Getting to the Heart of the matter! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

jcookc6 · 08-27-2004, 04:05 AM

The following article written Oliver North gets to the heart of the matter. Please read it and give your honest opinion, don't trash the source.
Remember most of you are in your early 20's, but some of us are not.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/o...20040827.shtml
Bring it on, John
Oliver North (archive)

August 27, 2004 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped 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." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

shakran · 08-27-2004, 04:45 AM

I cannot believe that you are actually buying in to this. North is upset with Kerry because Kerry testified against people in the military who broke the law.

Well, yeah, I can see where he would be, considering that during the Reagan administration, North was in the military and broke the law in a BIG way. Has everyone in the country forgotten the disgrace that he and Adm. Poindexter brought upon themselves through their illegal involvement with (and spearheading of) the Iran-contra affair? I guess that, having been testified against for the crimes he perpetrated, he'd probably have a soft spot in his heart for other military criminals who get caught.

jcookc6 · 08-27-2004, 05:32 AM

What you are saying then, in your opinion the right is wrong and the wrong is right. How do you know? Were you around then, were you in the armed forces? It is time for young people to start doing a little research into the anti war movement.
Nobody has come out and questioned any of Ollie North's medals and he was there for longer than John Kerry.

rukkyg · 08-27-2004, 06:18 AM

http://www.nola.com/forums/soundoff/...f?artid=299519

Quote:

Kerry was QUOTING what soldiers had testified to in an investigation.

Yet the Swift ad only uses part of Kerry's statement, and leaves out the part that makes it clear he is quoting what others told him first hand they had done.

The new ad only includes :

"...they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads...

The Swift ad does not include the context, because they want to give the audience the impression that Kerry is making the claims personally.

The ad wants you to think the 'they' is ALL soldiers, not the 'they' who confessed in person to Kerry.

Yeah.... so... This guy has no argument. His whole argument is based off a lie: Kerry originally said the stuff that he was quoting.

smooth · 08-27-2004, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

http://www.nola.com/forums/soundoff/...f?artid=299519

Yeah.... so... This guy has no argument. His whole argument is based off a lie: Kerry originally said the stuff that he was quoting.

The original post claims that the anger is over the fact that kerry testified that all soldiers committed war crimes.

If that is truly the source of his anger, then he has no reason to be upset because Kerry never said that.

Quote:

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/docum...00404231047.asp

Quote:

Kerry's Testimony

It turns out that the attack on John Kerry's war record was just Act 1. Now the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (and, miraculously, all the right-wing media) have turned to Kerry's antiwar record. After returning from Vietnam, Kerry became a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a major force in the antiwar movement. In 1971, he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This famous testimony launched Kerry's political career and the talk of him as a future president. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger can be heard fretting about it on the Watergate tapes.

This at least is a real issue, unlike the manufactured nonsense about his war medals. Does what Kerry said back in 1971 disqualify him for the presidency 33 years later?

There is some ambiguity, or purposeful confusion, about the precise objection to Kerry's ancient testimony. Is it something in particular that he said? Or is it the very fact that Kerry opposed the Vietnam War and worked to end it?

Many of those who condemn Kerry for opposing the Vietnam War are too young to have been politically aware during that period. The rest are fighting very old battles. But the fact is that the argument over Vietnam was settled long ago, and a majority of Americans decided that Kerry was right.

Members of the Swift boat group and like-minded Americans are free to try to re-litigate the basic Vietnam question. They say, from the comfortable perspective of 2004, that the antiwar movement emboldened the enemy and thus lengthened the war. That's their premise: We could have won the war by 1971 if not for Kerry and his ilk. Of course, after continuing the war for three more years, we still didn't win it. So even accepting the dubious premises of these Hindsight Hawks, blame for the lives lost after Kerry's testimony goes primarily to the leaders in Washington who kept the war going needlessly.

But most Americans came to accept Kerry's view that the war was ill advised and unwinnable at any reasonable cost. Only when that happened did the war end, and the antiwar movement made it happen sooner. If that historical judgment is correct, which we think it clearly is, then Kerry saved the lives of many more Americans in his antiwar role than he did as a Navy officer.

Kerry's testimony in April 1971 was eloquent, persuasive and damning. Consistent with his cautious instincts, Kerry never joined the extremist America-haters who hoped for a North Vietnamese victory, but instead he patiently explained to senators why the war was a disaster.

Undoubtedly, Kerry was overwrought when he declared that atrocities by American soldiers were ubiquitous. They weren't. But it is ignorant fantasy to suppose that the United States emerged from Vietnam unblemished by horrible misdeeds. What about the free-fire zones and the dumping of more munitions than during World War II? What about the Phoenix program of mass assassinations? In his new memoir, retired Gen. Tommy Franks recounts how he was tempted to kill inhabitants of a Vietnamese village because he feared they were communist sympathizers. Sometimes, temptation was not resisted.

But Kerry's anger was not directed at soldiers in the field. On the contrary, in his testimony, he blamed the Washington establishment. He lashed out at former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara and former national security advisor McGeorge Bundy: "Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned?" Kerry asked. "These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war."

None of what Kerry said was particularly novel or shocking. But his status as a decorated sailor sent the Nixon administration into overdrive to depict him as providing aid and comfort to the enemy, just as his current detractors seek to depict him as a traitor unfit to lead the war against terror.

The late 1960s were a moral obstacle course for young Americans, especially young men. Kerry is one of the few who got it right. He served, and served bravely as even President Bush now concedes. Then he came back home and worked to stop the killing and the dying.

George W. Bush, by the way, dodged the second part too.

-- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...1,4293259.story

The last lines of the quoted article make it very clear that the author has little interest in logic. He blasts kerry for his interview, wherein he agrees with the criticism that his testimony was too severe, and then demands an apology similar to Fonda's.

Which does he want? does he want an apology or does he want kerry to stand by his testimony come hell or high water? because it looks, from the quotes, that kerry was explaining that he was not supporitve of his words back then being used against fellow soldiers--he was testifying to Congress in an attempt to pull the blanket off the administration's BS--a blanket the american public desired and deserved to see pulled.

Redlemon · 08-27-2004, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcookc6

The following article written Oliver North gets to the heart of the matter. Please read it and give your honest opinion, don't trash the source.

I can't separate the author from the content. Oliver North was perfectly willing to break major laws to do what he believed was right. This has a huge bearing on the opinions he expressed in this article.

irateplatypus · 08-27-2004, 09:12 AM

that was weak shakran.

this letter could have been written just as sincerely from any number of veterans... yet you attack the messenger and use it to rationalize discounting the entire letter. north's iran contra ordeal does nothing to assuage the pain of the POW experience of the soldiers cited in the letter.

i know you can do a better job of rebutting than that.

onetime2 · 08-27-2004, 11:33 AM

Colonel North is right on the money with where the problem is for John Kerry. It's not about his service in Vietnam and it's not about the time spent there. The problem Kerry needs to address is the perception of the Vietnam veterans who feel betrayed by his testimony and actions when he came home from Vietnam.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War was a radical group that planned riots for the RNC convention in 1972 and allegedly conspired to kill Spiro Agnew and other politicians.

It's well known that Kerry came out against these radical plans but I find it hard to believe that these radical elements didn't exist while he helped steer the direction of the group. People decry Bush's ties to the oil companies yet have no problem that Kerry associated with those who would murder in the name of political opposition.

Personally, I have no problem with Kerry's awards, his service in Vietnam, or his actions in the aftermath fighting against the war. In fact I applaud him for his service to the country as it's far more than a lot of people have done. What bothers me is the finger pointing towards Bush and ties to the Swift Boat Vets to deflect any discussion of these other questions. And, in fact, it's not so much Kerry's shifting of the focus, since that's what politics is all about, but the press's failure to ask these questions.

Scipio · 08-27-2004, 11:34 AM

I have a question. Is North saying that none of those things went on, or is he saying that Kerry shouldn't have pointed it out? It would be irrational to actually think Kerry accused all soldiers/veterans of doing those things. He merely said that it was more widespread that usually reported, that he knew people who had done or witnessed some of those things, and that wartime misbehavior was something of an open secret in the army chain of command.

It strikes me that North is simply trying to cut off discourse 30 years after the fact. He's upset that the idealized image of the US soldier got a little bit tarnished during Vietnam, and Kerry has become a convenient target during this presidential campaign. Even Kerry himself admits that he was young, emotions were high, and that claims were in some cases exaggerated for effect. The truth is, his claims had to go through a congressional committee and media scrutiny, and he wasn't laughed out of Washington for what he said.

Of course, Ollie North and the rest of the Army good ol' boys just can't stand it when someone breaks ranks, and yes, I think the source is fair game, as is the message. Bias is a real thing, and words don't exist in a vacuum.

onetime2 · 08-27-2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scipio

I have a question. Is North saying that none of those things went on, or is he saying that Kerry shouldn't have pointed it out? It would be irrational to actually think Kerry accused all soldiers/veterans of doing those things. He merely said that it was more widespread that usually reported, that he knew people who had done or witnessed some of those things, and that wartime misbehavior was something of an open secret in the army chain of command.

It strikes me that North is simply trying to cut off discourse 30 years after the fact. He's upset that the idealized image of the US soldier got a little bit tarnished during Vietnam, and Kerry has become a convenient target during this presidential campaign. Even Kerry himself admits that he was young, emotions were high, and that claims were in some cases exaggerated for effect. The truth is, his claims had to go through a congressional committee and media scrutiny, and he wasn't laughed out of Washington for what he said.

Of course, Ollie North and the rest of the Army good ol' boys just can't stand it when someone breaks ranks, and yes, I think the source is fair game, as is the message. Bias is a real thing, and words don't exist in a vacuum.

I don't think North is saying that no atrocities were ever committed just that they weren't as wide spread as Kerry and his group claimed.

From the testimony it reads to me that Kerry painted the whole leadership of the military in his remarks. He said that atrocities were widespread and known throughout the ranks. Certainly his testimony and activity in those years contributed to an atmosphere of disdain for returning troops. I suspect that is the main reason for such disdain from the veteran community.

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 12:54 PM

1000's of our soldiers came back believing there were attrocities committed because we did as a country commit attrocities and the soldiers did commit attrocities (they HAD to because the other side fought with no respect for human life).

Like a vet told me personally once, when you don't know who your friends are, and have seen kids walk up to a friend of yours hug him and blow them both up, you tend to shoot first and ask questions later.

Our own government sent men to capture an area then would napalm and agent Orange the area with them there... in essence killing our own men. It was a corrupt, dirty, war we should never have been involved in and it destroyed years of many men and women's lives. And to have to reopen this and bring back all these memories, just so Bush can win is disgusting and pathetic.

shakran · 08-27-2004, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

that was weak shakran.

this letter could have been written just as sincerely from any number of veterans... yet you attack the messenger and use it to rationalize discounting the entire letter. north's iran contra ordeal does nothing to assuage the pain of the POW experience of the soldiers cited in the letter.

i know you can do a better job of rebutting than that.

Well first off, I don't really put much stock in it when a liar and a crook calls someone a liar. But if you want better than that, here goes:

Kerry went off and did what he was told to do - he fought in Viet Nam, even though he didn't believe in the war. He's not alone there - my dad was drafted and did the exact same thing even though he KNEW it was not our fight and it was not our business to be there. But his country told him to go fight and fight he did.

Kerry then came back and spoke up about what he felt - that we shouldn't be there. He also said that some soldiers (he did NOT say all of them, he's not that big of a moron) committed war crimes. I fail to see what is wrong with what Kerry did. He served his country, then came back and said that his country made him serve in an immoral action. i.e. he stood up for his principles.

Yet the republicans want to make it out like Kerry's some godawful traitor for daring to speak out against the actions of our country - not that this should surprise us since they are now trying to tell us that anyone who speaks out against the war in Iraq is "unpatriotic" at best.

Let's be totally up front about what is happening here. The republicans are telling us that we have the first amendment right to freedom of speech unless we disagree with them, in which case we are tratorious troublemakers.

They are also attempting to tell us that disagreeing with and/or criticizing our Commander in Chief is unpatriotic (didn't seem to stop them when Clinton was in office, but I guess that's different. Right?)

And the worst part is, many of us are buying that line of bullshit. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that have said things like "I wish we weren't at war but we have to support the president."

Folks, NO, you do NOT have to support the president. If the president is doing something that you think is wrong, you not only have the right, but the moral responsibility to speak up about it. Our country was founded on the principle that if the leadership is screwing up, we should speak out against that leadership and get it changed. That's what Kerry did 3 decades ago.

The republicans want you to forget all about that principle, however. They want you to believe that we should support our leadership no matter what. This is very convenient considering there is a republican in the white house right now. I'll be VERY interested to see if they hold themselves to that requirement when a democrat is again president.

jcookc6 · 08-27-2004, 01:54 PM

Who is the liar and Crook? Back up your claims!

irateplatypus · 08-27-2004, 02:17 PM

shakran,
i still disagree, but i thought your second response was well-stated and was miles beyond your first. a non-patronizing tip of the cap to you.

technicality: didn't kerry choose to join the navy? i don't remember him ever being drafted.

i don't think that the fact that kerry spoke out against the war is what bothers so many veterans. the kind of grudge so many vietnam veterans hold against kerry is usually reserved for the like of jane fonda. given that, it goes to show how kerry's testimony was not felt by soldiers serving at the time to be in their or their country's best interest.

the only way to account for the 30 years of bitterness against him seems to be that there was a very real sense of betrayal... not simply because he chose to give an account of the war that did not align with the military's line.

a bit more psychology than math involved, but so goes much of political analysis.

brianna · 08-27-2004, 02:30 PM

I think Scipio's point is spot on -- North seems to be chastising Kerry for making public the atrocities that were committed in the name of the US military. Of course not every solider in Vietnam committed such acts, but when even one does so the reputation of the entire institution is tarnished. I don't see how our country can advocate keeping silence about such things for the sake of preserving our militaries reputation.

ARTelevision · 08-27-2004, 03:46 PM

Hi folks. Just checking out the tone in here.

Thanks for doing a good job lately of self-moderating.

Carry on...

irateplatypus · 08-27-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianna

I don't see how our country can advocate keeping silence about such things for the sake of preserving our militaries reputation.

no one is advocating that.

smooth · 08-27-2004, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

shakran,
the only way to account for the 30 years of bitterness against him seems to be that there was a very real sense of betrayal... not simply because he chose to give an account of the war that did not align with the military's line.

That's the thing, irate, I'm not aware of 30 years of bitterness. Kerry has been in public office for how long? And how many times has his vietnam record been brought up as a blight on his past?

The only information I have off the top of my head is that when he first began to run, and the administration was calling his ability to serve as a wartime president (in terms of bravery, fortitude, and patriotism) into question, that he started to ask vets to stand with him while he campaigned. The commentary then was that he had never before used his past as a political crutch. His opponents had never made it an issue, either, though.

The sequence of events as I remember them, and I do hope someone corrects me if I'm wrong because my point hinges upon it, were:

1. Right wing pundits began to question Democrats' integrity, patriotism, bravery, resolve, and any other qualities they argued were essential during this new epoch of the war on terror, wherein we will have to be strong in our defense and resolve in order to defeat the unseen enemy.

2. The Dems then began to discuss the reality that the only probable winner was going to have to be someone with wartime experience in order to illustrate the absurdity of claims that he wasn't patriotic and had a spine.

3. Kerry's medals began to be juxtaposed against Bush's lackluster service. HIs medals began to become an important piece of that discourse because he had been wounded in combat and had been awarded medals for bravery. This was the ongoing "discussion" between Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh versus Moore and Franken. Someone awarded for bravery and bleeding in battle defending this nation was a very powerful antidote to the anti-american clamor some commentators were making about liberal and democrat citizens in general.

4. Bush refused to release his records for a long time, explaining that the whole issue of his past conduct 30 years ago was irrelevant to today's political demands. The entire left-wing was criticized incessently for dwelling on the "irrelevant" past. Kerry denounced the muckraking over Bush's past, and then Bush capitlated and released his recordds. People still differ over how they interpret his record.

5. Kerry actually wins the nomination as the Democrat candidate and continues to campaign with vets. Then people began to question his record. They belittled the amount of time he served. After that, they finally began to question whether he deserved his medals or not. Then this latest swfit boat group came out and blatantly claimed that kerry was a liar about his experiences that led to his medals.

I haven't seen evidence of a long, disrespect for Senator kerry. This is only recent, as far as I can tell, which I interpreted as meaning the attacks are politically motivated.

Kadath · 08-27-2004, 04:09 PM

Is anyone claiming North is not on record as a liar in front of Congress? The man lied to protect his actions and the actions of those above him. That being the case, why should we ever trust him again?

I am sick to ****ing death of this. Let's get on with the future, not the God damned past. Vietnam was a disaster from all points of view; many men and not a few women died, and little, if anything positive came out of it. Let us try to build what is ahead, not deconstruct what has been.

tecoyah · 08-27-2004, 04:39 PM

Bravo kadath....when do we start to hear about....oh...you know, the issues that actually effect the American people.

irateplatypus · 08-27-2004, 06:09 PM

i've considered that very thing smooth. it's difficult to tell how the veteran's perceptions of kerry have faired since 1971. they are all individuals with their own capacity to hold grudges, their own judgement of kerry's record, their own tendency to forgive. but, i don't think that if they did harbor ill feelings toward kerry that they would come out until he tried to run for national office. the veterans that feel so passionately about this issue live in many places other than massachusetts. plus, this is the first time kerry would be running for an office with supreme military command. so much is at stake in a presidential race. couple that with the heated nature of political discourse these days... it's not beyond reason that those factors would be the catalyst to provoke them to action when no other circumstance did that before.

smooth · 08-27-2004, 08:07 PM

I agree with your point there, irate, that it's possible people only felt compelled to act now due to the context.

I just become concerned because it's hard to discern (I think maybe even for the people who feel upset) whether these are old wounds they have been holding since the transgression or whether they are new wounds reopened by innuendo and accusation. Sometimes those wounds may be based on the swirling allegations (like our earlier discussion of whether kerry chastised all the vets versus just a certain group of them) rather than an accurate remembrance of what occurred in the past. So imagined wrongdoings may be trumping actual ones. Or sometimes we feel the need to pin our pain and anguish on a tangible target, especially when dealing with something as elusive and powerful as fighting an unpopular war, being misused by our government, and essentially living with the guilt of things we may (or were wrongfully accused of) have done.

The part that sticks in my craw is that certain members of the swift boat group were supportive earlier in the campaign and now have changed their tunes.

But I certainly see your POV in regards to some people only becoming vocal about their feelings now even if they harbored them for a long time. I think that the media and a lot of people think of the vets as a monolithic group instead of allowing them individual space and identity. That seems to me to be a whole different type of tradedgy that ignores the complexity of the situation and of the human condition. Treating vets like a huge, monlithis voting block smacks to me of a type of commodification that I think is reprehensible but is also a natural occurrence of capitalism--ah shit, now I'm reifying the process, gotta go.

hammer4all · 08-28-2004, 02:28 AM

Here is North caught flat-out LYING again recently on Hannity & Colmes:

The Oliver North File: His Diaries, E-Mail, and Memos on the Kerry Report, Contras and Drugs

And for those doubting Vietnam War atrocities: Democracy Now! recently interviewed Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Mike Sallah who uncovered massacres committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam that had gone unreported for 36 years until last October. They also played a tape of a former Army journalist Dennis Stout who witnessed U.S. soldiers committing some of these atrocities and was threatened by senior military officers when he tried to speak out at the time. Here he is describing some of the war crimes he personally witnessed.

Quote:

DENNIS STOUT: [...] My Lai had occurred in the same valley where we had done this stuff--further toward the mouth of the valley--committed these crimes. I went public immediately with the eight war crimes that I could most closely document. I witnessed a lot more than this but these are the ones where I had ID cards of the people killed. See, the South Vietnamese government would issue these laminated ID cards to people that were considered loyal citizens. Of course, we didn't give that any standing. But I had ID cards of some of the people killed, location on the ground--and sometimes within 50 meters, and the names and unit numbers of the people who committed the crimes. And those are the only eight that I reported to the CID. I wanted to stick to what I could absolutely prove. I felt. The crimes were: the rape and murder of a young girl that I spoke of earlier, where she was seized at a road guard operation raped and beaten for two nights and then taken out and shot. They took her right outside of our little perimeter and told her to run so they could shoot her. She wouldn't run because she knew what they were going to do. So, they backed away from her and threw a grenade that rolled up at her feet. When she saw the grenade, she used one hand to cover her eyes and the other hand to cover her chest. When the grenade went off it tore off one leg and shredded the other one, but she was still alive, so the guys walked up and shot her twice to finish her off. Also, at that same road guard place, one guy decided he wanted to skin someone. He caught be a old man and tied him to a tree and began skinning him at the top of his left shoulder and down his chest. So he got three inches down when the guy passed out. So then he revived him by slapping him and throwing water on him. When he came to, he tried to skin him again and only got about another an inch or so, and the guy passed out again and so shot him. After he shot him, he said, “Well, he's no fun anymore.” So, one of my sergeants, Sergeant David Kalu, we had captured a guy asleep in his hammock with his rifle leaning against the tree and two bundles of pungee sticks rolled up under the hammock. After we captured him, he tied him to a tree and then tied cords around his upper arms and around his thighs and then took an axe and started to chop him apart from the bottom up. And eventually he chopped of his arms and legs and head and piled them up on the trail as a message to any gooks that came down the trail. [...]

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../08/25/1410215

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...y=SRTIGERFORCE

Tulkinghorn · 08-28-2004, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

Here is North caught flat-out LYING again recently on Hannity & Colmes:

I think the fundamental issue of this argument keeps getting diverted. Whether or not Kerry's critics are worse than he is (in most cases I would agree they are much worse), he has never confronted his critics directly and honestly and risked failing to justify himself. He can't win this argument by ignorig it, or letting proxies argue on his behalf, or by broadcasting commercials where John McCain disses Bush.

Until he does, undecided voters will not consider him. Kerry's whole position on this reeks of moral cowardice. True, the White house is worse by a factor of 10 or more, but until he handles this issues deftly and in person he will not put it behind him.

I want to vote for this guy. Why is he making it so hard?

08-28-2004, 04:29 AM

No one seems to really question Kerry's Vietnam service, with the exceptions I have heard about the severity of the wounds received for the Purple Hearts. I applaude the man for his service, he was in the heat of things, and deserves that recognition. That being said, everything he has said and done since does a great diservice to every other vet who was there and has been accused of wrong doings. It's going to be a long, long couple of months till this is over, then years more of complaining, no matter how it goes.
God Bless America!!!

Dwayne · 08-28-2004, 08:09 AM

Just a few comments on this topic in general. First of all what if the people he has accussed of war crimes realy did commit them? Is it right for Kerry to cover up horrible atrocities? Also in a war time situation isnt it better to have someone who has actually been in war no matter how little he got hurt rather than have some one who never was in war and maynot have even showed up for all his service?

08-27-2004, 04:05 AM	#1 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	Getting to the Heart of the matter! The following article written Oliver North gets to the heart of the matter. Please read it and give your honest opinion, don't trash the source. Remember most of you are in your early 20's, but some of us are not. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/o...20040827.shtml Bring it on, John Oliver North (archive) August 27, 2004 \| printer friendly version Print \| email to a friend Send "Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry Dear John, As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign. I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved. This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished." Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger. But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John. When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities. On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped 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." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed." And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners." Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John: Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973. Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973. Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973. John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief. One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families." Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

08-27-2004, 09:12 AM	#7 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	that was weak shakran. this letter could have been written just as sincerely from any number of veterans... yet you attack the messenger and use it to rationalize discounting the entire letter. north's iran contra ordeal does nothing to assuage the pain of the POW experience of the soldiers cited in the letter. i know you can do a better job of rebutting than that. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 08-27-2004 at 09:54 AM..

08-27-2004, 11:33 AM	#8 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Colonel North is right on the money with where the problem is for John Kerry. It's not about his service in Vietnam and it's not about the time spent there. The problem Kerry needs to address is the perception of the Vietnam veterans who feel betrayed by his testimony and actions when he came home from Vietnam. Vietnam Veterans Against the War was a radical group that planned riots for the RNC convention in 1972 and allegedly conspired to kill Spiro Agnew and other politicians. It's well known that Kerry came out against these radical plans but I find it hard to believe that these radical elements didn't exist while he helped steer the direction of the group. People decry Bush's ties to the oil companies yet have no problem that Kerry associated with those who would murder in the name of political opposition. Personally, I have no problem with Kerry's awards, his service in Vietnam, or his actions in the aftermath fighting against the war. In fact I applaud him for his service to the country as it's far more than a lot of people have done. What bothers me is the finger pointing towards Bush and ties to the Swift Boat Vets to deflect any discussion of these other questions. And, in fact, it's not so much Kerry's shifting of the focus, since that's what politics is all about, but the press's failure to ask these questions. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant. Last edited by onetime2; 08-27-2004 at 11:36 AM..

08-27-2004, 11:34 AM	#9 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	I have a question. Is North saying that none of those things went on, or is he saying that Kerry shouldn't have pointed it out? It would be irrational to actually think Kerry accused all soldiers/veterans of doing those things. He merely said that it was more widespread that usually reported, that he knew people who had done or witnessed some of those things, and that wartime misbehavior was something of an open secret in the army chain of command. It strikes me that North is simply trying to cut off discourse 30 years after the fact. He's upset that the idealized image of the US soldier got a little bit tarnished during Vietnam, and Kerry has become a convenient target during this presidential campaign. Even Kerry himself admits that he was young, emotions were high, and that claims were in some cases exaggerated for effect. The truth is, his claims had to go through a congressional committee and media scrutiny, and he wasn't laughed out of Washington for what he said. Of course, Ollie North and the rest of the Army good ol' boys just can't stand it when someone breaks ranks, and yes, I think the source is fair game, as is the message. Bias is a real thing, and words don't exist in a vacuum. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

08-27-2004, 12:54 PM	#11 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	1000's of our soldiers came back believing there were attrocities committed because we did as a country commit attrocities and the soldiers did commit attrocities (they HAD to because the other side fought with no respect for human life). Like a vet told me personally once, when you don't know who your friends are, and have seen kids walk up to a friend of yours hug him and blow them both up, you tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Our own government sent men to capture an area then would napalm and agent Orange the area with them there... in essence killing our own men. It was a corrupt, dirty, war we should never have been involved in and it destroyed years of many men and women's lives. And to have to reopen this and bring back all these memories, just so Bush can win is disgusting and pathetic. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-27-2004, 04:45 AM	#2 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	I cannot believe that you are actually buying in to this. North is upset with Kerry because Kerry testified against people in the military who broke the law. Well, yeah, I can see where he would be, considering that during the Reagan administration, North was in the military and broke the law in a BIG way. Has everyone in the country forgotten the disgrace that he and Adm. Poindexter brought upon themselves through their illegal involvement with (and spearheading of) the Iran-contra affair? I guess that, having been testified against for the crimes he perpetrated, he'd probably have a soft spot in his heart for other military criminals who get caught.

08-27-2004, 05:32 AM	#3 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	What you are saying then, in your opinion the right is wrong and the wrong is right. How do you know? Were you around then, were you in the armed forces? It is time for young people to start doing a little research into the anti war movement. Nobody has come out and questioned any of Ollie North's medals and he was there for longer than John Kerry.

08-27-2004, 01:54 PM	#13 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	Who is the liar and Crook? Back up your claims!

08-27-2004, 02:17 PM	#14 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	shakran, i still disagree, but i thought your second response was well-stated and was miles beyond your first. a non-patronizing tip of the cap to you. technicality: didn't kerry choose to join the navy? i don't remember him ever being drafted. i don't think that the fact that kerry spoke out against the war is what bothers so many veterans. the kind of grudge so many vietnam veterans hold against kerry is usually reserved for the like of jane fonda. given that, it goes to show how kerry's testimony was not felt by soldiers serving at the time to be in their or their country's best interest. the only way to account for the 30 years of bitterness against him seems to be that there was a very real sense of betrayal... not simply because he chose to give an account of the war that did not align with the military's line. a bit more psychology than math involved, but so goes much of political analysis. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-27-2004, 02:30 PM	#15 (permalink)
brianna Addict Location: nyc	I think Scipio's point is spot on -- North seems to be chastising Kerry for making public the atrocities that were committed in the name of the US military. Of course not every solider in Vietnam committed such acts, but when even one does so the reputation of the entire institution is tarnished. I don't see how our country can advocate keeping silence about such things for the sake of preserving our militaries reputation.

08-27-2004, 03:46 PM	#16 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Hi folks. Just checking out the tone in here. Thanks for doing a good job lately of self-moderating. Carry on... __________________ create evolution

08-27-2004, 04:09 PM	#19 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Is anyone claiming North is not on record as a liar in front of Congress? The man lied to protect his actions and the actions of those above him. That being the case, why should we ever trust him again? I am sick to ***ing death of this. Let's get on with the future, not the God damned past. Vietnam was a disaster from all points of view; many men and not a few women died, and little, if anything positive came out of it. Let us try to build what is ahead, not deconstruct what has been. __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 08-27-2004 at 04:12 PM..*

08-27-2004, 04:39 PM	#20 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Bravo kadath....when do we start to hear about....oh...you know, the issues that actually effect the American people. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

08-27-2004, 06:09 PM	#21 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i've considered that very thing smooth. it's difficult to tell how the veteran's perceptions of kerry have faired since 1971. they are all individuals with their own capacity to hold grudges, their own judgement of kerry's record, their own tendency to forgive. but, i don't think that if they did harbor ill feelings toward kerry that they would come out until he tried to run for national office. the veterans that feel so passionately about this issue live in many places other than massachusetts. plus, this is the first time kerry would be running for an office with supreme military command. so much is at stake in a presidential race. couple that with the heated nature of political discourse these days... it's not beyond reason that those factors would be the catalyst to provoke them to action when no other circumstance did that before. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-27-2004, 08:07 PM	#22 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I agree with your point there, irate, that it's possible people only felt compelled to act now due to the context. I just become concerned because it's hard to discern (I think maybe even for the people who feel upset) whether these are old wounds they have been holding since the transgression or whether they are new wounds reopened by innuendo and accusation. Sometimes those wounds may be based on the swirling allegations (like our earlier discussion of whether kerry chastised all the vets versus just a certain group of them) rather than an accurate remembrance of what occurred in the past. So imagined wrongdoings may be trumping actual ones. Or sometimes we feel the need to pin our pain and anguish on a tangible target, especially when dealing with something as elusive and powerful as fighting an unpopular war, being misused by our government, and essentially living with the guilt of things we may (or were wrongfully accused of) have done. The part that sticks in my craw is that certain members of the swift boat group were supportive earlier in the campaign and now have changed their tunes. But I certainly see your POV in regards to some people only becoming vocal about their feelings now even if they harbored them for a long time. I think that the media and a lot of people think of the vets as a monolithic group instead of allowing them individual space and identity. That seems to me to be a whole different type of tradedgy that ignores the complexity of the situation and of the human condition. Treating vets like a huge, monlithis voting block smacks to me of a type of commodification that I think is reprehensible but is also a natural occurrence of capitalism--ah shit, now I'm reifying the process, gotta go. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-28-2004, 04:29 AM	#25 (permalink)
Diamond Guest	No one seems to really question Kerry's Vietnam service, with the exceptions I have heard about the severity of the wounds received for the Purple Hearts. I applaude the man for his service, he was in the heat of things, and deserves that recognition. That being said, everything he has said and done since does a great diservice to every other vet who was there and has been accused of wrong doings. It's going to be a long, long couple of months till this is over, then years more of complaining, no matter how it goes. God Bless America!!!

08-28-2004, 08:09 AM	#26 (permalink)
Dwayne Crazy Location: New England	Just a few comments on this topic in general. First of all what if the people he has accussed of war crimes realy did commit them? Is it right for Kerry to cover up horrible atrocities? Also in a war time situation isnt it better to have someone who has actually been in war no matter how little he got hurt rather than have some one who never was in war and maynot have even showed up for all his service?