New swift boat ad.
 

A friend of mine who has some connections says that there's going to be a new swift boat ad. Here's what he says...

"The Swift Boat bastards are about to release a new ad that claims Kerry secretly met with the Viet Kong leaders during Vietnam. Total bullshit. He did attend a peace conference in Paris in 1971 between the U.S. and the North Vietnamese, but they're going to try and paint him like a traitor..."

Aren't we done with this yet? Does anyone really care anymore? Are there any swing voters out there who really think Kerry could be a traitor? Isn't this just preaching to the converted?
Or is the real idea to distract from the substantive issues of the campaign? It seems like the more that Kerry has to deal with this non-sense, the less he gets to get his message across. I guess all is fair in love and war, but this just seems shitty.

He did meet with the enemy, on his own, in a time of war.

Truth is a bitch isn't it?

Or isn't this an issue for someone who wants to be commander and chief?

Gee, so you're saying that a peace confrence is a traitorous act? Trying to find a way to avoid further loss of life and property is no good? It's not possible to set aside ones differences and come to a peaceful solution? The only way to win is by crushing your enemy? Great. Fantastic. Nice way to think there. Why bother to negotiate, just kill them.

Just some info for you.

First your friends connections.... This has been out a couple of days, I heard about it on the news.

Second, this was prior to Kerry accusing US soldiers of war crimes and Fonda going to North Vietnam. This wasn't some innocent 'why can't we all get along' talk.

Perhaps you should do some reading on the VC, and what they did to the S. Vietnamese people after we pulled out and durring the tet offensive. Kerry thought there would be little violence from them to the S. Vietnamese people if we pulled out. Nice one John.

The Swift Boat Liars are the preeminent example of Rovian politics. In every major election that he's run, some "third party" group rises up to smear the opponents with ridiculous claims. Rove's candidate then gets to wade in and call for a restoration of decency. Of course, the allegations do have an effect but Rove's boy comes out smelling like a rose. Rove did it to Ann Richards (rumors of lesbianism) and John McCain (via the group "New Yorkers for Clean Air", who just happened to be funded by one of the major Swift Boat fianciers from Texas. Also the rumors of mental instability and sexual impropriety).

This is just more grist for the mill. Rove attacks his opponents on their strengths, not their weaknesses, so he goes after the decorated veteran on his war record, even though his man couldn't even complete a stint in the National Guard. I just wish that the public was a little more aware of exactly what type of politics are at play here.

OH, and BTW, nice way to re-direct the thread. Bushies are particuarly good at that.

Speaking of truth, I haven't seen the add yet, but I doubt there will be much truth in it. Probably way more twisting the truth and lies, which bushies seem to be very good at too.

I've heard the audio on the add.

There isn't a single lie in it, I'm sorry. Kerry DID meet with N. Vietnamese leaders on his own, and barely skirting the law for treason. He then did go to congress and accuse US service men of war crimes.

My guess is you don't care if its true or not, which is fine, but perhaps you should do some research and listen to it before calling them liars.

Here is an article about the new add:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...iftboat22.html


Ad links Kerry to enemy talks

Campaign says Swift Boat claim has no credibility

Paul Farhi
Washington Post
Sept. 22, 2004 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - The veterans organization that sparked controversy last month when it questioned John Kerry's military service in Vietnam plans to launch a new commercial today that equates Kerry with Vietnam War protester Jane Fonda and accuses the Democratic presidential nominee of secretly meeting with "enemy leaders" during the conflict.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said it will spend $1.3 million to air its advertisement. The ad, titled Friends, makes no assertion of any direct link between Kerry and Fonda, but it suggests that their contacts with North Vietnamese leaders were equally dishonorable.

The group, whose members served in the Navy at the same time as Kerry, is referring to a meeting Kerry had in early 1971 with leaders of the communist delegation that was negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks. The meeting, however, was not a secret. Kerry, a leading anti-war activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry acknowledged in that testimony that even going to the peace talks as a private citizen was at the "borderline" of what U.S. law permitted.

"This is more trash from a group that's doing the Bush campaign's dirty work," Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton said. "Their charges are as credible as a supermarket rag."

John O'Neill, an organizer of the Swift Boat group and co-author of the anti-Kerry book Unfit for Command, said it would be "unprecedented" for a future commander in chief to have met with the enemy.


This was not a secret, make of it what you will. It has no effect on my vote, just as what President Bush was or was not doing at that time has no effect on my vote. If anything, at least John Kerry was involved and acting on his beliefs. Right or wrong, he stood up for what he believed in.

Now, can all this garbage about Vietnam go away. We have too many important issues today, to worry about 30+ years ago.

Not saying it was whatever you qualify as a 'why can't we all get along' talk, but then what exactly was talked about that was so heinous?

You are right, there was some bad times for a lot of folks in the South after the North took over, much like there is bad times right now for Iraqis since our take-over. However, it would be hard to say that life for the average Vietnamese citizen hasn't improved dramatically now that she is self-controlling, over the constant suffering of the 1940-1975 period where the world's major powers vied for control over her. Working to end this disasterous period is nothing to be ashamed of, and while he certainly was not always correct about some things, the Administrations of that time weren't exactly doing a bang up job either.

If all Republicans can get on Kerry about is that he's such a bad guy because he saw the problems in Vietnam and tried to do what he could to bring it to an end, then I guess I can't feel too bad about it.

Did Kerry try and end the Vietnam War? Yes. Was he willing to talk to anyone he thought could help bring it to an end? Yes. Did he reveal the dirty fact that American troops were committing war crimes? Yes. Did American troops commit numerous heinous acts there? Yes. Did he recognize that the real answer to the crimes was not balming the troops for being bad people, but instead in ending the conflict that caused the whole situation? Yes.

Chest-thumpers are mad at Kerry because he told the truth about war crimes. He told the ruth about Vietnam being an intractable, or unwinnable, situation. They claim that disclosing dirty truths showed a lack of support for our soldiers, that he should have stayed quiet about what he witnessed in Vietnam. Nay, I say, he should not have stayed quiet any more than a cop should stay quiet if he knows that misconduct is taking place in his precinct. The cop that reveals gang rapes and unwarranted beatings and corruption is naturally attacked for being a traitor to his brothers. But the truth is that he is showing the highest respect for the force by doing so.

So go ahead and attack Kerry for trying to bring an end to the Vietnam War. Go ahead and attack Kerry for revealing dirty truths about what was happening over there. Go ahead and attack Kerry for being honest about concerns about the war. You can hate him for these things; I respect him for them.

I don't think it needs to go away, but anyone who makes their decision based on it has what I would consider a seriously irrelevant set of priorities.

The decision to me is simple: Which candidate is most likely to direct the US Government in the manner I believe is best. I don't need a guy who's going to exactly what I would, the only one who can do that is me. I don't need a guy that I like or would have as a personal friend. I need the guy that's going to do the best job out of all the candidates.

A war record may give me clues as to a person's character. Their record of service throughout their life is more enlightening. I don't really take issue with Bush's service record, it's his Gubenatorial and Presidential records I find so disturbing. Likewise, Kerry's service in Vietnam is all well and good, but its his Senatorial service that gives me confidence in what direction he will go as President.

It's a good effective political ad. I do not think the "betrayed his country" part is necessary or appropriate. The facts themselves are all that's needed here.

Yea, that part was to strong. Just the facts are enough, let people figure it out for themselves.

Though the part about Fonda was kinda funny :p

frankly, i do not see how, in any way, at any level, actively opposing the vietnam war--or the present fiasco in iraq--is, can or should be construed as other than a perfectly legitimate act.

it has nothing to do with "betraying the country" or treason--if you think it does, then it appears that you have a problem with legitimate dissent--which would imply a problem with democracy even in its shallow american form.

i find the right's attempt to use vietnam as a pretext of censure dissent (ex post facto) to be utterly repellent.

as for the swift boat jokers--they are just a symptom of the bankrupcy of rightwing discourse. i cannot imagine their adverts swaying anyone.

i wonder how bush will weasel out of disavowing this one.

To compare John Kerry's actions with those of Jane Fonda is absurd. That is the problem I have with the Swift Boat Ads. As Ustwo said, You can't deny the fact that John Kerry did in fact meet with officials from N. Vietnam during a time of war and may have even skirted the line of legality by doing so. However the Swifties take those facts and sensationalize them by comparing his actions to those of Jane Fonda. John Kerry went to a peace talk in Paris, Jane Fonda went to POW camps, called vets baby killers and sat in Anti-Aircraft guns. Jane Fonda's actions during that era were, in my opinion, loathsome, however John Kerry's actions were completely legal and legitimate.

Roachboy,

It's amazing how easily self-induced cultural amnesia can set in. Is it controversial to say that American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam? Is it shocking to think that some fought against what history has shown to be a morally and strategically bankrupt war? This brings to mind the old adage: "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." I think that we already are.

/changing tracks here

I wonder if anyone ever voted for the president based on if they or someone in their family went awol during the war of 1812, the spanish american war, or the civil war

/back on track

I only made that statement because.....I honestly do not see why service or non service during vietnam is relevant. MANY people did not want to be over there, MANY people didnt agree with it at all but were FORCED to go because of the draft.

Years from now are our children/grandchildren going to be bitching because a candidate didnt or didnt serve during Desert Storm or Desert Shield?

shanifaye: i would expect that would be a function of the extent to which the candidates want to avoid talking about real issues in real time. in this case, the right wants to substitute a john wayne rewrite of the history of the vietnam war for the farce that is the present engineered by the bush administration. they must figure that the present is not bush's strongest suit.

The ad:

<A HREF "http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/friends.mov">swiftvets.com</A>

"Even before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and MOCK AMERICA...
...eventually Jane Fonda apologized for her activities, but John Kerry refuses to."

OUCH.
Pretty nasty, pretty effective. Simple, everyman-speak...the 'thumbs up' from the aircraft carrier deck-guy followed immediately by the jet roaring off the carrier is hardcore. Exactly what red-meat conservative repubs want to see & hear. As they say, "All's fair in love & war." I think the democrats need to take a page from m. moore and put more damning war images into their ads...too much text.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...clown/derf.jpg

^^ Low blow... :lol:

why should kerry apologize for opposing the war in vietnam?
why should anyone who opposed that war apologize?
to whom?
to the far right whackjobs in the swift boat crew?
on what basis does anyone who opposed the war owe them anything?

his activities were not like those of jane fonda, whose role in the antiwar movement has for far too long been grist for the mill of fatuousness particular to the culture of rightwing resentment---and i suspect he has not had the long engagement with various conversion experiences that fonda has. the anaolgy is faulty on all counts.

low blow indeed.

The swift boat ads may have been cute at first, but they seriously risk a major backlash if they keep this up. I think anyone who's not already 100% anti-Kerry would be disgusted by this kind of ad. It's sad to see the campaign degenerate to this level.

There are important issues in this country that must be honestly debated and decided upon. It's a shame that some people don't want that debate to occur.

The real question is going to come down to John's response. He can't ignore them, but he also can't overreact, and he certainly can't allow focus to shift that way. He's pretty close to having recovered from the RNC and the previous Swift Boat row. The negative impact was felt when the campaign reacted too heavily and for a while people were hearing more of the counter-sbvt than anything else.

Kerry's campaign has gone on to other things, and people are getting back on board with it. SBVT has been adding new ads throughout, and now I think as long as John doesn't over-react, they will not deflate his position at all.

So all 200+ members of the swift boat group are far right whackjobs? Seems like quite a stretch there RB. You can make the claim that they're pissed off at Kerry for his actions after the war or even during the war and that these feelings are coloring their opinions but you can't make a reasonable case for them all being "far right whackjobs".

As opposed to the absolute honorability of the left?

Just because these people have been getting more attention than MoveOn.org lately dont simply write them off.

Yes an obviosu smear job is commendable.

presenting the "facts" out of context and in a way that suits your purposes is not right or appropriate.

They want it to look like he's a traitor, and they are presenting the facts is such a way that it looks like he was a traitor.

They leave out the bits that show that he is NOT a traitor.

Good political ad my arse. Anyone with just a little bit of integrity should be able to see that. A smear job is a smear job and its a low low thing to do.

The Swiftboat vets for truth ads are disgusting and dispicable, and I can not show any respect to anyone who endorses such a blatant disgsuting smear job.

Thats low.

seaver---the swift boat jokers do make the left look pretty good.
as for the moveon adverts, they have been gone over again and again, and are trotted out to relativize actions taken by the right on a routine basis.
it is tedious.

the bigger point is the one unaddressed:
to whom does anyone who opposed the war in vietnam owe an apology exactly?
what puts the right in a position to be moral arbiter?
because the right has chosen to retreat from interacting with the empirical world into a moralized hallucination?
in this, you just follow bush--juxtapose the speech he gave before the un with that of annan, who immediately preceded it--moral discourse as lever into delerium. ...that is of course his choice, as it might be yours, should you follow this "logic"--but opting for a moral discourse does not put you in a position to be an arbiter of actions past and present...

so to whom does anyone who opposed vietnam--or the present farce in iraq---owe an apology exactly?

It was interesting to watch.

I thought it was overly dramatic, but I agree that Kerry shouldn't have met with the enemy during a time of war. He was not a member of the official US delegation and therefore didn't have any reason to other than his own agenda.

The fact that he didn't do it in enemy territory is secondary.

France, close enough :p

mister freedom fry eating armchair warrior, please catch the next military flight to the middle east and save us all from these heathen terrorist scum. America needs more tough SOBs like you. None of that pussy anti american questioning of authority or unpatriotic hippie peace shit. Kill em all. You go first, I´m right behind you.

Or Prescott Bush and Co. getting slammed with a Trading with the Enemy Act for having ties to Nazi's in 1942. The family rep goes back.

With all the issues surrounding the way our current president operates, I'm shocked that anyone would give 2 shits about such a non-issue as this.

I'm kinda surprised at you all. Like there's ONE of you who's never rebelled in a way that pushed the bounds of the law. Whatever happened to the definition of "legal"? I only wonder because it seems as though those in this thread who tear Kerry down over what he did are not fully aware of the definition of the word legal. "Legal" is to be "in conformity with or permitted by law".

Well guess what- legal is legal, and by your own words you've stated he was within the rights and laws of the US. He's not guilty of anything but perhaps poor judgment of the cruelty of the South Vietnamese people. I think we have been shown (9/11) that the random cruelty of human beings will continue to astound, continue to bewilder, and continue to surprise those of us living in a civilised world.

And? He was within the law. His actions were not treasonous because he was within the law, so build a giant bridge and get over it already. I'm amazed at how some people must grasp at straws to maintain party support. Also, I seem to remember an incident of allegations of war crimes happening here recently with the iraqi prisoners- are the people who reported these heinous acts also going to come under fire later in life for "accusing servicemen of war crimes"? Propaganda and rhetoric, the whole damn commercial. What a waste of airtime.

Damn, people are still talkin about this?

I'm sorry... but all I can do is laugh my ass off at all the people getting suckered into this smokescreen :lol:

For a soldier, sailor, marine or airmen, it's pretty shameful to voice one's negative opinions about orders except within their own chain of command. Many of you haven't lived in military environments to the degree you'd understand the word discipline and how valuable it is. Kerry was not only a sailor, but an officer, a leadership position with the ability to influence those under his command. His duty as an officer (especially a junior one) is to follow his legal orders, and have his men do the same. While he may disagree with those orders, he should have brought any legitimate doubts to his superiors and voiced them in private. Kerry wasn't given illegal orders. Publicly commenting on his orders and his situation--both of which were legally binding via his commission as naval officer--during the war in a negative fashion as an officer sets an example for the sailors and marines below him to question a legal authority. Breaking down discipline in Vietnam further than it already was is not something he should be proud of. Discipline in war saves lives. Intetionally aiding the breakdown of discipline is intentionally contributing to the risk of the men who were there.

We're not talking protesters here. We're talking a commissioned officer in the United States Navy. His actions are ruled by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the United States Constitution. If his chain of command had wanted to, they could have levied various charges regarding dissension and other things. It's a credit to their character that they did not.

Having served in the US Navy myself, I remember distinctly instructions on this matter. Indeed, you follow the chain of command first. However, should the chain of command fail to respond, you have both the right and responsibility to report the matter to the US Congress.

As far as I have seen, John Kerry's protests and anti-war activity all took place after his service. As a citizen, he had every right to participate in them and was no longer under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, thus the irrelevance of the legal argument that he should have remained mum because he was military.

I would not have followed the path Kerry did, had I gone through it, I don't think. But I would not have followed the path Bush or Clinton did either. The difference with Kerry was that his path certainly took great courage, even if you don't agree with his actions. Regardless, given the times, I do not hold any of those men in ill respect, whether it was Clinton leaving the country to avoid it, Bush getting stationed in a cush unit, Cheney having 'other priorities', Kerry coming back and taking up the anti-war banner, Gore doing a six-month stint, McCain spending years in a POW camp. Each had a different experience. Some are worthy of special respect for their trials and how they handled them. But none are worthy of ill respect. I reserve that for those who who commit crimes while in the service, or who aren't honest about what they did.

I believe Kerry had his discharge before his testimony? Correct?

He was a whistle blower backed by many soldiers who agreed with him. He was vocally against the war before he was called to service, and returned to his position as soon as he was legally able to. I see nothing to denigrate there. He served his country valiantly both on the battlefield and in helping to inform the Congress to massive military failures in the military structure. His actions helped to bring Americans home earlier than they would have otherwise and aided in the repair of a damaged military.

Bravo Senator Kerry.

As far as I knew. Certainly all of the footage I have seen or heard of was post-service, and was not in uniform (some civilians may be confused by the ODs he was wearing--they were definitely not uniform).

A point all to rarely made. As painful as the Vietnam War and its aftermath were, The military that over-ran Iraq in 1991 would not have existed if it hadn't have been for those people like Kerry and many others, including many dedicated, serving soldiers, who refused to ignore or turn a blind eye to the failures of that conflict, and instead brought careful examination upon the Army, how it did business, how it trained, how it fought, and so on. These fundamental changes in Army (and other services too) operations were more critical the new Army that emerged in the 1980s than any weapon system they were given, and were the key to putting our military so far above the world in capability that there was no contest in a straight up fight.

Nobody likes the guy that points out the flaws in how you are doing business, but any smart businessman knows that if you don't honestly appraise these audits and make needed adjustments, you are only hurting yourself.

Watch movies like "Hamburger Hill"
A movie based on true accounts of the US Army's 11 attempts to take an unnamed hill just because the North Vietnamese controlled it. We eventually got it but only after passing our troops through a meat grinder. We lost so many young men with unlimited potential that day to do what? Take the hill and then abandon it the next day. That battle had a 70% casualty rate. It was disgusting. Just frontal assault after frontal assault. Our troops just kept getting cut down and the commanders just sent them back up there. Why did we do it? Because the hill was there, the NVA had it and once we engaged them we couldn't allow ourselves to lose face and concede the hill. Truly an evil act that, if there is a God, has doomed them to hell. Such a waste of life.

John Kerry's testimony and actions to try and stop the war through any means necessary were completely honorable. I have no respect for the men who he was philosophically opposed to during this conflict and have a degree of disgust for those who today denegrate his contribution to Americas soul.

Maybe this will help clear things up...

Kerry was separated from active duty in 1970... before the congressional testimony and meeting with the north vietnamese

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

but wasn't granted his discharge until 1978.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

Kerry was under the direct authority of the UCMJ until 1978. It's kind of a legal quagmire... the definitions for the words in context are obscure. the site above lists kerry in 1970 as a "Registrant who has completed service." this designation isn't about active duty or reserve status, it is to classify kerry as a person who is ineligible for the draft through Selective Service because he has already fulfilled his service obligations.

even so, kerry was undoubtedly a commissioned reserve naval officer through 1978. he joined the veteran's groups and met with the enemy under those legal conditions. the poster above me (rat) hit the nail on the head. this is a clear violation of the UCMJ and certainly a breech of discipline in a legal sense. granted, it isn't the same as if he had done it on active duty... but i'm certain the then mr. kerry was fully aware of his reserve status and the legal obligations that it entails.

of course, no one cares...

As they shouldn't. Common sense should prevail. He was out of the service. As an enlisted man I was in what is called the inactive reserve for four years after separation. Whatever, nothing I might have done during that time would the military take any interest in prosecuting me for. I was a civilian, simple as that.

No, here are some things that would actually change my position on things:

1) Was John contacted by JAG or a superior officer and informed that his actions were in violation of the UCMJ, and that he must cease and desist? If so and he didn't, then I grant you that.

2) Was John ever given an order to cease any of his post-separation activities?

3) Was John ever brought before his commanding officer over any of these issues?

I am not sure what your military experience was. Personally, I was only an enlisted man, but I did have the opportunity to experience the military justice system. First to remember, there is a reason there is a military justice system. The UCMJ is written knowing that there are codes in it that are not always crimes and should not always be punished. That is where the principle of discretion comes in, very different than a civilian criminal court.

If someone is going to try and read the UCMJ, then apply it to a situation, then assume if they can that means a crime is commited, has a very poor understanding of what it is for and how it works. It is a very discretionary document.

The first level is the Commanding Officer, who, after determining that an event has taken place that does violate the words of the UCMJ, can dismiss the case, assign non-judicial punishment, or refer the matter to courts-martial. Now why would a commander--not even a judge or legal expert--be able to outright dismiss a case after it was determined that the person committed the act? Because it is understood that commission of acts that can be legitimately determined to be violations of the code of the UCMJ alone doesn't constitute a crime, and thus should not be punished.

Obviously, since as far as I know John Kerry was not assigned non-judicial punishment, nor was his case referred to courts-martial, that he committed no crime. This is again a case of anti-Kerry folks trying to call Kerry to question on issues determined way above his head.

Anti-Kerry people try and blame him for dishonesty regarding his medals of valor, but newsflash: you don't award yourself medals! They are only given after investigation, and your testimony may or may not even be considered.

Same thing with this. Now you want to say that he commited a crime against the UCMJ? That's really grasping at straws! If he did, I hardly think that the senior leaders of the Navy (who weren't overly happy with him and his anti-war folks) would have hesitated to bring him under the lash. Yet you want me to believe that a lay person thirty years later has suddenly cracked the case and revealed his great treason?

Perhaps, but even asking questions about Bush's records is inflammatory and slanderous? ....okay.

lol, i can't tell who you are arguing with jb. your post seems to address mine, yet you go back in forth between the discussion of this thread and your gripes with the right side of the aisle in general.

you do demonstrate a very thorough knowledge of the UCMJ and its practical implementation. while you may have felt yourself a civilian in the regular sense after your active duty enlistment period ended, legally you could still be possibly held accountable in military courts. you and i can both agree that the likelihood of all but the most egregious violations would be ignored by the military under normal circumstances.

the problem with kerry is that he was an officer in the military at a time of war who was meeting with the enemy. that is a lot different from your situation or nearly anyone elses. it's clear that the circumstances were exceptional and the stakes unusually high. i'm not suggesting that the navy convene a general courts-martial to review the case... but i do think it is a telling detail to senator kerry's career. i believe it shows a lack of discipline, going further to confirm my perception of kerry as a shameless self-promoter. a person who's convictions only go as far as a vote or fame will take him. this situations, admittedly, reinforces preconceived notions on my part... but i do believe a strong argument can be made from my perspective.

I believe that this post deserves a giant, glowing "IANAL, but..."

Of course, if we are talking about a lack of discipline, it's only fair to bring up Dubya's lost year. At least Kerry completed his service.

i'm unfamiliar with the acronym IANAL

i'm assuming by shifting the focus to Bush that you have no rebuttal to my post. unless of course, a rebuttal is summed up in IANAL. hopefully not.

I am not a lawyer.. It's a usenet thing.

As Superbelt says, it means "I am not a lawyer," meaning I suspect that you may be talking about things that you are not an expert on. This is standard operating procedure for internet message boards, myself included, but when dealing with legal matters, it's nice to have a disclaimer. Are you adept at the uniform code or are you extrapolating from limited knowledge?

I do try and correlate what may be a discussion on a particular detail with the larger context in which it resides, and so indeed, parts of my posts may not be focussed on the detail of the issue at hand.

I'm sorry that you seem so eager to reinforce those preconceived notions to the point where you don't see the sillyness in trying to accuse John of some kind of UCMJ violation that the military leadership of the time, who obviously would not have shed a tear at him and his like being dragged before courts martial, didn't even see fit to accuse him of.

If you think it was just bad to be anti-war back then, fine. Stand opposed on the matter straight up, but to claim that his activities are somehow criminal because he was once in the service and thus technically could be brought under military justice although the military never thought to do this, seems a bit of a reach to me.

I guess it all comes down for me as a case where common sense trumps a technicality that may or may not really apply, and doubtfully would pass muster in any court, civil or military.

As for being a self-promoter, okay, that sounds real bad to anyone who considers modesty a virtue, myself included. But think for a second, if you aren't a self-promoter you can't get elected to much in this country. That in itself doesn't make me like it any more, but on the other hand, seeing as some of the greatest leaders and statesmen of all time have been brazenly self-promoting, I can't say that it lessens one's ability to be a leader.

Hehe the NEW new swiftboat add is even more fun.

Its the wives of former POW's talking about their husbands being tortured to produce false confessions of war crimes while Kerry volunteers to report on crimes he never saw.

There is no transcript of it I can find to post yet.

Well it's not on their site yet at least. Given their reputation though, one can't have very high expectations of it being honest in the least.

Note, just because there are facts in it doesn't make it honest. The world's greatest liars all rely heavily on facts to make their pitches.

I'm sure that the ad will try and portray it as if Kerry was there eagerly awaiting the word from the torture rooms of a new confession from a POW, by cleverly splicing the tales of torture with Kerry's report on war crimes.

Kerry didn't need POW confessions. He witnessed war crimes with his own eyes, and heard the reports from his fellow sailors and soldiers about what they had witnessed.

You might not like it (and I can't say it makes me feel good either), but when Kerry reported before Congress, he was telling the truth. You might feel that he should have turned a blind eye to those things, but he has more courage and integrity than that. I would hope that in the same situation, I can muster that kind of bravery and commitment to the wellbeing of this country to do what John Kerry did to help rescue America from one of its most difficult entrapments.

Ummmm no point in getting into it again, but look up the winter soldier investigations, and how it has been soundly discredited.

My understanding was that Kerry didn't see anything with his own eyes. At least that was the testimony that I read.

Right, Kerry said that some of the policies of the US military in Vietnam constituted war crimes, such as free-fire zones, but he said that he never witnessed rapes or torture although such actions were common knowledge amongst the soldiers. This has been covered and recovered here.

You should have been a grunt on Hamburger Hill.

I hope that noone here is denying that war crimes and inappropriate actions were perpetrated by US troops and officers in Vietnam at an unfortunately breath-taking rate.

Simply true folks;

Kerry was right, war crimes were being committed.

Kerry was right, consciencious Americans have a duty to condemn such acts.

Kerry was right, they are the innevitable consequence of sending drafted kids out to fight a war without a winnable scenario in place.

Kerry was right. Say what you want, but that fact remains. He was right.

i posted on this earlier in another thread... kerry did say that he witnessed and took part in war crimes on his appearance on Meet the Press 1971.

http://www.wintersoldier.com/audio/kerry2.mp3

Kerry is speaking of systemic US military policies that equated with atrocities, not specific war crimes that he had perpretrated. He has specifically stated in the past that he personally witnessed no torture or rape, allthough such occurences were common knowledge amongst the soldiers.