Drudge-Wow!

Avatar4321 said:
If you are splashing around in the water thinking you are going to die im willing to bet you could imagine just about anything happening. The fact is the witnesses are disagreeing. They wouldnt have been caught up in the heat of the matter.

It amazes me how you guys can discount the people that were there with him so nonchalantly.

The man Kerry saved was confident enough of the situation to recommend Kerry for comendation immediately after the incident.

How can I discount one person (that I am aware of in this case) who comes forward 35 years later, and is disagreed with by the man Kerry saved, Kerry, and apparently (since none of them have ever spoken up), the men on Kerry's boat? Relatively easily.
 
Reilly said:
The man Kerry saved was confident enough of the situation to recommend Kerry for comendation immediately after the incident.

How can I discount one person (that I am aware of in this case) who comes forward 35 years later, and is disagreed with by the man Kerry saved, Kerry, and apparently (since none of them have ever spoken up), the men on Kerry's boat? Relatively easily.

You obviously live in a cave or never read or even watch the news. It is WELL DOCUMENTED that Kerry claims HE committed war crimes. Furthermore, there were SEVERAL guys on TV tonight that were there when Rass was "saved" and THEY ALL have a different story than what Kerry and Rass tell.
 
freeandfun1 said:
You obviously live in a cave or never read or even watch the news. It is WELL DOCUMENTED that Kerry claims HE committed war crimes. Furthermore, there were SEVERAL guys on TV tonight that were there when Rass was "saved" and THEY ALL have a different story than what Kerry and Rass tell.

Sources. Give me cites. It is not that I think you guys are making stuff up, but I need more than your word for it. It is late and I must sleep, but if you post some cites to sources, I promise that I will check them tomorrow. Have a nice night.
 
Reilly said:
Sources. Give me cites. It is not that I think you guys are making stuff up, but I need more than your word for it. It is late and I must sleep, but if you post some cites to sources, I promise that I will check them tomorrow. Have a nice night.

No offense, but sources and sites have been cited ad nauseum. Look through the threads and you will find them. I don't feel like finding them all AGAIN.
 
freeandfun1 said:
No offense, but sources and sites have been cited ad nauseum. Look through the threads and you will find them. I don't feel like finding them all AGAIN.

Even if you cited them i doubt he would believe you. probably think you just made up the quote. if he is going to believe Kerry's confession to war crimes, he needs to listen to the audio of it. (Still cant believe Kerry was stupid enough to say that on tape) That could be a pretty good advertisement though.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Even if you cited them i doubt he would believe you. probably think you just made up the quote. if he is going to believe Kerry's confession to war crimes, he needs to listen to the audio of it. (Still cant believe Kerry was stupid enough to say that on tape) That could be a pretty good advertisement though.

In all likelihood he could see it written in the Congressional Record, listen to the tape, and still not believe it. :shocked: On the other hand, I believe that Bush is truly misunderestimated! and it's FUNNY!
 
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/1542_0_2_0_C Here is an article on it. it contains the quote and even John Kerry's confirmation that he said it on Russert.

"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."
 
Kathianne said:
Thanks for finding that, now we'll see what Reilly's response is. :cof:


I still think it would be more convincing with the audio. cant find a link for it online though. Of course if anyone really wants to hear it they just need to listen to Hannity for a few hours and im sure he would play it.
 
Avatar4321 said:
I still think it would be more convincing with the audio. cant find a link for it online though. Of course if anyone really wants to hear it they just need to listen to Hannity for a few hours and im sure he would play it.


So far I haven't found it either. But I did find the Congressional Transcipts for his testimony:

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp
 
Avatar4321 said:
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/1542_0_2_0_C Here is an article on it. it contains the quote and even John Kerry's confirmation that he said it on Russert.

I can't refute what Kerry has said on his actions during Vietnam (regarding free-fire zones, burining villages, interdiction fire). Technically, these probably qualify as war crimes under the meaning of the Geneva convention (Kerry obviously thought so). Yet surely you see the difference between these actions and something in the nature of Mai Lai or prisoner abuse. The actions that he spoke of were common activities of U.S. soldiers (scared young men following orders) during Vietnam (in fact, I know one such soldier who has mentioned taking such activities to me). These actions (however wrong) were the result of a corrupt military policy and the circumstances under which these soldiers were placed. Under the circumstances, I would never label these men "war criminals" or seek to hold them culpable for these types of activities. I doubt you would do so. So unless you are willing to make these same claims against thousands of U.S. soldiers, it seems wrong to me to characterize Kerry as a "war criminal" (regardless of the definitions of the Geneva Convention).

As for the men who served with Kerry, 14 of the 15 men on his boat support him and speak highly of his actions during Vietnam. I am not willing to accept that it is because he still has "command authority" over them. That command authority would have to be very strong (after 35 years) for it cause 14 men to lie about the situations that they encountered with Kerry. It is a bit differenct than still calling an old commander "sir."

I guess one is entitled to come down on this anyway they like, but for me, the support Kerry receives from those that served under him speaks volumes.
 
Reilly said:
I can't refute what Kerry has said on his actions during Vietnam (regarding free-fire zones, burining villages, interdiction fire). Technically, these probably qualify as war crimes under the meaning of the Geneva convention (Kerry obviously thought so). Yet surely you see the difference between these actions and something in the nature of Mai Lai or prisoner abuse. The actions that he spoke of were common activities of U.S. soldiers (scared young men following orders) during Vietnam (in fact, I know one such soldier who has mentioned taking such activities to me). These actions (however wrong) were the result of a corrupt military policy and the circumstances under which these soldiers were placed. Under the circumstances, I would never label these men "war criminals" or seek to hold them culpable for these types of activities. I doubt you would do so. So unless you are willing to make these same claims against thousands of U.S. soldiers, it seems wrong to me to characterize Kerry as a "war criminal" (regardless of the definitions of the Geneva Convention).

As for the men who served with Kerry, 14 of the 15 men on his boat support him and speak highly of his actions during Vietnam. I am not willing to accept that it is because he still has "command authority" over them. That command authority would have to be very strong (after 35 years) for it cause 14 men to lie about the situations that they encountered with Kerry. It is a bit differenct than still calling an old commander "sir."

I guess one is entitled to come down on this anyway they like, but for me, the support Kerry receives from those that served under him speaks volumes.

If Kerry thought that what he was doing was war crimes, as a commissioned officer, it would have been his duty to refuse to carry out those orders. Hell, it would be the duty of ANY soldier. Kerry didn't just say that he burned villages, etc. He spoke of the cutting off of heads, the rape of civilians and on and on and on.

As for those that support him, it is only those that were on his specific small craft. 14 guys out of how many in the total unit? You obviously have no understanding of the structure of military units, so therefore, you cannot comprehend how the other guys in his unit, that were not on his boat, can judge his character and actions. I am not going to educate you here on military tactics, but I find it telling that his fellow OFFICERS speak poorly of Kerry. Generally, officers are very protective of each other and they form stronger bonds between themselves than they do with their enlisted men.
 
"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."

This has already been refuted once by a Vietnam vet, but I can't find the thread, so here goes.

Free-fire zones: A free fire zone is an area where it has been confirmed that there are no friendlies. It's called a free fire zone because you're free to fire at anything that moves, knowing it's not a friend. This is pretty rare, though, and the aforementioned vet never actually got to shoot anything in a free fire zone.

Harrassment and Interdiction Fire: This is a normal part of war that involves a blanket artillery bombardment to occupy the enemy and allow friendlies to move around and perform ops. Nothing bad about it.

50-caliber machine guns: So you used a gun in a war. Big deal.

Burning villiages: I know it's a very questionable act (about the only one he mentions), but sometimes, the VC would kick people out of villages and use them ase bases. The U.S. Army would burn them in order to prevent risking lives by storming the village.
 
John Kerry has been able to convince about 13 men who served on Swift boats in the Mekong Delta to support him, 7 or 8 of whom were at various times crew members on his own 6-man boat. Those are the men the Kerry campaign so prominently featured at the Democratic Convention. The photograph we have posted at SwiftVets.com shows Kerry with 19 of his fellow Swift boat OICs (Officers In Charge) in Coastal Division 11. Four OICs were not present for the photograph. Only one of his 23 fellow OICs from Coastal Division 11 supports John Kerry.

Not quite 14 or 15.


http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=FAQ
 
freeandfun1 said:
If Kerry thought that what he was doing was war crimes, as a commissioned officer, it would have been his duty to refuse to carry out those orders. Hell, it would be the duty of ANY soldier. Kerry didn't just say that he burned villages, etc. He spoke of the cutting off of heads, the rape of civilians and on and on and on.

As for those that support him, it is only those that were on his specific small craft. 14 guys out of how many in the total unit? You obviously have no understanding of the structure of military units, so therefore, you cannot comprehend how the other guys in his unit, that were not on his boat, can judge his character and actions. I am not going to educate you here on military tactics, but I find it telling that his fellow OFFICERS speak poorly of Kerry. Generally, officers are very protective of each other and they form stronger bonds between themselves than they do with their enlisted men.

Actually, in his testimony before the House, Kerry spoke of incidents of soldiers cutting off heads, raping civilians, etc. He has never admitted to anything like that.
 
Hobbit said:
This has already been refuted once by a Vietnam vet, but I can't find the thread, so here goes.

Free-fire zones: A free fire zone is an area where it has been confirmed that there are no friendlies. It's called a free fire zone because you're free to fire at anything that moves, knowing it's not a friend. This is pretty rare, though, and the aforementioned vet never actually got to shoot anything in a free fire zone.

Harrassment and Interdiction Fire: This is a normal part of war that involves a blanket artillery bombardment to occupy the enemy and allow friendlies to move around and perform ops. Nothing bad about it.

50-caliber machine guns: So you used a gun in a war. Big deal.

Burning villiages: I know it's a very questionable act (about the only one he mentions), but sometimes, the VC would kick people out of villages and use them ase bases. The U.S. Army would burn them in order to prevent risking lives by storming the village.


OK. These actions don't violate the Geneva Convention. I will take your word for it.
 
Reilly said:
Actually, in his testimony before the House, Kerry spoke of incidents of soldiers cutting off heads, raping civilians, etc. He has never admitted to anything like that.

he lumped what he did in with those real war crimes. do you see what I am saying? he is making them equivalent in his words.
 
freeandfun1 said:
he lumped what he did in with those real war crimes. do you see what I am saying? he is making them equivalent in his words.

Where did you see them lumped together?

So your interpretation was that the man was equating interdiction fire with chopping off heads and raping women? That is what you think he was trying to say?

At most, I think he was merely expressing his belief that both were prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Either they are or they aren't. Regardless, I don't think that is the same as making them equivalent.
 
Hobbit said:
This has already been refuted once by a Vietnam vet, but I can't find the thread, so here goes.

Free-fire zones: A free fire zone is an area where it has been confirmed that there are no friendlies. It's called a free fire zone because you're free to fire at anything that moves, knowing it's not a friend. This is pretty rare, though, and the aforementioned vet never actually got to shoot anything in a free fire zone.

You are correct. However, you are not supposed to shoot clearly identifiable non-Combatants.

Harassment and Interdiction Fire: This is a normal part of war that involves a blanket artillery bombardment to occupy the enemy and allow friendlies to move around and perform ops. Nothing bad about it.

yep

50-caliber machine guns: So you used a gun in a war. Big deal.

Technically, a fifty-cal is not supposed to be used against "ground-troops" but it can be used against "equipment". In the army, we used to always say, "we can't shoot the enemy with the fifty-cal, but we can shoot the web-gear (equipment) he is wearing (thereby, shooting him).

Burning villages: I know it's a very questionable act (about the only one he mentions), but sometimes, the VC would kick people out of villages and use them as bases. The U.S. Army would burn them in order to prevent risking lives by storming the village.

They burned the villages to keep them from once again becoming enemy bases once the Americans left the area. Frankly, I would not consider this a war crime as we were destroying their base of operations.

Kerry admits (how he got his Silver Star) shooting and killing an already injured enemy soldier. It is against the Geneva Convention to kill an injured enemy combatant if he is no longer posing a threat to you. It was said by all the witnesses there that day that they "enemy" was shot in the back while trying to flee.

Yeah, JK - OUR AMERICAN HERO!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top