Look, let’s reframe this discussion. Does anybody on this thread seriously believe that the Swiftvets’ assertions about Kerry present any good reason not to vote for him?
Gigobuster:
I asked you where the quote came from, and you wouldn’t tell me. That’s not brass tacks, that’s playing games.
Well then, I am afraid you lose. I did not say “none had discussed it before.” What I said was that in “several consecutive threads no one was willing to get down to brass tacks.” The statement that I made is true. The one you are arguing about is not. I didn’t say what you said I said. Go back and check.
Go back and check. That’s not what I said.
I still didn’t say that. Please go and check.
Quite frankly, if this is going to be what our discussions are like, I wish you would.
I can cover a lot of ground debating somebody like Svin. What he does that I respect is read my posts and try to understand my points and what I mean. Then he responds to them. I hope he thinks I try to do the same with him.
With you, you seem to be focussed on trying to find a semantic point to get bogged down on. These discussions where I am misquoted or mischaracterized are tedious. I would prefer not to have them.
I would prefer to actually discuss the issue, rather than discuss the discussion of the issue. That’s impossible if arguments are being falsely attributed.
So how about this? You can read what I wrote and have the last word on this discussion of the discussion and then we can get back to the issue.
I don’t mean to be rude but when I say I’ll ignore you it means that I don’t feel obligated to go along with you correcting your mistatement you make concerning me, and that I’m getting tired discussing the discussion rather than the issue.
OK?
Yes and no. The swiftboats assertions are just that. Assertions. What the book does though is indict Kerry in his own words. The Cambodia thing above is just one example. The weakest part of the Swiftvets books is their interpretation or their assertions. These parts are even unnecessary.
Kerry typically has three or four versions of most of the events discussed. Incompatible and wildly opposed versions. What happened during the war really doesn’t matter. It’s kerry lying about it afterwards that does. He makes up phony war crimes. He states that the Swiftboat mission was to commit atrocities:
http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=WarCrimes
During the Wintersoldier investigation and during the Fulbright testimony Made up lies and accusations against his fellow soldiers and indicted the entire officer corps as complicit. He claimed the US was engaging in genocide. He went to Paris and met with N. Vietnamese representatives while negotiations were under way and endorsed the N. Vietnamese viewpoint and. In short, when he came back he betrayed those he served with and fought against this country choosing sides with the enemy, and the enemy has honored him for it. John Kerry’s picture hangs in the War Remnants museum of N. Vietnam. They honor him for helping them win.
Read all about it at www.wintersoldier.com
About ten times more important than whether or not George Bush had someone pulls strings to get him into the guard when he was 22 years old.
Whether that makes it important enough not to vote for him is another matter. Irrelevant anyway, since there are SO MANY reasons not to vote for John Kerry. You don’t really need another one.
Pffft. There’s one overarching, all-important reason to vote for John Kerry.
George W. Bush.
“Anybody but Bush” I remember that.
Y’all sure are testing that. When they said “anybody” they didn’t mean it literally
OK, just a clarification: context is the biggest item for me, if you are making the point that “several consecutive threads” have to exclude the one that was one of the most recent ones (and in Great debates no less) I could not help stop and point out that it is insulting to say there was no “get down to brass tacks”
Speaking of context, I see your “going up the cross” act so many times that it is getting tiresome.
But, as you say, back to the discussion:
To me, the context of a stupid war required some exaggerations in order to end the war. And IIRC the bulk of accusations Kerry lofted has proven to be the truth.
Finding that some fakers got to testify with Kerry is not a good reason to dismiss Kerry, finding that the swifters are accusing Kerry of treason is dumb, it was really criminal not to talk against the war then. Or, maybe the swifters are still sad that there were no more dead soldiers because the war ended sooner? Imagine! Thousands of heroes did not had the chance to die in the glorious paddy fields because one decorated soldier decided to do something! The nerve of him!
Since their testimony was not damaging to Kerry THEN, it is less likely to damage him now as a private citizen, the only purpose is still clear to: making sure Kerry is not elected. So I think no, the assertions of the swifters do not show a good reason not to vote for Kerry.
Is it your contention that no such crimes were committed? The quote from your cite states “…Contrary to Kerry’s claim, our consistent policy was to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians…”
Was this policy unique to the Swift Boats and their mission? Are you claiming that no such incidents ever occured, or only that thier number is exaggerated? And if you are claiming exagerration, to what extent? One can only hope you don’t intend to put forth the laughable contention that no “war crimes” were ever committed by any American service personnel. So what is it? Are the Swifties innocent of any such crimes? You sling the word “lie” about with considerable ease, and expect the word of the accusers themselves to be taken as Gospel.
Got anything else?
You can prove this? How? Reading his testimony, one has to note that no specific incidents are alluded to, no "Sept. 11, 2:20 in the afternoon, in the village of Bum Fuk… So it is difficult to understand how you can be so certain he is making stuff up, unless, of course, you contend that such things as My Lai never happened. But, of course, the did happen.
A common form of political hyperbole. Not a judicious choice of words, no doubt. Hardly rises to the level you are attempting to create. “Genocide” at the time came to include a callous disregard for indigenous peoples, which was amply demonstrated. For instance, we know exactly how many Americans were killed in the Viet Nam conflict, we can only estimate the numbers of Vietnamese civilians.
Cite? And which viewpoint? The view that the SoVietNam government was corrupt and oppressive? The SV government was corrupt and oppressive. The view that America had no business interfering in the civil conflict? That is also true. At what point did telling the truth become treason?
(emphasis added in revulsion)
This is putrid and repulsive slander. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you haven’t got the capacity for such shame, please develop it as soon as you can.
Well, I think that it looks that way mainly because the RNC slime machine is in full gear. Look, if Jesus was running as the Democratic nominee, he’d be looking pretty bad in many people’s eyes right now after Karl Rove and Co. got through with him. If I had one wish, it would be that we could rerun the election to this point with a different nominee…Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, whoever…and I am quite sure we’d be hearing exactly the same sort of tune coming from the RNC and those who are sympathetic to their point-of-view.
It is going to take an awful lot of effort on Kerry’s part to be as horrendous as George W Bush has been. And, fortunately, nothing in Kerry’s record indicates to me that he is even remotely up to that task.
And, I guess McCain is in on this too, since he has strongly denounced the attacks of the SwiftBoat folks on Kerry.
Boy, Robert McNamara has finally acknowledged the lessons of history but Scylla sure as hell hasn’t.
Posted before on the pit, but now, it looks better here:
"In the old country, during the nasty civil war, there was a military general that was made fun on the fact that he virtually saw no action in combat before the civil war. His cavalier attitude in sending many young soldiers to die, gave him the nickname: “Botas Virgo”: Virgin (combat) boots.
Bush deserves to be called something like that and worse now, when one realizes that this misleader is an even bigger coward when he hides behind front groups, that do now his political dirty work for him. This administration is based on the premise that Bush is never responsible for anything bad, and they are counting on the American people to condone all his missteps and tall lies:
of Tax cuts giving jobs to all,
of wars bringing peace,
of secrecy bringing trust,
and of incompetence bringing security. (Chalabi and Iraq and Iran)
And Bush has the impudence of saying that proven lies from swifters against Kerry, have the same value, as ads from groups mentioning the unpleasant truth that Bush is misleading the nation?"
Mr. Virgin boots Bush doesn’t deserve our votes.
Amen! It was criminal for anybody who knew what Kerry knew not to do what he did – no matter what the fucking Logan Act said, Sam!
If I may, a little something to lighten up the mood:
Vietnam Seeks Confirmation That War is Over: Bickering Over War Leaves Communists Confused
Y’know, buddy. Most people would think that the fact he generalized broadly instead of being specific would count against him.
In point of fact though specific incidents are mentioned and talked about. There’s lots of them from the Wintersoldier investigation. The government tried to substantiate them, but Kerry took no affidavits and several people turned out to be imposters. Some of the people were pressured into lying by Kerry. This guy:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=YesterdaysLies1
More specific atrocities here:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Atrocities
He said we were committing “genocide.” It’s like saying “BOMB!” on an airplane. You don’t do it unless there really is a bomb. Poor choice of words? Most blatant lies are.
[quote]
Cite? And which viewpoint?
[quote]
" I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh’s points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.
– John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971"
Go and see for yourself:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545
More documentation here:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040604194804799
But don’t take my word for it, and photographs can be faked, right. Check out what the North Vietnamese have to say about Kerry in the Vietnamese news:
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-06/10/Stories/16.htm
That last cite is kind of amazing, don’t you think?
For those who, unlike certain people, think that context matters, the photo in question was taken in 1993, when Senator Kerry and that other well-known commie traitor, Senator McCain, visited Vietnam in an effort to locate American servicemen listed as missing in action from the Vietnam war.
I ask you, America, is this the sort of man you want as leader of the free world?
Why is the last cite “amazing?”
I see it as a simple statement of truth by John Kerry and good on him for having the balls to say it.
I did.
If the Democrats nominated Dr. Demento, I’d vote for him rather than Bush. I seriously believe that nobody can possibly be as bad as the current Administration.
How the hell did Kerry “help the NVA win?”
What a slimy thing to say.