Do you suppose there might be more than one Vietnam vet who thinks he’s full of shit on this? There were quite a few vets protesting the war weren’t there. Is it logical to think that ending the war actually saved American lives?
It depends on how relevant that truth is to the election. Day’s personal opinions about Kerry and the anti war movement have little to do with the truth. It was just a political tool in order to take the focus off current events. Is that good for the country? Not in my book. Attacking the character of a man who served in a war 30 years ago by making unsubstantiated accusations is not what I’d call an honorable way serve the public interest.
One of my major problems with politics and the way Rove and friends work it is that they don’t want to honestly address the issues of the day that deeply affect millions of Americans. They want to go for some emotional bullshit innuendo and fear tactics and don’t give a rat’s ass about honesty.
Some might justify those kind of dirty tactics and say “Hey politics is a dirty game and that’s how it’s played” “You gotta do what it takes to win” I call bullshit on that. When the job you’re aiming for is defined as serving the best interests of the general public and you take an oath of office, to do exactly that then those kind of tactics are despicable and dishonorable in every way I can think of.
Bud Day may harbor all the resentment he likes for Kerry and war protesters in general, but cooperating with that kind of politics when so much is at sake is hardly honorable. Even at that I’ve giving him the benefit of the doubt. I have no evidence that he was even sincere at all.
The burden was on our leaders who at the time weren’t doing there jobs.
Kerry saying that he was told certain atrocities were happening does not impugn many innocent men. If I say “I hear professional athletes are are taking steroids” it is not an accusation against every professional athlete.
Nothing Kerry said implied most of our troops were cruel monsters. What he said implied the horrible realities of war should not be ignored. That happens to be true.
The only fact he related was the fact that he heard it. Read the fucking testimony or else just shut the fuck up.
Damn, yer dense! They asked him to! He was invited to tell the Committe what he heard from the Winter Soldiers. What, do you think he barged in and forced them to listen at gunpoint? And “verify”? What is it you imagine, the he could have gone to the Pentagon with this testimony and they would have cooperated? Huh? They were alreadly lying to us, he was gonna Perry Mason them into confessing?
You “guess”. Indeed, you do.
Nitpick. No, they weren’t (IIRC).
So what is it that is dishonorable, the message or the medium? You running on about “comfort to the enemy” and “Jane Fonda”, and so forth, so it seems you hold that the message itself is dishonorable. But now you tell me its the way he said it. Let me know when you make up your mind. Such as it were.
The* person * responsible!!?? Lord God, do you think “Rusty” Calley gunned down between 300 and 500 civilians all by himself? (Note that: to this day, we can only estimate how many were murdered…) And covered it up,* all by himself?*
I asked you before: do you admire Hugh Thompson? If he had opened fire on American soldiers to stop a massacre of innocernt civilians, would you disapprove? Realising, of course, that such an action would provide propaganda value to the enemy, aid and comfort?
So, maybe this stuff isn’t as easy as you make it out, eh?
Yeah, yer killing me, slick. One more solidly based innuendo and another guess or two pulled out of yer ass, and I’ll be whupped for sure. Hell, you’ve only posted one fact so far, Lt. Calley, and you mispelled that one!
For my own education I looked up winter soldier
here’s what I found,
and…
I’m open to other evidence but I’d say according to this what Day said and your acceptance of it as factual appears to be bullshit.
If this is even mostly true it makes Day’s claim that Kerry’s stories were fabrications a flat out bald faced lie. How honorable is that?