Other swift boat commander speaks up

[jesse_ewiak 0]

First, from the Tribune

 

    The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war record.

 

    William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

 

  Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during that 1969 mission, said Kerry came under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were "overblown" untrue.

 

    "The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in Sunday's Tribune.

 

    Rood's recollection of what happened on that day at the southern tip of South Vietnam was backed by key military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star he earned in the battle and a glowing after-action report written by the Navy captain who commanded his and Kerry's task force, who is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

 

From Rood

 

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago—three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

 

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

 

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

 

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

 

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

 

Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.

 

I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.[/b\

 

 

...

 

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

 

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

 

 

I think a blooger on Eschaton said it best...

 

Shame on the media for giving these people a platform. Shame on the media for allowing dishonest men to dishonor honest men who served honorably. Shame on you for pretending this was a "he said/he said" situation, ignoring official Navy records and the testimony of everyone who was actually in a position to know. Most of all, shame on all the chickenbloggers who, 30 years from now, will do the same thing to some Iraq war veteran who went home and wondered out loud who will be the last American soldier to die for a lie.

[Guest MikeSC]

I note that you don't even ask if, say, Rood was even ACTUALLY there. Funny. Again, a different standard.

Shame on the media for giving these people a platform.

They haven't. They've ignored them. It's that, try as you might, NOBODY has actually managed to provide contradictory evidence that helps.

 

I love that you'll take the word of ONE person over the SIGNED AFFIDAVITS of 60.

 

And shame on Kerry for giving Vietnam Vets Against the War --- MANY of whom never served a moment in Vietnam --- a platform to trash the brave soldiers in Vietnam.

Shame on the media for allowing dishonest men to dishonor honest men who served honorably.

Like a future Presidential candidate who said that he and his crewmen participated in harassment exercises and burned down villages?

 

BTW, WHO lied about being in Cambodia at Christmas? HINT: It wasn't SVBT.

Shame on you for pretending this was a "he said/he said" situation, ignoring official Navy records and the testimony of everyone who was actually in a position to know.

Except Kerry's commanding officer (who MIGHT well be in a position to know. And the guys on the other boats who were right with them, who might also know. And the guys who patrolled the Cambodian border, who might have an idea on some things. Outside of them, yes, I suppose nobody in a position to know disagrees) disagrees with most of what he said and wants to know how he even got one of the Purple Hearts, since he asked him to recommend him for one and he said no.

 

Like it or not, 250 men who served with him OPPOSE him and CRITICIZE his Vietnam experience.

 

Care to guess how many support him and defend his experience?

Most of all, shame on all the chickenbloggers who, 30 years from now, will do the same thing to some Iraq war veteran who went home and wondered out loud who will be the last American soldier to die for a lie.

Actually, shame on you for assuming that brave men who served for YEARS in hell in Vietnam who DARED to say anything negative doesn't have the right to do so. Shame on you for criticizing POW's for being upset over the comments Kerry made willingly that they were TORTURED to try to get them to speak.

 

Shame on you.

-=Mike

EDIT: Heck, you want irony --- Kerry was still IN THE SERVICE when he started his war protesting acts. Classy!

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I note that you don't even ask if, say, Rood was even ACTUALLY there. Funny. Again, a different standard.

Rood's recollection of what happened on that day at the southern tip of South Vietnam was backed by key military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star he earned in the battle and a glowing after-action report written by the Navy captain who commanded his and Kerry's task force, who is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

 

Hmm.. i'm sure it's part of the Kerry master plan.

 

They haven't. They've ignored them. It's that, try as you might, NOBODY has actually managed to provide contradictory evidence that helps.

 

Yes, everybody just tries to smear the Swift Boat Vets, usually by noting that the Official Navy Documents don't favor their stories, and by bringing up various people who were around Kerry.

 

I assume you're endorsing coming right out to report something without checking into the story deeper. (Of course, it was evil smearing when the NY Times and the Washington Post did it)

 

I love that you'll take the word of ONE person over the SIGNED AFFIDAVITS of 60.

 

So, because they're 60 people and they signed something, they're more credible than the official military records?

 

And shame on Kerry for giving Vietnam Vets Against the War --- MANY of whom never served a moment in Vietnam --- a platform to trash the brave soldiers in Vietnam.

 

Got any backup on that "never served a moment in Vietnam" claim?

 

Kerry did end up leaving the group due to him feeling it was getting too radical. Just for PSA purposes.

 

Like a future Presidential candidate who said that he and his crewmen participated in harassment exercises and burned down villages?

 

Those wouldn't be the atrocities that he had heard of (as mentioned in his Senate testimony).

 

Like it or not, 250 men who served with him OPPOSE him and CRITICIZE his Vietnam experience.

 

hmm.. all 250?

 

via the Washington Post (of the Evil):

 

"I thought he was just another hot dog just trying to build his reputation," said Wayland Holloway of Searcy, Ark., who says he crossed paths with Kerry in 1969, one day before the future presidential candidate pulled Jim Rassmann from a river. "The first time I met John Kerry, frankly, I thought he was a very disingenuous person."

 

Kenneth Knipple of Erie, Mich., who served three years in Vietnam, backed Gore in 2000 but joined the anti-Kerry movement after leaning about it from a fellow vet. "For him to be wounded that many times and lie as many times as he did, I don't want him to be president," said Knipple, who served on Swift boats, but never with Kerry

 

"I wasn't there at the time that happened," said Tony Gisclair, a veteran from Poplarville, Miss., who signed the letter, referring to Kerry's combat in Vietnam. "But look at what the man said about us when he came back."

 

Tony Snesko, a veteran in Washington, D.C., said he was "devastated" by Kerry's antiwar efforts, prompting him to sign on to the group's anti-Kerry message.

 

Snesko said to see Kerry elected would give credence to the senator's claims that those who fought in Vietnam were reckless baby-killers: "At the point that he might possibly take over this country as president -- it would validate everything that he said about us and would make it appear true."

 

(..)

 

John L. Kipp of Brown County, Ind., said he learned about the letter to Kerry while surfing the Web and added his signature because he does not believe that Kerry is telling the whole truth. Kipp, who commanded a Swift boat in Vietnam, doubts that Kerry would have left his boat to attack an enemy, as he has asserted. "It really bothered me when he started to ballyhoo his war record," said Kipp, 62. "You don't turn on your comrades and say these terrible, awful things that I know I had never seen. There's something about keeping faith with those you served with."

 

Don Hammer, a veteran from Bloomington, Ill., said he admires Kerry. Hammer also said he believes Kerry was within his rights to speak out against the war. But still, Hammer has questions. "My goal is to tell Mr. Kerry to open up his service record," he said. "I don't know what happened. Nobody else knows what happened."

 

But.. of course.. you've taken "Swift Boat Veteran" to automatically mean 'Served with Kerry', as opposed to 'Served on a swift boat'

 

Care to guess how many support him and defend his experience?

 

Almost everybody who was on the same boat as he was. Oh wait, those people don't know anything.

[Guest Cerebus]

Wait a second... all of a sudden serving on another boat besides the Kerry is on DOES count as serving with him?! Shocked.

 

First of all, the NYT "Bush-Swift Boat Connections Chart" should serve as the death knell of the Times status as an "impartial" newspaper. Never have I seen as a circumstantial, baseless, and simply moronic article in a supposed "Newspaper of Record." I'm still waiting for the Kerry-MoveOn.org chart to appear.

 

Irregardless, I simply can't believe Kerry's whining. Wasn't it him who plastered his Vietnam service EVERYWHERE? ("Reporting for duty!" What an utter ass.) Wasn't it him that admitted the Christmas in Cambodia story was a trumped up half-truth? Did he REALLY expect to not have his moronic comments in front of Congress not come out if he was planning on basing most of his national security policy around the fact that he served in Vietnam?

 

Shame on the media for giving these people a platform. Shame on the media for allowing dishonest men to dishonor honest men who served honorably. Shame on you for pretending this was a "he said/he said" situation, ignoring official Navy records and the testimony of everyone who was actually in a position to know. Most of all, shame on all the chickenbloggers who, 30 years from now, will do the same thing to some Iraq war veteran who went home and wondered out loud who will be the last American soldier to die for a lie.

 

Oh give me a fucking break. You want to know what he said that got the veterans livid?

 

They told the stories at times they 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 countryside 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.

 

But don't listen to other not-as-brave-as-Kerry "veterans" who, somehow, took offense. After all, you can't be a veteran and NOT support another veteran right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right?

[BX 0]

Almost everybody who was on the same boat as he was. Oh wait, those people don't know anything.

 

They don't. They're evil long-haired hippie veterans, and I wouldn't be surprised if they stormed the RNC and killed 500 people. Liberals can't be trusted.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And shame on Kerry for giving Vietnam Vets Against the War --- MANY of whom never served a moment in Vietnam --- a platform to trash the brave soldiers in Vietnam.

Whatever..

 

Like a future Presidential candidate who said that he and his crewmen participated in harassment exercises and burned down villages?

 

BTW, WHO lied about being in Cambodia at Christmas? HINT: It wasn't SVBT.

 

That's right, let's just throw as many accusations around as we can. ONE HAS GOTTA STICK!

 

and wants to know how he even got one of the Purple Hearts, since he asked him to recommend him for one and he said no.

 

Ah, okay, so not only is he several times a liar now, but broke military proceedure and probably the law. Good, good. Those beer keggers in Alabama are starting to sound like small potatoes now.

 

EDIT: Heck, you want irony --- Kerry was still IN THE SERVICE when he started his war protesting acts. Classy!

 

Yeah, servicemen are exempt from making political statements, okay.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm still waiting for the Kerry-MoveOn.org chart to appear.

I can't recall any moveon.org ad that ever got so much attention, kind of an unfair comparison.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well, Mr. Rood has Big Media connections, so I'm not taking a word he's saying seriously due to the conflict of interest present...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

More on the Tribune guy, here's the after action report:

 

[Guest MikeSC]

They haven't. They've ignored them. It's that, try as you might, NOBODY has actually managed to provide contradictory evidence that helps.

Yes, everybody just tries to smear the Swift Boat Vets, usually by noting that the Official Navy Documents don't favor their stories, and by bringing up various people who were around Kerry.

Except, of course, that Kerry's COMMANDING OFFICER has no clue how in the world he got a nomination for the first Purple Heart, since HE did not recommend it for him.

 

Heck, the ONLY medal Hibbard had anything to do with is one for Bob Kerrey (who, mind you, these Republican-backed vets adore).

I assume you're endorsing coming right out to report something without checking into the story deeper. (Of course, it was evil smearing when the NY Times and the Washington Post did it)

No, what they did is commonly referred to as "guilt by association". It does not ACTUALLY prove anything.

 

Hell, Clinton had a known drug dealer in the White House and who gave him money.

 

THUS, ALL Democrats support drug dealers. Works well in spite of a total lack of ANY actual evidence, huh?

 

You might need to look up what constitutes proof.

I love that you'll take the word of ONE person over the SIGNED AFFIDAVITS of 60.

So, because they're 60 people and they signed something, they're more credible than the official military records?

Well, since according to those who served with him, the person who almost always filled out those reports was---well, John Kerry.

 

Do you want me to go into the discrepancies between what he reported and what he said himself in his biography?

And shame on Kerry for giving Vietnam Vets Against the War --- MANY of whom never served a moment in Vietnam --- a platform to trash the brave soldiers in Vietnam.

Got any backup on that "never served a moment in Vietnam" claim?

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040216201143824

 

Read it if you wish. The military was unable to state that very many of the vets even served. And they did try.

Kerry did end up leaving the group due to him feeling it was getting too radical. Just for PSA purposes.

Yeah, they had assassination plans and the like.

 

Now, maybe Cerebus can verify this, but if a SERVING MEMBER IN THE MILITARY (which Kerry was, non-stop, until 1978 (with the Reserves), he's supposed to report such things.

 

He, of course, did not.

Those wouldn't be the atrocities that he had heard of (as mentioned in his Senate testimony).

Nope. Kerry gave seperate interviews where he said he did it.

Like it or not, 250 men who served with him OPPOSE him and CRITICIZE his Vietnam experience.

 

hmm.. all 250?

 

via the Washington Post (of the Evil):

 

"I thought he was just another hot dog just trying to build his reputation," said Wayland Holloway of Searcy, Ark., who says he crossed paths with Kerry in 1969, one day before the future presidential candidate pulled Jim Rassmann from a river. "The first time I met John Kerry, frankly, I thought he was a very disingenuous person."

 

Kenneth Knipple of Erie, Mich., who served three years in Vietnam, backed Gore in 2000 but joined the anti-Kerry movement after leaning about it from a fellow vet. "For him to be wounded that many times and lie as many times as he did, I don't want him to be president," said Knipple, who served on Swift boats, but never with Kerry

 

"I wasn't there at the time that happened," said Tony Gisclair, a veteran from Poplarville, Miss., who signed the letter, referring to Kerry's combat in Vietnam. "But look at what the man said about us when he came back."

 

Tony Snesko, a veteran in Washington, D.C., said he was "devastated" by Kerry's antiwar efforts, prompting him to sign on to the group's anti-Kerry message.

 

Snesko said to see Kerry elected would give credence to the senator's claims that those who fought in Vietnam were reckless baby-killers: "At the point that he might possibly take over this country as president -- it would validate everything that he said about us and would make it appear true."

 

(..)

 

John L. Kipp of Brown County, Ind., said he learned about the letter to Kerry while surfing the Web and added his signature because he does not believe that Kerry is telling the whole truth. Kipp, who commanded a Swift boat in Vietnam, doubts that Kerry would have left his boat to attack an enemy, as he has asserted. "It really bothered me when he started to ballyhoo his war record," said Kipp, 62. "You don't turn on your comrades and say these terrible, awful things that I know I had never seen. There's something about keeping faith with those you served with."

 

Don Hammer, a veteran from Bloomington, Ill., said he admires Kerry. Hammer also said he believes Kerry was within his rights to speak out against the war. But still, Hammer has questions. "My goal is to tell Mr. Kerry to open up his service record," he said. "I don't know what happened. Nobody else knows what happened."

 

But.. of course.. you've taken "Swift Boat Veteran" to automatically mean 'Served with Kerry', as opposed to 'Served on a swift boat'

And you're going to prove that these men never served with him, right?

 

Right?

Care to guess how many support him and defend his experience?

 

 

 

Almost everybody who was on the same boat as he was. Oh wait, those people don't know anything

Take away the gunner for most of his missions. He does not think much of Kerry at all.

QUOTE (A MikeSC @ Aug 21 2004, 10:44 AM)

And shame on Kerry for giving Vietnam Vets Against the War --- MANY of whom never served a moment in Vietnam --- a platform to trash the brave soldiers in Vietnam.

Whatever..

Kerry HIMSELF has backed off from a lot of what he testified about.

 

But, again, don't let reality slow ya down.

QUOTE 

Like a future Presidential candidate who said that he and his crewmen participated in harassment exercises and burned down villages?

 

BTW, WHO lied about being in Cambodia at Christmas? HINT: It wasn't SVBT.

That's right, let's just throw as many accusations around as we can. ONE HAS GOTTA STICK!

Jobber, are you STRIVING to be a fucking idiot? Jesus, I don't want to hear you call ANYBODY blind when you are so abundantly ignorant about a story that is set in stone fact.

 

KERRY HAS SAID HE LIED ABOUT CAMBODIA. In case you missed it, he's now having his bio changed (I guess the memory wasn't seared that well) to say he was there in January --- which, again, has no proof behind it and nobody corroborating it.

 

As for burning down villages:

On May 6, 2001 Tim Russert interviewed Senator John Kerry on Meet the Press. In the course of the interview, Mr. Russert asked the senator about his views on Vietnam.

 

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned you're a military guy. There's been a lot of discussion about Bob Kerrey, your former Democratic colleague in the Senate, about his talking about his anguish about what happened in Vietnam . You were on this program 30 years ago as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And we went back and have an audiotape of that and some still photos. And your comments are particularly timely in this overall discussion of Bob Kerrey. And I'd like for you to listen to those with our audience and then try to put that war into some context:

 

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

 

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

 

SEN. KERRY: 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 calibre 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 is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

 

(End audiotape)

 

MR. RUSSERT: Thirty years later, you stand by that?

 

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim.

 

I mean, you know, we--it was--I mean, we've got to put this war in its right perspective and time helps us do that. I believe very deeply that it was a noble effort to begin with. I signed up. I volunteered. I wanted to go over there and I wanted to win. It was a noble effort to try to make a country democratic; to try to carry our principles and values to another part of the world. But we misjudged history. We misjudged our own country. We misjudged our strategy. And we fell into a dark place. All of us. And I think we learned that over time. And I hope the contribution that some of us made as veterans was to come back and help people understand that.

 

I think our soldiers served as nobly, on the whole, as in any war, and people need to understand that. There were great sacrifices, great contributions. And they came back to a country that didn't thank the veteran, that didn't--I mean, everything that the veteran gained in the ensuing years, Agent Orange recognition, post-Vietnam stress syndrome recognition, the extension of the G.I. Bill, you know, improvement of the V.A. hospitals, all came from Vietnam veterans themselves fighting for it. Indeed, even the memorial in Washington came from that.

http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

Go ahead, deny this.

and wants to know how he even got one of the Purple Hearts, since he asked him to recommend him for one and he said no.

Ah, okay, so not only is he several times a liar now, but broke military proceedure and probably the law. Good, good. Those beer keggers in Alabama are starting to sound like small potatoes now.

Actually, they simply want the documentation of WHO recommended him for the medal. They assume he played the system and would like to know WHO did it.

 

Not exactly unreasonable to ask. If he was awarded it, why not say WHO recommended him for it?

EDIT: Heck, you want irony --- Kerry was still IN THE SERVICE when he started his war protesting acts. Classy!

Yeah, servicemen are exempt from making political statements, okay.

He admitted to speaking to the N. Vietnamese during this time frame. He tried to portray himself as having had a 2 year gap in his service --- between 1970 and 1972 --- but it, simply, is not the case.

Care to guess how many support him and defend his experience?

Almost everybody who was on the same boat as he was. Oh wait, those people don't know anything.

His GUNNER is very much on board.

 

So, basically, you're saying that 263 or so vets are ALL lying while 13 are the ones telling the truth.

I can't recall any moveon.org ad that ever got so much attention, kind of an unfair comparison.

Because Bush had the common sense to IGNORE them.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, since according to those who served with him, the person who almost always filled out those reports was---well, John Kerry.

So are we going to say he lied back then to help himself decades later or not? Becuase that's where you're leading but you never want to come out and say it.

 

Read it if you wish. The military was unable to state that very many of the vets even served. And they did try.

 

Doesn't make it his fault that a lot of those people were bullshitters.

 

Kerry HIMSELF has backed off from a lot of what he testified about.

 

But, again, don't let reality slow ya down.

 

That "whatever..." wasn't a "whatever, you're bullshitting" comment. It was a "whatever, I don't care about the Vietnam era and your stupid opinions of what happened" comment. This is why I've been mostly been looking at this in the context of what it means for the election, and trying to discern a message. The message is rather messy for a group that just suddently appeared out of the woodwork a couple months ago in order to destroy a candidate.

 

Go ahead, deny this.

 

So your opinion is no villages were ordered burned/destroyed?

 

Because Bush had the common sense to IGNORE them.

          -=Mike

You are right on here. Kerry has reacted badly to these. It's not like President Bush was confronted with Fahrenheit 9/11 everywhere he went. But then again, Kerry has media with teeth, and Bush has the White House Press Corps, so who knows how it would have went if Kerry just tried to look beyond the ads and ignore 'em.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh, and suprise suprise...

 

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A Vietnam veteran who worked with President Bush's campaign has left over his appearance in a commercial by a group challenging Democratic candidate John Kerry's war record, a campaign spokesman said on Saturday.

 

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Ken Cordier was a Bush supporter during the 2000 election and served as a member of his a steering committee to help reach out to veterans during this election.

 

"Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement being run by (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)," Schmidt said. "Because of his involvement with this 527 (group), Col. Cordier will no longer participate" in the steering committee.

 

The disclosure of Cordier's involvement came one day after White House spokesman Scott McClellan and Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot denied the campaign coordinated with the group on the ads, which claim that Kerry lied about his Vietnam War service.

 

Kerry has called the ads inaccurate and accused the group of being a front for the Bush campaign. On Friday the Kerry campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission seeking to force the ads' withdrawal.

 

New advertisements by the group are set to debut next week in states where Kerry has touted his military service. Kerry won several medals and his record is often contrasted with Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the war.

 

McClellan has refused to specifically condemn the ads and instead has urged Kerry to join Bush in calling for an end to all commercials funded by unrestricted donations.

 

U.S. advocacy groups can collect vast sums of money to run their own political advertisements but are barred from coordinating their activities with campaigns or political parties.

 

"There seems to be an increasing amount of evidence that the Bush campaign is behind this," Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. "So it's no surprise that the president refuses to condemn these scurrilous ads."

 

The Bush campaign has said Kerry ignores the fact that his backers run attack advertising aimed at the president.

 

Over the last 12 months, groups favoring the Democrats have spent $63.5 million on ads attacking Bush, according to the Bush campaign, which filed its own FEC complaint earlier this year alleging coordination between Kerry and the left-leaning groups.

 

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=6036302

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, since according to those who served with him, the person who almost always filled out those reports was---well, John Kerry.

So are we going to say he lied back then to help himself decades later or not? Becuase that's where you're leading but you never want to come out and say it.

That's pretty much it. He went to Vietnam to help with a future political career. Once he got his trinkets and his "Hero" stories, accuracy be damned, he couldn't leave fast enough.

 

Not that any of them wanted him to stay.

Read it if you wish. The military was unable to state that very many of the vets even served. And they did try.

Doesn't make it his fault that a lot of those people were bullshitters.

Since he testified ON THEIR BEHALF --- and has yet to apologize for doing so --- it is his fault.

Kerry HIMSELF has backed off from a lot of what he testified about.

 

But, again, don't let reality slow ya down.

That "whatever..." wasn't a "whatever, you're bullshitting" comment. It was a "whatever, I don't care about the Vietnam era and your stupid opinions of what happened" comment. This is why I've been mostly been looking at this in the context of what it means for the election, and trying to discern a message. The message is rather messy for a group that just suddently appeared out of the woodwork a couple months ago in order to destroy a candidate.

These aren't opinions. They're facts.

 

And, of course, if Kerry provided a vision OUTSIDE of "Hey, I'm a Vet!", these would be less important.

 

But since the centerpiece of his entire campaign is this --- this is a bit important.

Go ahead, deny this.

So your opinion is no villages were ordered burned/destroyed?

YUP.

 

Kerry has a problem with being a little quick on the trigger in "Free fire" zones. This seems to fit with his other instances in 'Nam.

Because Bush had the common sense to IGNORE them.

          -=Mike

You are right on here. Kerry has reacted badly to these. It's not like President Bush was confronted with Fahrenheit 9/11 everywhere he went.

Yeah, F 9/11 was pure stealth in the media. *giggle*

 

Bush does a bang-up job of ignoring the media and this crap --- and it works, mind you.

But then again, Kerry has media with teeth, and Bush has the White House Press Corps, so who knows how it would have went if Kerry just tried to look beyond the ads and ignore 'em.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

Kerry has INTERNET BLOGGERS knocking him. The press couldn't do less than they have.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Go ahead, deny this.

So your opinion is no villages were ordered burned/destroyed?

YUP.

 

Kerry has a problem with being a little quick on the trigger in "Free fire" zones. This seems to fit with his other instances in 'Nam.

Ah, it's a good ol' Mike post. I'm putting on the Beatles' "Revolution 9" right now, because it perfectly matches these debates. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

So anyway, hold on, no villages were burned by Kerry, or no villages were burned by anyone? Because if you believe no villages were burnt down, I'd refute that comment.

 

I searched CE for "rove" tonight with the reuslts posted as posts looking for a comment regarding Karl Rove, but something I noticed was that so many hits came up on the word "prove." They're mainly Mike in the three SwiftVets threads going "Oh yeah? Prove it!" Prove that these guys didn't serve with Kerry, prove that these guys did, prove this baseless accusation to be false, explain this and that.

 

My latest proof of these guys' cronyism is this

 

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

 

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

 

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

 

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

 

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

 

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."

Says what it says.

 

Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

Interpretation: "No, unless you happen to call me on it."

 

The group's arguments have foundered on other contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

 

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.

 

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it."

 

Personally, I think if there's a person who needs to prove anything, it's this guy. He can't prove what he says, you'll just have to take his word for it.

 

Honestly, I think Kerry's best bet at this point is to insist on his version of the story and tell people to do the same, and make it his word vs whoever in SwiftVets. It's a gamble, but people may be more willing to believe the highly-visible Senator over the person who just suddently emerged two months before election day, or they may decide they don't trust him on the belief that one should never trust a politician. Regardless, this accusation is baseless, and the doctor himself says he has no proof that what he says is true.

 

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."

 

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

 

Perhaps if this guy is telling the truth that there was no enemy fire, he'd be giving his own medal back for it?

 

This is the reason why SwiftVets look to be full of crap. It's Kerry's word vs theirs, and military records, where there are records to turn to, typically support Kerry's side of the story.

 

So chew on that.

 

-=Jobber

Number nine... Number nine... Number nine... Number nine...

[Guest MikeSC]

Go ahead, deny this.

So your opinion is no villages were ordered burned/destroyed?

YUP.

 

Kerry has a problem with being a little quick on the trigger in "Free fire" zones. This seems to fit with his other instances in 'Nam.

Ah, it's a good ol' Mike post. I'm putting on the Beatles' "Revolution 9" right now, because it perfectly matches these debates. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

So anyway, hold on, no villages were burned by Kerry, or no villages were burned by anyone? Because if you believe no villages were burnt down, I'd refute that comment.

 

His fellow swiftees say that it didn't happen --- so either ALL of them are lying; or Kerry is. And, in your perverse logic, it makes far more sense to assume that Kerry is the truthful one.

 

Were villages burned? A few likely were. However, reality and rhetoric seldom match and do not in this situation, either.

I searched CE for "rove" tonight with the reuslts posted as posts looking for a comment regarding Karl Rove, but something I noticed was that so many hits came up on the word "prove." They're mainly Mike in the three SwiftVets threads going "Oh yeah? Prove it!" Prove that these guys didn't serve with Kerry, prove that these guys did, prove this baseless accusation to be false, explain this and that.

Damn me for expecting proof that signed affidavits consist of lies.

My latest proof of these guys' cronyism is this

Or, in simple terms, you don't have actual evidence. You have "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon". Kudos.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

 

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

 

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

 

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

 

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

 

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."

Says what it says.

And they should be asked about it. However, many of them have openly stated that they would not have said a word if Kerry did not have a shot at being commander-in-chief.

 

BTW, funny that when, say, Richard Clarke lavished praise on Bush and later changed his mind --- nobody seemed to ask these questions of him.

 

Weird, huh?

Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

Interpretation: "No, unless you happen to call me on it."

Or "Not that I'm aware of." Whatever.

The group's arguments have foundered on other contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

 

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.

 

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it."

 

Personally, I think if there's a person who needs to prove anything, it's this guy. He can't prove what he says, you'll just have to take his word for it.

Seeing as how Letson was the medical officer for Kerry, you will have to take his word for it. He has stated, more than once, that the "wound" was so minor that it did not WARRANT treatment.

Honestly, I think Kerry's best bet at this point is to insist on his version of the story and tell people to do the same, and make it his word vs whoever in SwiftVets.

He'll lose that --- badly.

It's a gamble, but people may be more willing to believe the highly-visible Senator over the person who just suddently emerged two months before election day, or they may decide they don't trust him on the belief that one should never trust a politician. Regardless, this accusation is baseless, and the doctor himself says he has no proof that what he says is true.

Hmm, he said the injury was exceptionally minor. The record shows that Kerry never spent a moment in the hospital.

 

But I'm sure it was a horrible injury. Really.

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."

 

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Perhaps if this guy is telling the truth that there was no enemy fire, he'd be giving his own medal back for it?

And that would prove what to you? Yeah, a running history of Kerry exaggerating his war record DOES seem implausible.

This is the reason why SwiftVets look to be full of crap. It's Kerry's word vs theirs, and military records, where there are records to turn to, typically support Kerry's side of the story.

 

So chew on that.

 

-=Jobber

Number nine... Number nine... Number nine... Number nine...

No, you take Kerry's word because he's a liberal and they can do no wrong in your eyes.

 

Sure, he lied about Cambodia. It was probably a coincidence.

Yeah, he received three Purple Hearts without spending a moment in the hospital. I'm sure the injuries were bad.

Yeah, his commanding officer has no clue how he got his first Purple Heart. Probably doesn't mean much.

Yeah, Kerry's own recollections in his biography and in the reports he filed don't exactly mesh, it likely means nothing.

Yeah, his own gunner disagrees with almost everything. He's probably lying.

Yeah, when his opponents didn't serve on his same boat, they were dismissed --- but when a SUPPORTER didn't serve on his same boat, it's suddenly relevant. They are probably all lying.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And they should be asked about it. However, many of them have openly stated that they would not have said a word if Kerry did not have a shot at being commander-in-chief.

So, it's political? Thanks for getting my point across.

 

 

Seeing as how Letson was the medical officer for Kerry, you will have to take his word for it. He has stated, more than once, that the "wound" was so minor that it did not WARRANT treatment.

 

Where is the proof? Where is the record? Where is anything beyond "Well, you're gonna have to believe me, I guess..."

 

He'll lose that --- badly.

 

Not really. Most Americans don't care. That's why commercials are just personality smears. Most Americans know that atrocities really did happen in Vietnam, anyway., so many won't care if Kerry states the obvious.

 

And that would prove what to you? Yeah, a running history of Kerry exaggerating his war record DOES seem implausible.

 

Does this guy believe what he's saying? He says there's no enemy fire, but he's holding onto an award because of alleged enemy fire.

 

Anyway, Cordier was listed on Bush's site until just the other day when they let him go. Despite their claims that he hasn't worked with them in four years, it was on the site and until just recently Google had saved an older copy of the page with his name still on it. Although that copy is gone, many sites have screen captures with his name on there.

 

And from the LIBERAL Weekly Standard:

 

Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.

 

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

 

Needless to say, the proposition will be a hard sell in those dim and tiny reaches of the electorate where voters have yet to make up their minds. Indeed, it's far more likely that moderates and fence-sitters will be disgusted by the lengths to which partisans will go to discredit a rival. But this anti-Kerry campaign is not designed to win undecided votes. It's designed to reassure uneasy minds.

[Guest Cerebus]

Most Americans know that atrocities really did happen in Vietnam, anyway., so many won't care if Kerry states the obvious.

 

No.

 

The type of attrocities that Kerry talked about and claimed saw on a daily basis are somewhere between "incredibly exaggerated" and "fucking loony." Besides, like I said, Kerry decided not to put his record as an anti-war activist or his 20-year career as a Senator as the centerpiece of his canidacy but his four months in Vietnam.

 

And he whines that the REPUBLICANS are the ones making a big deal of this?

 

Please.

 

Edit: Another Bush puppet "veteran" who questions Kerry's war record.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The type of attrocities that Kerry talked about and claimed saw on a daily basis are somewhere between "incredibly exaggerated" and "fucking loony."

History has proven you wrong on this again and again and again.

 

Perhaps not to the extreme that Kerry described, you're right. But shit did hit the fan over there, and things happened that were very dishonorable and unbecoming of the United States.

[Justice 0]

The type of attrocities that Kerry talked about and claimed saw on a daily basis are somewhere between "incredibly exaggerated" and "fucking loony."

History has proven you wrong on this again and again and again.

I like how you say this and don't care to explain, well, HOW he is wrong. That was a laugh.

 

Perhaps not to the extreme that Kerry described, you're right. But shit did hit the fan over there, and things happened that were very dishonorable and unbecoming of the United States.

 

Or perhaps Kerry was just talking on behalf of what the anti-war protesters thought was happening. Of course, some things happen. But when one says "Daily Basis", that is an entirely different level here; that's not a simple exaggeration, that's GROSS exaggeration. I mean, the basis for what you said, officially, is mainly from what Kerry said 30 years ago. As there are ever-increasing doubts on what happened during Kerry's service, maybe you should consider that maybe more of that testimony was driven by his anti-war buddies rather than the truth.

 

And some of you wonder why these people are bitter? How would YOU like to sign a contract saying you committed War Crimes because of some turncoat who shit all over the US forces?

[Guest Cerebus]

The type of attrocities that Kerry talked about and claimed saw on a daily basis are somewhere between "incredibly exaggerated" and "fucking loony."

History has proven you wrong on this again and again and again.

 

Perhaps not to the extreme that Kerry described, you're right. But shit did hit the fan over there, and things happened that were very dishonorable and unbecoming of the United States.

Hogshit. Allow me to repeat what Kerry said:

 

They told the stories at times they 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 countryside 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.

 

Basically, there was My Lai every day according to Kerry which is W-R-O-N-G. In fact the "Winter Soldier" investigation that Kerry was testifying about turned out to be utter trash. In fact, many of the VVAW soldiers who testified (including Al Hubbard) never went to Vietnam at all. Not one of the accusations made during the Jane Fonda inspired investigation EVER had a shred of evidence that led to prosecution. None. On the upside, Kerry did help create a myth that all American veterans returning from Vietnam were as bad as Genghis Kahn. Reporting for duty eh Lieutenant?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hogshit. Allow me to repeat what Kerry said:

not to the extreme that Kerry described

not to the extreme that Kerry described

not to the extreme that Kerry described

not to the extreme that Kerry described

[Guest MikeSC]

The type of attrocities that Kerry talked about and claimed saw on a daily basis are somewhere between "incredibly exaggerated" and "fucking loony."

History has proven you wrong on this again and again and again.

 

Perhaps not to the extreme that Kerry described, you're right. But shit did hit the fan over there, and things happened that were very dishonorable and unbecoming of the United States.

If you admit it didn't happen to the "Extreme Kerry described" --- how in the hell is Kerry's testimony even REMOTELY accurate?

 

If somebody said that --- on a daily basis --- Iraqis were tortured, they'd be WRONG. There is fine line between exaggeration (which, apparently, is the majority of Kerry's career) and flat-out LIES (which is what he testified to).

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you admit it didn't happen to the "Extreme Kerry described" --- how in the hell is Kerry's testimony even REMOTELY accurate?

I didn't say it was. I've said that the testimony was incorrect in describing the situation.

 

It isn't the truth. But it isn't that far from it. You guys seem to be denying what everybody knows though, that there was a fucking disaster going on over there. Instead you seem to believe that everything went all right, and nobody should have said anything at all about the bad shit going on for the good of the country and the war effort.

[Guest MikeSC]

If you admit it didn't happen to the "Extreme Kerry described" --- how in the hell is Kerry's testimony even REMOTELY accurate?

I didn't say it was. I've said that the testimony was incorrect in describing the situation.

 

It isn't the truth. But it isn't that far from it.

Yes, it REALLY is. It's not even CLOSE to reality.

 

Do you think the military would be able to cover up "Atrocities" with the press EVERYWHERE?

You guys seem to be denying what everybody knows though, that there was a fucking disaster going on over there.

No, I'm saying that we don't know what happened. You just ASSUME that My Lai was the rule, not the exception --- while I argue that My Lai was so shocking because it was so rare.

 

No, I don't think soldiers cut off heads terribly often. Forgive my naivete.

Instead you seem to believe that everything went all right, and nobody should have said anything at all about the bad shit going on for the good of the country and the war effort.

Kerry did what he thought was right. Good for him.

 

His "right" cost more than a few people a lot of pain. But you think they should up.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

The type of attrocities that Kerry talked about and claimed saw on a daily basis are somewhere between "incredibly exaggerated" and "fucking loony."

 

History has proven you wrong on this again and again and again.

 

History has proven you wrong on this again and again and again.

 

History has proven you wrong on this again and again and again.

 

History has proven you wrong on this again and again and again.

 

By the way, the real disaster were the re-education camps, the slaughter of two million Cambonians and South Vietnamese by victorious Communist forces. But what do I know?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yes, it REALLY is. It's not even CLOSE to reality.

 

Do you think the military would be able to cover up "Atrocities" with the press EVERYWHERE?

 

No, I'm saying that we don't know what happened. You just ASSUME that My Lai was the rule, not the exception --- while I argue that My Lai was so shocking because it was so rare.

Do you even understand the coverups, and and the public's lack of knowledge of what was really going on in Vietnam? The media was a far different beast than it is today.

[Guest MikeSC]

By the way, the real disaster were the re-education camps, the slaughter of two million Cambonians and South Vietnamese by victorious Communist forces. But what do I know?

Those don't matter, obviously.

-=Mike

..."My Lai was horrible"

"What about the Communist domination in Vietnam? What about the Killing Fields of Cambodia?"

"Well, not as bad My Lai"

[Jobber of the Week 0]

By the way, the real disaster were the re-education camps, the slaughter of two million Cambonians and South Vietnamese by victorious Communist forces. But what do I know?

And they weren't even our enemy until we started getting involved in their civil war. Huzzah.

[Guest MikeSC]

By the way, the real disaster were the re-education camps, the slaughter of two million Cambonians and South Vietnamese by victorious Communist forces. But what do I know?

And they weren't even our enemy until we started getting involved in their civil war. Huzzah.

What'd I tell you, Cerebus?

 

They don't matter.

-=Mike

...Nice to see human rights are key to our liberals here...

[Guest Brian]

What are the death counts from those Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians killed through the Vietnam War, and the subsequent backing of Pol Pot?