Powerful new swiftvets ads

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']John Kerry = went to Vietnam.
George Bush = avoided Vietnam.

All that needs to be said.[/quote]

Let's just say this instead:

Kerry = acknowledged that he committed war crimes in Vietnam.
Bush = got out of even going to Vietnam due to his family's political influence.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='SwiftyLeZar']John Kerry = went to Vietnam.
George Bush = avoided Vietnam.

All that needs to be said.[/quote]

Let's just say this instead:

Kerry = acknowledged that he committed war crimes in Vietnam.
Bush = got out of even going to Vietnam due to his family's political influence.[/quote]

Which war crimes does Kerry admit to committing? Or did he just give testimony from other veterans saying war crimes were committed?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
Kerry = acknowledged that he committed war crimes in Vietnam.
Bush = got out of even going to Vietnam due to his family's political influence.[/quote]

Kerry = Delivered testimony of thousands of Veterans before congress, and testified to SEEING war crimes being perpetrated.
Bush = Didn't go to Vietnam, but criticises Kerry's patriotism.

Why do you HATEFUL people keep lying about a Vietnam veterans testimony before congress in the 1970s?

Are you THAT desperate to win? Is so, are you sure you are on the right side if you must do such unethical things to get your candidate elected?

You should sit quietly and think about it for a while.
You knew what you said was a lie, but you said it anyway to try and get people to hate your candidates opponent.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Which war crimes does Kerry admit to committing? Or did he just give testimony from other veterans saying war crimes were committed?[/quote]

He stated he burned down villages of civilians among other things.

Kerry hurt the US far more with his actions after Vietnam than he helped the US by going to Vietnam.

Kerry betrayed the US and helped the enemy in the Vietnam war with his actions after he left - which were done entirely for political gain and usurped the chain of command. You can't lie about that, because it is reality.

To quote General Vo Nguyen Giap from his memoirs, chief North Vietnamese military leader during the Vietnam war, "if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S."

Kerry's picture is also featured in the North Vietnam "Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum" in the area dedicated to foreign activists who contributed to the Communist victory over America in the Vietnam War. In this picture he is meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, in Vietnam during 1993:

kerryviet.jpg
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='MrBadExample']Which war crimes does Kerry admit to committing? Or did he just give testimony from other veterans saying war crimes were committed?[/quote]

He stated he burned down villages of civilians among other things.[/quote]

Please provide a direct quote, Ruined. Or a link to the testimony in question.
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Ruined'][quote name='MrBadExample']Which war crimes does Kerry admit to committing? Or did he just give testimony from other veterans saying war crimes were committed?[/quote]

He stated he burned down villages of civilians among other things.[/quote]

Please provide a direct quote, Ruined. Or a link to the testimony in question.[/quote]

No problem :)

transcript:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

streaming video:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm

"MR. CAVETT: Well, let's talk about that. Did you see war crimes committed and –

MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty."
 
He took part in a mission in which empty houses were burned. Whoop de doo. Not that he burned them down, not that people were inside, but some peoples houses were burned down by somebody on a mission he was part of.

The other stuff isn't even as serious as that.

Its almost shocking to see the amount of vitriol directed at Vietnam Veterans by the very people that criticize others for not "supporting the troops" or not being "patriotic". In one sentance they'll decry "liberals" for the way Vietnam Veterans were treated when they came home, and then they turn around and blast them. What kind of hypocrisy is that?
 
Somewhat unrelated, but I found this portion rather telling:

MR. KERRY: And the purpose of them not signing them is literally to call for an examination of policy and not scapegoats and to examine it from the President of the United States to General Westmoreland and others. And when they do that, then they will sign and then they will talk.

Now, there are individuals who are perfectly willing to sign. Nobody's ducking anything.

MR. O'NEILL: Well, who are they? Can you tell me that?

MR. KERRY: well, I have a friend who came all the way from Florida today, and if it's all right with you, he's here now. I'd be very happy to bring him on and let him make a deposition.

MR. O'NEILL: Well, I think just you and I. I've had the same experience of four against one before.

MR. KERRY: You've asked for depositions, and I have the man –

MR. O'NEILL: Yeah, and I'd like to see him sign a deposition after the show.

MR. KERRY: I think you've made a very, very serious charge.

MR. O'NEILL: That's absolutely correct, I have.

MR. KERRY: And there's a veteran here who's come all the way from Florida who, if you didn't mind, would come on television now with names, facts, dates, places, maps, coordinates, and he's be very willing to make it public.

[Pause]

MR. O'NEILL: I've just got two or three things to say. It's amazing, and it certainly is wonderful that you've finally produced someone after two months.
 
More quotes from your source:

MR. KERRY: Did you serve in a free fire zone?

MR. O'NEILL: I certainly did serve in a free fire zone.

MR. KERRY: [Reading] "Free fire zone, in which we kill anything that moves – man, woman or child. This practice suspends the distinction between combatant and non-combatant and contravenes Geneva Convention Article 3.1."

MR. O'NEILL: Where is that from, John?

MR. KERRY: Geneva Conventions. You've heard about the Geneva Conventions.

So I guess by your logic O'Neill, who is also a part of the attack against Kerry now, also committed war crimes in Vietnam.
 
[quote name='guardian_owl']So I guess by your logic O'Neill, who is also a part of the attack against Kerry now, also committed war crimes in Vietnam.[/quote]

O'Neill isn't running for President of the United States.

And by the way, it's not my logic, it's Kerry's logic in his own words that he committed war crimes.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']

The other stuff isn't even as serious as that.
[/quote]

Doesn't matter how 'serious' it was; certainly cutting off baby's heads is 'worse' than burning down houses, but in the words of Kerry himself,

"And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty."

Lynndie England is being court-martialed, for allegedly violating the Geneva convention unknowingly. Kerry admits he did the same, and he's running for the most powerful office in the world. Hypocrisy indeed.

And 'supporting the Vietnam Vets' doesn't mean they get a free pass. If Charles Manson served in Vietnam, I would support his service and vet-hood, but would still hope for the death penalty or at least continued imprisonment for what else he's done.
 
Kerry's position is that the people running the war, the people that ordered these things to happen, are war criminals, not the soldiers on the ground that recieved the orders and executed them. So to say that he calls himself, or other veterans that were ordered to do these things War Criminals, is false.

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html

Lynndie England is being court-martialed, for allegedly violating the Geneva convention unknowingly. Kerry admits he did the same, and he's running for the most powerful office in the world. Hypocrisy indeed.
Click to expand...
Was she ordered to do what she did? No, she acted on her own will. Kerry was following orders. Also, there is no comparison to what Lyddie England did to what Kerry did in the war. Free fire zones were a common tactic in not only Vietnam but in many wars before and since. Lyddie England sexually abused prisoners. Now, if you want to show me some evidence that Kerry sexually abused Viet Cong prisoners, you can begin to make that comparison.

And 'supporting the Vietnam Vets' doesn't mean they get a free pass. If Charles Manson served in Vietnam, I would support his service and vet-hood, but would still hope for the death penalty or at least continued imprisonment for what else he's done.
Click to expand...
Bad analogy. These veterans are being attacked for their honorable service in Vietnam. These are the same people that smeared McCain and called him a KGB spy.
 
Hopefully factcheck.org will debunk their latest commercial fairly soon, they usually don't take too long, but they probably have a lot of work to do on other things.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Hopefully factcheck.org will debunk their latest commercial fairly soon, they usually don't take too long, but they probably have a lot of work to do on other things.[/quote]

The Bush administration does keep them very busy. :lol:
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
These veterans are being attacked for their honorable service in Vietnam. [/quote]
They sure are. After facing enemy fire on Swift boats, now they're called liars and opportunists. The Democrats should respect their service, since apparently if you served in Vietnam you are above all reproach.
 
They sure are. After facing enemy fire on Swift boats, now they're called liars and opportunists. The Democrats should respect their service, since apparently if you served in Vietnam you are above all reproach.
Click to expand...
How many of their "witnesses" were on Kerry's boat? None.
How many of their "witnesses" were on a boat anywhere near Kerry's? None.

Their "witnesses" were on PCF-3, a boat that was disabled by an enemy mine. When Kerry heroicly rescued Jim Rassman from the water, they were hundreds of yards away. Everyone on Kerry's boat, people on surrounding boats, and specificly, a gunner on the boat directly behind them supports Kerry's, and the official, version of events.

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

No one is attacking the veterans involved in the Swift Vet ads for what they did during the war. They're being criticized, fairly, for the lies and distortions they are perpetrating today, in 2004.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
They sure are. After facing enemy fire on Swift boats, now they're called liars and opportunists. The Democrats should respect their service, since apparently if you served in Vietnam you are above all reproach.
Click to expand...
How many of their "witnesses" were on Kerry's boat? None.
How many of their "witnesses" were on a boat anywhere near Kerry's? None.

Their "witnesses" were on PCF-3, a boat that was disabled by an enemy mine. When Kerry heroicly rescued Jim Rassman from the water, they were hundreds of yards away. Everyone on Kerry's boat, people on surrounding boats, and specificly, a gunner on the boat directly behind them supports Kerry's, and the official, version of events.

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

No one is attacking the veterans involved in the Swift Vet ads for what they did during the war. They're being criticized, fairly, for the lies and distortions they are perpetrating today, in 2004.[/quote]

You might have a point if Kerry was air dropped onto his boat, slept on it, and never had any contact with any other soldiers, then was air lifted off. However thats not the way it works, the people who are against Kerry were with him on a daily basis, along with the gunner from his own boat.

Also, there are POWs who think Kerry's senate testimony was disgraceful, and branded them for life, not to mention making their life in the prison camps that much harder. Kerry could have taken more private routes and used the chain of command properly, but that would not have given him the political gain that he gained through his more public route.

You simply can't discredit that.
 
Chain of command?

The top of the chain, the president, launched a SMEAR CAMAIGN against Kerry, because the president supported the war and didn't want to look bad soldiers were NOT ALLOWED to use the 'chain of command' to report war crimes.

The only option was to go to the news media.
 
You might have a point if Kerry was air dropped onto his boat, slept on it, and never had any contact with any other soldiers, then was air lifted off. However thats not the way it works, the people who are against Kerry were with him on a daily basis, along with the gunner from his own boat.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with what they saw that day? One of the "witnesses" that said they supposedly weren't under any fire at all, recieved a bronze star for, guess what, being under fire at the time. He either lied then or is lying now. They probably didn't know him much then, or didn't like him, and are just playing politics now.

Also, there are POWs who think Kerry's senate testimony was disgraceful, and branded them for life, not to mention making their life in the prison camps that much harder. Kerry could have taken more private routes and used the chain of command properly, but that would not have given him the political gain that he gained through his more public route.
Click to expand...
The truth hurts. There were atrocities committed in Vietnam. YOU can't discredit that. Kerry believed the chain of command was responsible, President Nixon personally launched a smear campaign against him. He never testified that he personally saw or committed atrocities, he was quoting what others had told him, and he made that clear (even though the SwiftVet ads convienently take it completely out of context).

Have you read the two articles at factcheck.org? Or do you live in the fantasyland that the SwiftVet ads seem to exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top