Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
John Kerry before congress 1971:
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
go back and read the whole thing if you like at: http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0404231047.asp
The problem with Kerry's antiwar activities during Vietnam is this: he made this broad-based attack on his fellow soldiers when they were still in harm's way in vietnam. the quote was used as propaganda for the communist regime of north vietnam against our POWs. if kerry had witnessed these things in the war why did he not report them to the chain of command himself? as a future AF officer, I can tell you with some authority that the idea of keeping these things underwraps is CRIMINAL. so... either he witnessed these events and kept them from being reported (which is criminal) or he did not see them and reported hearsay before congress that was damaging to his comrades. that could be construed as libelous considering the severity of the charges.
relevance to thread: the washpost article concluded that bob dole had done a less than honorable thing by criticizing kerry... citing a lack of fidelity to veteran's respect. how can you find fault with dole's criticism of kerry in light of kerry's record? especially when he is campaigning for the job of commander-in-chief on that very record.
pan, i've read more books than i can count on the war though friendly fire isn't one of them. admittedly, i have a preconceived bias against any book made into a hollywood movie. we all know that you don't think the GOP is running on any issues. though, when talking about a specific issue, you seem to find the ammunition to attack the GOP with zeal. yet, when the democratic candidate spends 3/4's of his convention speech and opens it with a report for duty... not a peep from the left about issue's relevance. i think by "not running on the issues" you should say "not running with my issues".
|
In the Kerry quotes you use, he does not condemn "all 2.5 million" Vietnam vets, but talks of the soldiers he has talked to, the 150 honorably discharged.... vets in Detroit. Big difference.
I don't think the Right is running on the issues and I think Kerry did open himself to some of this. I find the whole focus being shifted to just that aspect pathetic and showing a lack of issue attention (by everyone, the media, the candidates, the people on this board, including myself).
If Bush were running on issues he truly believed in and knew were better the GOP wouldn't have to run these divisive ads that only reopen Vietnam and tears the country apart again and even more.
Kerry is acting very divisive also by just not ignoring the ads. He should ignore the ads continue arguing the issues and if he wants (and he should be allowed as he did serve honorably, regardless of what the ads say) he should be allowed to say what he wants about his service and it should be left at that in respect to every other vet out there. Unless you can provide US Navy documented proof he is lying, it is all just innuendo and he said- he said bullshit that takes focus off the true issues.
If people then want to argue about his anti-war actions after he got home, I believe that's fair (provided they use the WHOLE speech and not just the text they want and add inuendoes). It's still divisive and 1000's of other vets did it but it is a legitimate argument then. You have proof of what he did and said. It is still a non issue and extremely divisive but a more legitimate argument.
Personally, if I were Kerry, I'd ignore the whole thing. I wouldn't cry foul to the election committee, I'd simply tell the press my medals, my service and my official records speak for themselves, I don't have to answer to anyone about my service 35 years ago, because I'm older, wiser and I want to rebuild our country and this is how. Then let it go and make sure my staff and supporters not worry about it or answer the charges back.
By letting the mud bother you, you allow them to make people believe there maybe something to what they say. By ignoring it, saying my record stands on its own merits and I choose not to relive the war, you show people a strength that you can handle the pressure of adversity and remain focussed and steadfast.
Just my opinion.
PS. as far as him saying "a little over the top" Passionate people when impassioned, nervous and trying to explain things do go overboard. EVERYONE on this board has. Testifying before Congress is no different. We can all say we wouldn't do this or say that, but when the adrenaline flows and you are trying to make a point and someone asks you a question and you want the answer to drive a point home... who is to say that they would not embellish or "go over the top a bit"? That doesn't mean anything, and doesn't show me, personally, a character flaw.