posted
Has anyone seen the new documentry "Long War of John Kerry"? According to Roger Ebert, the movie talked about how John O'Neill was recruited by the Nixon White House to discredit John Kerry:
quote: The most remarkable connection it makes is that John O'Neill, mastermind of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and co-author of the current book Unfit for Command, was originally recruited by the dirty tricksters in the Nixon White House to play precisely the same role!
The movie documents this with tapes of Oval Office conversations with Richard Nixon discussing John Kerry with his aides H.R. Haldeman and Charles Colson....
In the Oval Office, it is noted that Kerry made a good impression, especially on the network news programs. "He's a Kennedy-type guy. He looks like a Kennedy and sounds like a Kennedy," says Haldeman.
"We have to destroy the young demagogue before he becomes another Nader," Colson tells the president. Asked to get some dirt on Kerry, Colson reports "we couldn't find anything on him." Then he comes up with the idea of recruiting Vietnam vets who would be coached to smear Kerry. Colson enlists O'Neill, who 30 years later has revived his old role.
I'm interested in people's general reaction to this movie. But more specifically, I was wondering if people who believed the SwiftVet accusations feel O'Neill is somehow discredited by his association with the Nixon White House.
Of course, association with Nixon does not automatically taint O'Neill's criticisms of Kerry. I read the transcripts of conversations between Nixon and O'Neill and it doesn't appear that O'Neill was coached to lie or anything. (see MSNBC article and Raw Transcripts)
I apologize if this has been brought up already, but I did a quick search of O'Neill and Nixon and didn't find anything on Hatrack.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for posting that, VW. I hadn't heard of this film before now. I wonder if it will get national distribution before the Nov elections? I also wonder where the credibility of Swiftboat vets for truth stands with the electorate, especially the undecided voters. Most of their claims have been discredited by mainstream media, but not all. As smear campaigns go, it's hard to say how effective it has been.
edit:It's also very interesting that O'neill and Kerry have such a long, tangled history together.
John Kerry is a self-serving Jerk for going to Vietnam, and Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are American Saints for avoiding the war.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea you're wrong. The US Constitution clearly states that freedom of speech does not apply to people who criticize the government. You sir, are un-American.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just because he doesn't appeal to your rather limited sensibilities doesn't make him Un-American, or a traitor.
No, but illegally meeting with the leaders of the Viet Cong in France while STILL at war and while he was STILL enlisted, does make him some what of a Benedict Arnold.
You add the fact that he committed war crimes (which he was never charged for but admitted to) and you are electing the equivalent of the Abu Ghraib criminals to the presidency.
Now, would any of us honestly vote for that young gal who tortured the prisoners in say..oh...25 or 30 years to be President?
At least she knows that whatever the outcome, she can always run for president as a Democrat in the future.
Again, that's just my opinion.
I don't think that Abu Ghraib prison guards are any more fit to lead the country in 25 or 30 years than Kerry is now.
quote:Let's see, Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam fighting for the US and how many months/years after fighting against the US?
Well, none actually. But he spent a long time try to make this country a better place - probably helping our country much more than any service he did in Vietnam.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, accusing soldiers of wide spread war crimes of which the only example remains the one that is so infamous, My Lai.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm talking about the real John Kerry, not that guy they call John Kerry in the Republican ad campaigns. Kerry did a lot more for America than talk about war crimes.
"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
That's the message Kerry delivered. And it was a critical lesson the U.S. had to learn, and to some extent, still needs to learn. Wars are a dangerous business to embark upon.
posted
Technically, George Bush isn't asking anyone to die for a "mistake," John Kerry is the one who would if he became president be asking people to die for a "mistake."
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:NFL: Yeah, accusing soldiers of wide spread war crimes of which the only example remains the one that is so infamous, My Lai.
Can you back up that assertion?
quote: And since Kerry testified, ample evidence of other atrocities has come to light:
Son Thang: In 1998, for example, Marine Corps veteran Gary D. Solis published the book Son Thang: An American War Crime describing the court-martial of four US Marines for the apparently unprovoked killing 16 women and children on the night of February 19, 1970 in a hamlet about 20 miles south of Danang. The four Marines testified that they were under orders by their patrol leader to shoot the villagers. A young Oliver North appeared as a character witness and helped acquit the leader of all charges, but three were convicted.
Tiger Force: The Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize this year for a series published in October, 2003 reporting that atrocities were committed by an elite US Army "Tiger Force" unit that the Blade said killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage in 1967. "Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings," the Blade reported. "Investigators concluded that 18 soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. But no one was charged."
"Hundreds" of others: In December 2003 The New York Times quoted Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University who has been studying government archives, as saying the records are filled with accounts of atrocities similar to those described by the Toledo Blade series. "I stumbled across the incidents The Blade reported," Turse was quoted as saying. "I read through that case a year, year and a half ago, and it really didn't stand out. There was nothing that made it stand out from anything else. That's the scary thing. It was just one of hundreds."
"Exact Same Stories": Keith Nolan, author of 10 published books on Vietnam, says he's heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Nolan told FactCheck.org that since 1978 he's interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. "I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over," he said. "Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn't really surprise anyone."
quote: You add the fact that he committed war crimes (which he was never charged for but admitted to) and you are electing the equivalent of the Abu Ghraib criminals to the presidency
He never did that, and I challenge you to finally post some sort of link to this accusation.
He was never charged for war crimes because he never committed any.
Shooting an armed combatant isn't a war crime. It's survival.
You have made a lot of unfounded accusations here in your very short time, CS...and this isn't the first tome you have been called on it, is it?
I know that in order for your accusations to hold any water, he would have had to have been brought up on charges...which he wasn't. There would have had to have been a trial...which there wasn't. And he would have been convicted...which, once again, he wasn't.
Just because it is your opinion doesn't make it a valid point for consideration here at Hatrack, unless you can back it up with some sort of proof.
Kerry showed up, and served. I may not like everything he said after he got back, but I wasn't there, so I don't presume to judge him when he was testifying about things he saw that I didn't.
He has given me far more reason to trust him than Bush has, and most of the world probably feels the same, as evidenced by Bush's failure to lead a worldwide effort against Iraq.
Kerry never said he didn't support the troops, and he never said he would pull out of Iraq right away. He never said he would pull out in 6 months.
What he said is that he feels there is a chance he could convince the rest of the worlds to contribute to the effort, and if there were more international troops available (and there would be if the other countries were able to bid on projects) then those troops could be use to rotate our troops out.
I don't care who you vote for...but if you are going to quote someone, and make baseless, unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations, don't be surprised if you are called on it...publiclly...over and over.
quote: Technically, George Bush isn't asking anyone to die for a "mistake," John Kerry is the one who would if he became president be asking people to die for a "mistake." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true...Bush is forcing them to die for his mistake...the very mistake his own father refused to make when confronted with the same choice.
If Bush read, and had bothered to read his own fathers book, perhaps he might have seen the problem before it came to this....
Kerry has said that he honers the soldiers, and the mistake isn't thiers. You don't bale a bullet for killing someone, you blame the idiot who pointed the gun.
quote:Technically, George Bush isn't asking anyone to die for a "mistake,"
True. You can't ask people to die for mistakes if you are always right.
quote: Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, the former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. MSNBC
quote: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared Monday to back off earlier statements suggesting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda.
He also conceded that U.S. intelligence was "wrong" in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. CNN
quote: MR. CAVETT: Well, let's talk about that. Did you see war crimes committed and –
MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.
Kinda takes the hot air out of the balloon doesn't it?
posted
Guilty of participating in the unethical tactics of his nation (as required to as a soldier) and then owning up it.
Bush, in contrast, creates unethical wars, writes policy to take away the human rights of enemy combatants, and then refuses to own up to the mistakes.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guilty of course, although it is not quite as bad if they were being forced to do it under orders. The higher-ups who ordered it, or encouraged it, would be even more guilty - potentially including Bush.
Furthermore, there is significant difference between burning down noncombatant houses during a battle and torturing captured POWs - everyone should know the latter is wrong, whether or not they are versed on international law.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And incidently, there'd be nothing wrong with voting for one of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib if they learned from their mistakes there, and as a result dedicated years of lives to preventing such mistakes from being made again. Learning from mistakes shows good judgement, and attempting to correct those mistakes shows good character.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is enough for you, that's fine. But I can't justify putting someone in as commander in chief that in my view admitted to screwing it up royally in 4 months time in Vietnam, and then based his whole campaign on that service.
Sorry, in my opinion he is unfit to command this nation.
posted
No, I'm not a party republican. I'm one of those "vote my conscience" type voters. If a democrat held the same beliefs and goals as I do, then I'd probably vote for them...
There's just not very many socially conservative democrats.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, one of the things I like about Hatrack is that there's a lot of folks with different viewpoints who post here. I learn a lot from the different perspectives.
But, I'm starting to skip your posts since you make all sorts of wild statements and accusations without backing them up.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, Abu Ghraib is still current. There's still time to determine who, at the top, was responsible for either placing those orders, or letting pseudo-military subcontractors or intelligence agency hacks direct our soldiers to perform these barbaric acts.
So far, no one's stepped up.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) People hired to slam you by the President (which is what the original topic was, remember?)
So everything we see in movies is true? I would beg to differ. But to each their own. As Fahrenheit 9/11 proved, you can make a documentary based on lies, innuendo and opinions, try to pass it off as truth, and some "Yahoos" will actually believe it unfortunately.
quote: 2) Entire groups of people who weren't involved in your missions lie about you (called the Swift Vets), and blame you for war crimes you never did.
Actually the SBV were involved in some of the missions. Specifically one where Kerry received a Purple Heart after a boat was mined in a three boat line, Kerry turned his boat and left, then came back and helped rescue one of the crew members.
The SBV were on the other boat that stayed and one of them (the vets) was on the actual boat that was mined.
quote: 3) Yahoos slam you on a internet board years after the fact, after you have been cleared for any wrongdoing.....
Sounds like the "Yahoos" who slam President Bush for having "Prior Knowledge" of 9/11 or the "Yahoos" who slam him making rediculous claims that he knew there were no WMDs before going into Iraq even though every Intelligence Organization in the world said he did (that claim makes me laugh beyond any other conspiracy theory out there). Or the "Yahoos" that claim there is a close personal and FINANCIAL relationship between the "Bush's" and the Saudi Royal family or the Bin Laden's.
quote: Either there were MANY people doing this, and war crimes were widespread...or nobody did them, and Kerry was never ordered to do it either....
Which brings up the Abu Ghraib prison guards. If they were ordered to do it, and they have ALL come clean/admitted what they did, that means they should be forgiven and at least be given their jobs back right?
I mean if we are going to give the position of Commander in Chief to a man who through ignorance committed war crimes, then what about the prison guards?
Why should they be held accountable and him not and even be REWARDED with a presidency?
quote: It didn't take anything out of me.
Well it did make the following statements of yours false.
quote: He never did that, and I challenge you to finally post some sort of link to this accusation.
He was never charged for war crimes because he never committed any.
As I have shown, he did committ war crimes per his own admission and considered himself using the Nuremburg standard as "Guilty".
I posted the link to the relevant quote.
The two things you attacked me for were refuted by me and the two things you claimed were false.
He did in fact do those things, regardless of whether or not he was "charged".
My opinion still stands as neither the Abu Ghraib Prison Guards nor John F. Kerry are fit to be commander in chief of this country.
And that's not even going into the whole "French meeting with the Enemy" thing.
Thanks for your reply. But my opinion, based on his own comments and actions, remains unchanged.
posted
Here are some really good ones, CS...from your own source, no less....
quote: Never in the course of human events have so many been libeled by so few.
Until the SwiftVet campaign, of course...because for every unfounded slur they made, they were smearing many other Vets the served in the same duties, along with Kerry...
From Kerry:
quote: I think that what we're doing is we're trying in a sense to show where the country went wrong, and we believe that as veterans who took part in this war, we have nothing to gain by coming back here and talking about those things that have happened except to try and point the way to America, to try and say, "Here is where we went wrong and we've got to change." And I think that the attitude of the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace is really one sort of of my country, right or wrong, which is really on the intellectual level, I think, of saying my mother, drunk or sober.
And I think that just as when your mother is drunk, you take her and dry her out – God forbid that she is – you take your country, in the words of Senator Carl Schurz, who said, "My country, right or wrong. When right, keep it right; when wrong, put it right." And I think that that's what we veterans are trying to do.
Wow...what a "traitor", huh?
quote: Now, on the question of war crimes, it's really only with the utmost consideration that we post this question. I don't think that any man comes back to this country to say that he raped or to say that he burned a village or to say that he wantonly destroyed crops or something for pleasure. I think that he does it at the risk of certain kinds of punishment, at the risks of injuring his own character which he has to live with, at the risks of the loss of his family and friends as a result of it, and he does it because he believes intensely that people have got to be educated about the devastation of this war.
We thought we were a moral country, yes, but we are now engaged in the most rampant bombing in the history of mankind. Since President Nixon has assumed office, we have dropped some 2,700,000 tons of bombs on Laos. That is more than we dropped in the entire Pacific and Atlantic theaters in the entire course of World War II. And I think the question of morality really has to enter in here, so I'd say that Vietnam Veterans Against the War are really trying to approach this from a most constructive point of view.
Wow, more of the same....shouldn't we just shoot him now?
quote: MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.
But we're not trying to find war criminals. That's not our purpose. It never has been. I have a letter here which I could read to you which we wrote to Washington D.C. in an effort to try and solve the problem of these war crimes, and we sent it to Senator Stennis, and we said, "On behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, we're writing to ask that the Senate Armed Services Committee immediately convene public hearings to examine the testimony presented by these veterans." May I go on?
Among the questions raised were charges. What we're looking for is an examination of our policy by people in this country, particularly by the leaders before they take young men who are the objects of that policy and try them rather than examine the policy at the highest level where it was in fact promulgated.
So...he said it was systemic, and that they were following orders that were later revealed to be contrary to the Geneva Convention and Hague Convention....
But he spoke out against them after finding out they were illegal...and for that you call him a traitor? So what are you saying? Either they happened, or they didn't....amke up your mind.
If they did, what do you object to? What should he have done...just let them continue?
If they didn't, or weren't violations (as the USA claims to this very day)....you can't say we are balmeless and then yell bloody murder about them when Kerry runs for office....lol...
From O'Neil:
quote: The Army pursued him all the way to Minnesota to try and get him to sign a deposition regarding the allegations of war crimes that he made, and he refused to, as have all 50 people that testified there and 150 that testified in Detroit, and so I suggest that if you're honest, you ought to finally produce the depositions after all of us waiting for two months.
And then Nixon would have all the ammo he needed to put Kerry away....which is what O'Neil had been hired to do, remember?
In those days anyone signing those statments would have been arrested...not because the goverment believed them, but because it would suilence them and their protests.
Duh.
Here is some more...:
quote: MR. KERRY: And the purpose of them not signing them is literally to call for an examination of policy and not scapegoats and to examine it from the President of the United States to General Westmoreland and others. And when they do that, then they will sign and then they will talk.
Now, there are individuals who are perfectly willing to sign. Nobody's ducking anything.
MR. O'NEILL: Well, who are they? Can you tell me that?
MR. KERRY: well, I have a friend who came all the way from Florida today, and if it's all right with you, he's here now. I'd be very happy to bring him on and let him make a deposition.
MR. O'NEILL: Well, I think just you and I. I've had the same experience of four against one before.
MR. KERRY: You've asked for depositions, and I have the man –
MR. O'NEILL: Yeah, and I'd like to see him sign a deposition after the show.
MR. KERRY: I think you've made a very, very serious charge.
MR. O'NEILL: That's absolutely correct, I have.
MR. KERRY: And there's a veteran here who's come all the way from Florida who, if you didn't mind, would come on television now with names, facts, dates, places, maps, coordinates, and he's be very willing to make it public
Funny how the tone changed there, isn't it?
quote: MR. O'NEILL: [Unintelligible] John. Can you tell me about any war crimes that occurred in that unit, Coastal Division 11? And a second question: Why didn't you attempt to get out of the unit or submit a request when you were there if you saw anything that shocked a normal man?
MR. KERRY: We – Well, I'll come back to the question.
MR. O'NEILL: I'd like you to answer that question, if you would. You obviously are quite good on the polished rhetoric, but I did serve in the same place you did, and not for four months but for 18 months, and I never saw anything, and I'd like you to tell me about the war crimes you saw committed there, and also why you didn't do something about them, although [unintelligible].
MR. KERRY: Did you serve in a free fire zone?
MR. O'NEILL: I certainly did serve in a free fire zone.
MR. KERRY: [Reading] "Free fire zone, in which we kill anything that moves – man, woman or child. This practice suspends the distinction between combatant and non-combatant and contravenes Geneva Convention Article 3.1."
MR. O'NEILL: Where is that from, John?
MR. KERRY: Geneva Conventions. You've heard about the Geneva Conventions.
posted
Well, you said he lied to Congress about war crimes...and then tried to use his testamony (which you claimed were lies) to convict him...where he never was tried or convicted?
Why?
Because he wasn't guilty...his superiors were. And he was on the record trying to stop those atrocities...adn you use those very prostetations to attempt to convict him...
Thats really funny...and I don't think you get the humor at all.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You add the fact that he committed war crimes (which he was never charged for but admitted to) and you are electing the equivalent of the Abu Ghraib criminals to the presidency --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He never did that, and I challenge you to finally post some sort of link to this accusation.
He was never charged for war crimes because he never committed any.
He is not on camera beating prisoners. He never personally attackesd any unarmed civilians. He never abused or tortured prisoners of war.
He did follow orders that he later found were in conflict with various Conventions...and when he tried to tell his commanding officers that he was ostrisized.
He later left Vietnam becuase of his commanding officers refusal to follow international conventions.
To say that he is the same as the Guards at the Iraq prisons is disingenuous at best, and downright decietful at worse.
quote: Let's see, Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam fighting for the US and how many months/years after fighting against the US?
So wait...he was suppose to stay there and not fight according to his orders? Or was he suppose to...
Hell, make up your mind...should he have stayed there and comitted crimes once he knew they were wron, or leave and try and stop the offical policies that the illegal orders came from?
Which is it?
Do you even know?
And how is this at all related to the Iraq prison s candle? They didn't speak up, they were caugght...red-handed, at that, while STILL comitting these crimes.
The reason that didn't take any wind from me was that I was refering to a lot of your posts, not just the stuff you posted here.
Want some links to those, as you seem to have forgotten a few of those points as well? Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until the SwiftVet campaign, of course...because for every unfounded slur they made, they were smearing many other Vets the served in the same duties, along with Kerry...
I've never heard them say anything negative about any other vet besides Kerry. Perhaps you mean by smashing the whole platform Kerry was running on ("reporting for duty") that means smearing.
If so then anyone smearing GWB's Vietnam era service is as bit a smearmaster as they are...
quote: Wow...what a "traitor", huh?
I'd suggest you look up when this interview/debate took place and when Kerry went to France to Meet with the Viet-Cong unauthorized while still in Military service.
quote: Wow, more of the same....shouldn't we just shoot him now?
Who said anything about shooting him? Just sure as hell not give him the presidency.
quote: So...he said it was systemic, and that they were following orders that were later revealed to be contrary to the Geneva Convention and Hague Convention....
There is nothing in that quote that says he was ordered to. Keep in mind that HE was the leader of the boat. He may have been commanded by higher ups, but he didn't say that in those quotes. He also had "No idea" (implying) that what he was doing was wrong.
Does that justify it and make it right?
quote: But he spoke out against them after finding out they were illegal...and for that you call him a traitor? So what are you saying? Either they happened, or they didn't....amke up your mind.
He admitted to doing those things. Where did I doubt they happened? He committed war crimes. He's like a speeder who claims they didn't see the posted speed limit? Was he speeding? Yes.
quote: If they did, what do you object to? What should he have done...just let them continue?
You need to remember that Kerry said before a sworn congressional hearing that he never witnessed the killings, cutting of of heads, ears, rapes, etc.
He never saw them although he testified about them...
Those may have happened. What he had to do with it other than committing war crimes of his own, I don't know.
quote: And then Nixon would have all the ammo he needed to put Kerry away....which is what O'Neil had been hired to do, remember?
Um...no it would have opened up the case for military trials as is happening with Abu Ghraib.
You have military people who claimed attrocities were going on, but not willing to sign a deposition claiming such.
As to "Nixon" hiring him...I'm not going to believe that at face value.
I would expect others to not believe everything they see in movies as well.
quote: In those days anyone signing those statments would have been arrested...not because the goverment believed them, but because it would suilence them and their protests.
That's a big assumption to make. You don't know that and I don't either.
As to O'Neill committing crimes as well, he's not running for president. I think you'd have a problem if he did.
As I've shown, your original two sentence claims were false.
You believe O-Neill was hired by the President Himself (more liberal consipracy theory b.s. if you ask me, but plenty of "Yahoos" to adopt it as doctrine) and you are entitled to THAT opinon.
Kerry is still an untried war criminal by his own admission.
Whether that makes any difference to you or not is not a question I have to answer.
My point still stands.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, you said he lied to Congress about war crimes...and then tried to use his testamony (which you claimed were lies) to convict him...where he never was tried or convicted?
Why?
Because he wasn't guilty...his superiors were. And he was on the record trying to stop those atrocities...adn you use those very prostetations to attempt to convict him...
Thats really funny...and I don't think you get the humor at all.
You must have me confused with someone else. I never claimed Kerry lied before Congress. I simply stated he testified about attrocities (other than the ones he admitted to) he had never seen committed, but had heard about from other Vets.
You're wildly jumping to conlcusions I've never stated or implied.
quote: Because he wasn't guilty...his superiors were. And he was on the record trying to stop those atrocities...adn you use those very prostetations to attempt to convict him...
So the Abu Ghraib Prison Guards are completely free from guilt as long as their superiors commanded it?
quote: He is not on camera beating prisoners. He never personally attackesd any unarmed civilians. He never abused or tortured prisoners of war.
So the lack of photographic evidence makes what he did less wrong? He actually said he burned down civillian homes and took part in interdiction fire and free fire zones....which thanks to your "quotes" defines as shooting anything that moves, man, woman or child.
quote: He did follow orders that he later found were in conflict with various Conventions...and when he tried to tell his commanding officers that he was ostrisized.
Actually he had 3 purple hearts (lest we forget) and had opted to leave after his 4 months.
quote: He later left Vietnam becuase of his commanding officers refusal to follow international conventions.
Please post a source for you claims about Kerry leaving after he found out he was committing war crimes.
I have SERIOUS doubts he found out what he was doing was wrong while he was over there...
But you are more than welcome to try and back up your claims.
posted
Is Kerry a war criminal by the standard of conduct he adopted for himself? Yes. Is Kerry a war criminal by the standard of conduct advocated by the U.S. government during that era? No.
Let me draw a comparison. Many people around the world believe that American invasion of Iraq is a violation of international law. If I were an American soldier in Iraq and I come to beileve, after my service, that the war was unjustified, may I not say I was part of an illegal war? Is it wrong for me to proclaim that I was part of an illegal invasion of another country?
I will not get prosecuted for my participation in this war because the official position of the American government is that the war does not violate international laws. So I did admit I was part of an illegal war, but I'm in fact not recognized as a criminal based on American standards.
As for the Nixon connection, here is some information you may be interested in (it was included in my origiinal links provided in the first post):
quote:June 2, 1971: Oval Office meeting with Bob Haldeman Haldeman: We got these guys now forming this Veterans for a – Peace with Justice, or uh – the veterans – Nixon: They came in to see me? Are they here? Haldeman: No we don’t want them to be able to see you yet. We don’t want to – Nixon: Who are they? Haldeman: Well, it’s this guy, uh, he’s got a beard, one of ‘em, and there’s this Navy officer [John O'Neill], just got out yesterday – President: Yeah. Haldeman: -- crew cut, real sharp looking guy who is more articulate than Kerry. He’s not as eloquent; he isn’t the ham that Kerry is. But he’s more believable.
[edit]
Haldeman: Colson put this together.
[edit]
Haldeman: This guy now [O’Neill], is gonna, he’s gonna move on Kerry. He’s gonna move around the country.
In case you're not familiar with Haldeman's work, do a simple google search on Haldeman + watergate. Here are the smoking gun tapes if you're interested.
quote:This conversation occurred six days after the arrest of the burglars at the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office complex. Here, the president and Haldeman, his closest aide and chief of staff, discuss a plan to stop the FBI's investigation into the break-in. They plan to have Vernon Walters, deputy director of the CIA, ask L. Patrick Gray, the acting director of the FBI, to "stay the hell out" of the Watergate investigation because it involved CIA national security operations. This conversation is called the "Smoking Gun" because it proved that Nixon was aware and helped plan the cover-up from almost the very beginning.
posted
Those tapes have them mentioning both Kerry and O'neil...but I don't see where Nixon says, "I like that O'Neil. Let's hire him and have him follow that Kerry jack@ass (I could "so" picture Nixon saying something like this) around and try to get him to admit to war crimes".
I didn't see that in any of the links either.
It looks like they mentioned O'Neil and Kerry....and that is it.
EDIT: Also, if this is the smoking gun tape reel, then I seriously doubt they wasted much time talking about the Anti-War Vets in favor of talking about how to get out of the Watergate debacle. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like someone is grasping at some pretty thin straws to try and make a connection...that doesn't appear to exist at all really.
Like I said, if there is something I'm missing and it's all not just some assumptive conspiracy theory jargon, then please point it out to me.
posted
CS...that's the best part...I don't have to post a link.
It's in the link you posted yourself...which you would have know had you bothered to read it all.
He did fire in a free fire zone, as did all soldiers there....and when he spoke against it, he was told to follow orders.
He says in that interview that that is a main reason he left the service...when O'Neil asks him about it.
Try reading your own source material next time.
Sorry about the mixed message I was sending...I had you and a few other people, all with the same tone, jumbled up in my short term memory.
A lot of false (or unproven) accusations have been made, and I am sick of it.
On Both sides.
I don't think Moore was fair and impartal, and I didn't go see his movie either, for the same reason i didn't read Al Frankens book, or listen to Rush Limbaugh's shows.
quote: Because he wasn't guilty...his superiors were. And he was on the record trying to stop those atrocities...adn you use those very prostetations to attempt to convict him...
So the Abu Ghraib Prison Guards are completely free from guilt as long as their superiors commanded it?
No. They were not under fire, and they knew it was wrong, but didn't stop until they had been caught.
Things aren't always cut and dry under fire, and it is easy to listen to orders, even when they ae wrong. But once you find out that something is wrong and you still do it, then all bets are off.
The chain of command isn't something that is foolproof, but a soldier has to follow it even when he sees something tha is wrong.
I just find it sort of painfully amusing to hear this argument... " Kerry is lying...nor war crimes were comitted..ad listen, he comitted them...he even said so."
What he said is that he felt that some of his orders were questionable, and MIGHT have been considered war crimes...but that when he (and others) mentioned it to their superiors they werre brushed off.
He siad that their very stratagy for "winning" was illegal according to international Conventions...but the brass disagreed, and ordered even more of it.
quote: I've never heard them say anything negative about any other vet besides Kerry. Perhaps you mean by smashing the whole platform Kerry was running on ("reporting for duty") that means smearing.
If so then anyone smearing GWB's Vietnam era service is as bit a smearmaster as they are...
Two more things...
They repeatedly called his medals false...which is a smear to everyone who got there medal over there,...they were all awarded according to the same standared.
They called Kerry and his "cronies" liars......even though many vets agreed with him.
How is that not a slam?
They called everything about Kerry's boat and unit into question...even though most of them were nowhere near them when the missions were under way
Two... WHAT GODDAM RECORD OF W's?
THERE ISN"T ONE!
I spent 3 years in the service...and if I did what W did, I would have been court-marshalled in a sec.
Then again, my last name isn't Bush.
Complain all you wnat...at leat Kerry showed up for duty.
W couldn't even stay sober enough to show up for his own duty. Stateside.
Find me his "records"...and if you do, send a cpy to the White House, as they haven't been able to find a damn thing.
quote:CHAD: You believe O-Neill was hired by the President Himself (more liberal consipracy theory b.s. if you ask me, but plenty of "Yahoos" to adopt it as doctrine) and you are entitled to THAT opinon.
I'm having a hard time keeping up with your arguments. I specifically stated that
quote:VWIGGIN: Of course, association with Nixon does not automatically taint O'Neill's criticisms of Kerry. I read the transcripts of conversations between Nixon and O'Neill and it doesn't appear that O'Neill was coached to lie or anything.
All I'm saying is that O'Neill was used by the Nixon administration to combat Kerry. Just because Nixon did not personally write out a check to pay O'Neill does not mean the Nixon administration was not involved:
quote:Day after day, according to the tapes and memos, Nixon aides worried that Kerry was a unique, charismatic leader who could undermine support for the war.
Other veteran protesters were easier targets, with their long hair, their use of a Viet Cong flag, and in some cases, their calls for overthrowing the US government. Kerry, by contrast, was a neat, well-spoken, highly decorated veteran who seemed to be a clone of former President John F. Kennedy, right down to the military service on a patrol boat.
The White House feared him like no other protester.
Colson, in a secret memo, revealed he had a mission to target Kerry: "Destroy the young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." Boston Globe
quote:But [Colson]confirmed the accuracy of a quotation in the Dec. 2, 2002, New Yorker magazine in which he said that Nixon aides had "formed" Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace as "a counterfoil" to Kerry and did everything they could to boost the group.
In an interview this week, O'Neill denied that Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace was a front organization for the White House. He said the group got started "a little bit before Colson knew who we were" and received support from Democrats as well as Republicans.
"They were probably thrilled with what we were doing," said O'Neill, referring to Nixon and his aides. "But to say that they were using us implies that they were getting us to accomplish something we did not want to accomplish, which is not true. We were doing things we wanted to do."
quote:Colson later boasted to Nixon Chief of Staff H.R. "Bob" Haldeman that O'Neill "has agreed that he will appear anytime, anywhere that we program him," according to White House records.
quote:OLIPHANT: And when Mr. O'Neill first surfaced in politics in 1971 after Kerry's anti-war demonstration, it was very hard for many of us covering him to figure out where the Nixon White House ended and he began.
I think it is fair to say that O'Neill believed in what he is doing. He really thought he had the truth on his side.
However, Colson admitted flat out to forming the O'Neill's veteran organization and stated specifically that O'Neill would go anywhere that the White House "programmed" him.
quote:Also, if this is the smoking gun tape reel, then I seriously doubt they wasted much time talking about the Anti-War Vets in favor of talking about how to get out of the Watergate debacle.
I did not say the smoking gun tape had anything to do with O'Neill. There are a lot of young people on this forum who might not remember Haldeman's name. I just linked to that in case they do not know why being associated with him is an interesting fact.
quote:Let me draw a comparison. Many people around the world believe that American invasion of Iraq is a violation of international law. If I were an American soldier in Iraq and I come to beileve, after my service, that the war was unjustified, may I not say I was part of an illegal war? Is it wrong for me to proclaim that I was part of an illegal invasion of another country?
I will not get prosecuted for my participation in this war because the official position of the American government is that the war does not violate international laws. So I did admit I was part of an illegal war, but I'm in fact not recognized as a criminal based on American standards.
Chad, if the person in my hypothetical ran for president, would you accuse him of being war criminal?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
