Instapundit links to Powerline and a long winded post from Robert Coram – who wrote a bio of Day and would seem to have a financial interest in him remaining an unsullied war hero. The post tries to say that Day was not a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, because somehow appearing in an ad for something and endorsing its message somehow doesn’t make you connected to the product being sold.
And yet, here is Bud Day, in a Swift Boat ad attacking John Kerry (dishonestly). On one hand, conservative spin, on the other? Your own eyes.
Col. Bud Day, Part Of The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign versus John Kerry in 2004
Wow, I dunno where to start.
First up, Col. Day COULDN’T have been a member of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth — as anyone with the slightest CLUE about the military knows, the Navy has about as many Colonels as the Army has fighter planes, and Col. Day was in the Air Force.
Second, Col. Day concerned himself solely with Kerry’s conduct after the war — when he lent his credibility to a whole cornucopia of charlatans, frauds, liars, and utter scumbags. Kerry and those people slandered and lied and just plain made up shit about Kerry’s former brothers in arms, and the book Kerry plugged was filled with out-and-out lies and fabrications.
Also, Kerry — while still a member of the Naval Reserve — met with leaders of an enemy nation without authorization, a gross violation of the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. That helps fill in quite a few empty spots in Kerry’s service record (which he has STILL not released to the general public, despite numerous promises to do so), such as why his discharge is dated several years after it should have been, and why his medals were re-issued in the 1980’s — a less than honorable discharge that was “upgraded” later would explain both, but Kerry won’t let anyone see one way or another.
Finally, I am gobsmacked that you would bring up the “fiancial interest” angle. Considering how often you plug Media Matters For America here, and how much of your stuff could readily do “double duty,” and how you always mock me and deny any such collusion whenever I bring it up… well, “hypocrisy” seems a bit too mild a term.
I am intensely curious if any employee of Media Matters ever served in the military, or is related to a veteran, or is good friends with any veterans. it would explain a great deal.
J.
First up, Col. Day COULDN’T have been a member of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth — as anyone with the slightest CLUE about the military knows, the Navy has about as many Colonels as the Army has fighter planes, and Col. Day was in the Air Force.
That would, of course, be the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, which of course changed their name mid-2004 election specifically to accommodate this.
-
This took, like, two minutes on Google. The haven’t even taken their own home page down. Really, just sloppy even by your regular standards here.
Damn, August, that’s embarrassing.
I KNOW I can’t take anything Oliver says at face value, and I still let that one slide past me with his title — “Bud Day Was A Part Of “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth”, The Dishonest Smear Campaign Vs. John Kerry In 2004.”
Will Oliver be making a correction?
To add to the irony, Col. Day started out in the Marines, switched to the Army Reserve, and then went to the Air Force — meaning he served in every single branch of the armed forces except the Navy.
J.
Will Oliver be making a correction?
For… being right? Buh?
Well, when Oliver’s right it calls for SOME sort of special ceremony.
Bud Day’s participation is “seared … seared” in Oliver’s memory.
Well, August, for saying that Day was a member of “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.” As you pointed out, he was never a member of that group. Indeed, he pointedly disagreed with the main thrust of their argument — calling into question Kerry’s service in Viet Nam — and instead wanted more attention paid to Kerry’s activities after the war — when, as a member of the Naval Reserve, he did many things that violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and could have — hell, maybe did — earn him a less-than-honorable discharge.
The trick here is to look past the presumptions Oliver has — the Swift Boat veterans all liars, never mind that the only disputed interpretation to be conclusively proven one way or another ended up in Kerry retracting his “Christmas in Cambodia” story – and follow the logic:
1. The Swift Boat Veterans were all liars and scum.
2. Anyone who helped or backed or agreed with them are lying scum, too.
3. Anyone who associates with those who helped them is scum.
Therefore, because John McCain reached out to his former cellmate for help in his campaign, his entire campaign is scum.
It’s easier than thinking.
I just find myself toying with the idea of applying the same sort of logic to Oliver’s pieces, and his continuing promotion of Media Matters, where he has a decided financial stake…
J.
Wow. Just wow.
“1. The Swift Boat Veterans were all liars and scum.
2. Anyone who helped or backed or agreed with them are lying scum, too.
3. Anyone who associates with those who helped them is scum.”
I agree with this post.
Well said, Enlightened Liberal — for once Jay Teabagger spoke the truth.
Bud Day had a sterling military career — which he flushed down the crapper by being an active participating in the lying Smear Boat Cowards for Bush’s dishonest campaign against a distinguished Vietnam veteran, John Kerry.
Jay Teabagger is the sort of person who makes me want to delve into John McCain’s chequered military career — particularly those sections that have been glossed over or perhaps “redacted’ to protect the identity of the not-so-innocent. Or maybe it’s already begun…
Stay classy, Teabagger!
What about the fact that McCain himself stated himself that the actions of this group, supported and endorsed by Col. Day, were “dishonest and dishonorable” in 2004? Those aren’t the words of Oliver or any Democratic politician, John McCain himself said that. Now, he has Col. Day working for him? How is this not a problem for “The Straight Talk Express?” He was clear when he said things like “I deplore this kind of politics” and referring to the add as a “cheap stunt.”
Bud Day is a Colonel in the United States Air Force, a grown man who is no dummy. He knew exactly what he was doing when he appeared in those ads, so lets be clear. He is every bit a part of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth as the guys who were on the boats in Vietnam. John McCain did the right thing and spoke out against this kind of politics in 2004. Now he wants this kind of politics on his side in 2008. Discuss.
Your obsession with where I work notwithstanding, Bud Day was a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the dishonest smear campaign that attacked Sen. Kerry. Or is that his clone in the ad?
JayTea thinks the army is full of cowards anyway, he’s stated there aren’t any fighters in the entire army. What he has to say about military records for the other branches is pretty much moot.
“Instapundit links to Powerline and a long winded post from Robert Coram” – regarding a story at CNN.com that lies by identifying Bud Day as a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
So we can expect Oliver to put to bed forever his idiotic, bullshit “Media for McCain” meme, right?
Annnnnnny minute now….
Here we go….
3…2…1…
What? No?
Color me unsurprised.
Jay Tea,
I’m confused. Do you think the screenshot showing Bud Day in the commercial has been doctored, or are you disputing the actual name of the organization (Swift Boat Veterans vs Swift Boat Veterans and POWs)?
This is a sincere question.
By the way, I do have friends in the military (in Iraq and Afghanistan) and they want the hell out.
matt621 & Jay Tea,
So I just read up on this issue and I agree that sure, Oliver’s title could have been more accurate (but I also think you’re grasping at straws here). The fact is this man PARTICIPATED in a national smear campaign against Jerry Kerry by appearing in this commercial. You don’t dispute that, right???
Oliver, did you listen to the ad? It gets to the point where it specifically says, “…and they’re the men who spent years in Vietnamese prison camps, tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of. War crimes.”
Bud Day spent five years as a POW in Vietnam and while he was still a POW, John Kerry DID accuse veterans of terrible war crimes by giving hearsay information to Congress and then later admitted he never actually witnessed any of it. That is what so many men objected to and specifically what Day objected to. To this day, Kerry still hasn’t apologized for his actions.
Geez, do we have to rehash the Swift Boat Liar issue AGAIN? They have been debunked more times than I can count, the fact that con posters who start with J won’t get it doesn’t mean it’s worthwhile to explain.
The real problem here is that McSame “denounced” the Swift Boat tactics and their organization but a short 4 years later their spokesmen are a-ok for his campaign. Got it? No, I didn’t think you did J’s.
It is always okay to smear the patriotism, service record, or citizenship of any liberal or Democrat.
Conversely, any strong criticism of a Republican politician for any reason will be translated as an attack on their patriotism, service record, or citizenship, which of course is unacceptable and will make Bob Schieffer stammer, blubber, and cry.
Thankfully the American people seem to have finally burned out of the Bush Jr. nut squad of all these retro-freak rightists who keep wanting to blame liberals for losing Vietnam and Cambodia and everything else.
1) Gosh, people deployed overseas would prefer to be home — there’s a shock!
2) This is the middle of 2008. They must’ve joined or reenlisted AFTER the war in both countries started. Did they not understand there were two combat operations going on when they joined the military?
Ah, there’s good wingnut JWG supportin’ those troops: “Hey y’all were dumb enough to sign up after the war started: SUCKERS!!!”
One also wonders whether Mr. JWG has heard of this thing called “stop loss”. it has been on many of our fine MSM news programs: It seems to relate to the concept that people can have served multiple terms honorably fulfilling the requirements (even if they signed up before the war), expecting that the commitments to them would likewise be honored (that they would be rotated out after the appropriate schedule), but President Pretzeldunce and SecDef von Rumsfeld decided to flip them the bird and, echoing JWG, laugh “Suckers!”
YOU don’t get it. Bud Day and McCain have a war/POW bond that goes beyond anything you can imagine. Of course they are going to support each other. Furthermore, did McCain denounce every aspect of the SBVT tactics, or just the parts attacking Kerry’s duty in Vietnam? Day only supported attacking the disgusting actions and lies of Kerry after he left Vietnam.
But that’s OK — I don’t expect leftists to understand the actual details of an argument. They just scream and shout.
I’ve just got to sit back in awe of the intellectual rigors one goes through to try to concern troll Oliver but not in any way pick up the hypocrisy of the Swift Boat attacks and John McCain’s craven use of one of them as a dishonest crony. It’s art. Art I tells ya.
thesebastards.blogspot.com
Shorter JWG – “They knew what they were in for when they signed up.”
It’s disgusting hearing the replies of rightwing types like you when confronted with the thoughts and words of actual veterans who don’t kowtow to the views of the Fox News sheeples. So you presume to know when these veterans joined our military based on what – the fact that they expressed anything less than a 100% koolaid saturation rate like you? Come on, take that shiat to Sean Hannity. You based the gist of your response on nothing but your guess. Maybe, just maybe, they have an opinion but regardless of that opinion they still want to serve their country in uniform! Maybe, just maybe, they still understand – better than you – the combat operations that are going on in all as it is their job. Is it possible? Maybe the did join after the war started – does that make them incapable of understanding the situation, or just incapable of getting it as clearly as you?
“…and they’re the men who spent years in Vietnamese prison camps, tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of. War crimes.”
See? I told you torture works. Double Gitmo, stat!
I think it telling that Jay Tea’s main objection seems to be that Oliver didn’t use the full official name of the “Swift Boat” group. It’s the equivalent of arguing over a typo instead of the obvious point actually being made.
Fact is, the Swift Boat group lied about Kerry’s service and did so in a most dispicable and dishonorable way. If Bud Day truly “pointedly disagreed with the main thrust of their argument — calling into question Kerry’s service in Viet Nam — and instead wanted more attention paid to Kerry’s activities after the war” then he could certainly have made his objections to the latter without joining “Swift Vets and POWs for Truth” (as they eventually called themselves).
You don’t join the KKK because you like their stand on state’s rights and then credibly claim you aren’t associated with their other activities.
Exactly right — it’s an all volunteer military. And it’s kind of hard to claim that you didn’t know you might get deployed when the war was in all the papers.
I highly suspect that Day would disagree that the SBVT were liars or wrong in their claims about Kerry’s actions in Vietnam. He probably just disagreed that their tactics could amount to anything more than he said/he said.
To analogize the SBVT with the KKK is pathetic. Why not just go right for the Nazi comparison and be done with it?
“1. The Swift Boat Veterans were all liars and scum.
2. Anyone who helped or backed or agreed with them are lying scum, too.
3. Anyone who associates with those who helped them is scum.”
Correct.
JWG,
“1.) Gosh, people deployed overseas would prefer to be home — there’s a shock!”
I’m trying to be civil but the comment above really makes your appear like a jerk.
“2.) This is the middle of 2008. They must’ve joined or reenlisted AFTER the war in both countries started. Did they not understand there were two combat operations going on when they joined the military?”
Actually, they were in Iraq at the beginning to the war. They were stationed on an oil rig BEFORE the war started in March of 2003. Even though they’ve fulfilled their duties, they were called back — this time to Afghanistan.
Sean D. Martin,
“You don’t join the KKK because you like their stand on state’s rights and then credibly claim you aren’t associated with their other activities.”
Brilliant line.
“They were stationed on an oil rig BEFORE the war started in March of 2003.”
To clarify, they were in Iraq already when the war started. They didn’t sign up after Bush decided to go to war.
Though… if they did enlist after the war had begun as a Republican you should be applauding them for patriotically serving their country in this time of need, right? This is a just and honest war, right? Or no? Do you support Bush’s war in Iraq? Would YOU serve in Iraq? Why do you slam Obama and support McCain if you think members of our military are foolish for participating in this war?
You don’t join the KKK because you like their stand on state’s rights and then credibly claim you aren’t associated with their other activities.
Oh please. That’s an absurd comparison. Are you really attempting to equivocate the KKK with the Swift Boat Vets?
What John Kerry did after the war and especially what he did before that Congressional committee was far worse than anything the Swift Boat Vets said about him. Kerry’s “Winter Soldier” testimony was a disgrace.
If you voted for Kerry in 2004 Sean, does it say anything about you associating with such ’scum’?
“Well, August, for saying that Day was a member of ‘Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.’ As you pointed out, he was never a member of that group.”
There’s some serious hair-splitting.
You are actually attacking Oliver over the name of the group, even though everyone here knows what group he is referring to.
You’ve heard of damning it with faint praise? Well, this is praising Oliver with faint damnation.
“Why do you slam Obama and support McCain if you think members of our military are foolish for participating in this war?”
That last line came out wrong, as I support Obama but (unlike JWG, apparently) I do NOT consider soldiers foolish for wanting to serve their country. Actually, come to think of it, both McCain and Obama respect the efforts of our military. Maybe you need a new candidate, JWG?
JWG: I highly suspect that Day would disagree that the SBVT were liars or wrong in their claims about Kerry’s actions in Vietnam.
Really? So you take the opposite stand of Jay Tea?
JWG: To analogize the SBVT with the KKK is pathetic. Why not just go right for the Nazi comparison and be done with it?
Yeah, I know it’s overstating it. And I was tempted to acknowledge that in the original posting, but didn’t because I was kinda curious to see if any response would deal with the point being made or instead pick on the particular (admittedly extreme) analogy being used.
Vanessa: Brilliant line.
Thank you. To be fair, of course, I could have used any advocacy group including the ACLU or DNC. Point being, you can’t join an advocacy group, particularly an extremely vocal one, part way.
Vanessa: Would YOU serve in Iraq?
Excellent question. Which should be asked of everyone who believes the war in Iraq is good and just and should be supported.
“Just what, exactly, are you personally doing to support the war effort. What sacrifice have you personally made?”
Point being, you can’t join an advocacy group, particularly an extremely vocal one, part way.
Why not? If using the ACLU as an example, couldn’t a person disagree with them filing lawsuits on behalf of Neo-Nazi’s marching in Skokie, IL but agree with them on most other issues?
Jay: Oh please. That’s an absurd comparison. Are you really attempting to equivocate the KKK with the Swift Boat Vets?
No, it’s an extreme comparison at best. Certainly not absurd as similarities can be drawn in both groups levels of fanaticism and willingness to outright lie. But, as noted in an earlier posting, you’re responding to the particular analogy being used and not the the issue it raised. To wit: “partially” joining an activist group doesn’t fly.
Jay: If you voted for Kerry in 2004 Sean, does it say anything about you associating with such ’scum’?
First, I don’t think Kerry is scum so the whole premise you try to twist into your “stopped beating your wife” question is wrong. Second, I didn’t vote for him so your point (assuming you have one) is lost.
Jay: Why not? If using the ACLU as an example, couldn’t a person disagree with them filing lawsuits on behalf of Neo-Nazi’s marching in Skokie, IL but agree with them on most other issues?
The base, central theme of all the ACLU’s actions is defense of the Bill of Rights. So to agree they should defend the rights of one group but not another is kinda against their central tenet. So, yeah, I would say if you want to defend the rights of, say, the Jewish Federation to march but not the rights of Neo-Nazi’s then teh ACLU isn’t the group you should join. Join instead some group that just defends the rights of Jews and not of everyone.
First, I don’t think Kerry is scum so the whole premise you try to twist into your “stopped beating your wife” question is wrong. Second, I didn’t vote for him so your point (assuming you have one) is lost.
Fair enough. You’re right. I’ll ask differently. Don’t you find it rather hypocritical of those to get all hot under the collar about what some vets said about Kerry when apparently not caring about what Kerry said in testimony before Congress?
It’s something I could never understand really. The fury by which people sought to defend Kerry and lash out at the Swift Boat Vets for what they were saying was nothing I had seen in some time. Yet, for all of that caterwauling, their ammunition (for lack of a better word) was largely limited to what the Swift Boat guys said about Kerry while actually in Vietnam. Their criticism of his post-war activities was spot on. And I’m sick and tired of Media Matters playing Kerry lapdog, spinning that his testimony before Congress was him “… simply relating the personal experiences of other Vietnam veterans who had come forward and told their stories.” You mean tell their LIES. The whole thing has been discredited as largely false propaganda delivered by phony veterans who either never served in combat in Vietnam or puffed up their accounts to achieve their stated political goals. MM also gives Kerry an out by saying that he wasn’t blaming the troops, but rather their leaders. More nonsense. Kerry told his batch of hearsay lies to members of Congress and it was repeated across the airwaves on radio and on television. It gave him a platform to launch his political career. What he did is just as bad as if any of those frauds had testified on their own.
Yet many of the very same people who angrily denounced the Swift Boat Vets, happily backed Kerry. He has never apologized for what he did. He still tries to cover his ass these days, saying that what he told Congress was independently corroborated when it hasn’t been.
But people are supposed to get worked up because Bud Day appeared in one ad?
Jay, did you ever take a look at the Toledo Blade’s series on the Tiger Force?
Just curious.
I did serve in the military and participated in the first Gulf War. You can’t pull the chickenhawk crap with me.
And I call BS on the claim that military personnel who would’ve finished their active duty commitment by 2006 (if they were already through basic training and specific job training by the beginning of 2003 to already be in Iraq before the war) would still be fighting in the middle of 2008 non-voluntarily. That’s not the way stop-loss or call backs work. (I was stuck several months past the end of my enlistment because I was already deployed, so I know how these programs work.)
Your friends were not and are not being forced to fight against their will two years past their original enlistment. Either you are misunderstanding their situation or they are not giving you the full story.
JWG,
I can email from friends and ask for clarification but I know this for sure — they WERE in Iraq in 2003 and now they are in Afghanistan in 2008 and they don’t want to be there. They are a married couple. They met on duty in Iraq and after they came back to America they got married and bought a house. The husband got a job in Washington. Then they were called to Afghanistan. You’re correct that it’s bullshit, but it’s not a lie.
Oh and by the by… the wife voted Obama (she volunteered the information and I didn’t ask who her husband voted for).
Does it bother anyone else that he is using the Medal of Honor for political purposes? I’m not a military man, so I’m probably wrong on this, but is it appropriate for someone to wear it in a commercial like this? He’s not wearing his dress uniform for a reason, and I would suspect the medal falls under the same code… but correct me if I am wrong here.
Does it bother anyone else that he is using the Medal of Honor for political purposes?
His medal. He can wear it when he wants.
Yes, we shouldn’t discuss war crimes and atrocities when our fellow citizens commit them. We should pretend they didn’t happen. Hey, at least we’re not as bad as Saddam!
Can I be an honorary Republican now?
All this mealy-mouthed quibbling about whether Day was actually a member of “Swift Boat Veterans” or whatever. He voluntarily put his mug on their commercial. To say that that doesn’t implicate him in their bogus agenda is the Platonic ideal of chickenshit.
His medal. He can wear it when he wants.
It’s against the rules to be political in uniform, correct? So why would the ultimate recognition of uniformed service be exempt from this? I also thought that retired vets shouldn’t wear their medals except for Memorial Day, Veterans’ Day, Armed Services Day, and certain special occasions. Like I said, I’m not a military guy, but that’s what I thought were the rules of propriety. Seeing someone trot out the Medal of Honor to bash John Kerry is troubling to me.
Well, we certainly shouldn’t lie about them or use the lies of others and promote them. That’s what Kerry did and that can’t be disputed.
Can I be an honorary Republican now?
Well, OK.
But only an honorary one because you’re…um…that is…you’re, uh…you probably would feel kinda out of….um….because you’re, um, you know, not, uh…white.
Seeing someone trot out the Medal of Honor to bash John Kerry is troubling to me.
Symbolism is powerful, but it’s still symbolism.
Well, we certainly shouldn’t lie about them or use the lies of others and promote them. That’s what Kerry did and that can’t be disputed.
It can’t? Who lied?
Military personnel who are no longer on active duty can wear medals on civilian clothing. There is no official prohibition.
If you’re not familiar with the false soldiers and tall tales of the Winter Soldiers that embarrassed Kerry back in 1971 and 1972, then I’m not surprised by your support of his testimony. Of course there were atrocities in Vietnam. But they were not as common or authorized as Kerry stated based on the false reports he gathered from others without even verifying their claims.
Fair enough. You’re right. I’ll ask differently. Don’t you find it rather hypocritical of those to get all hot under the collar about what some vets said about Kerry when apparently not caring about what Kerry said in testimony before Congress?
No.
Well, we certainly shouldn’t lie about them or use the lies of others and promote them. That’s what Kerry did and that can’t be disputed.
I dispute it.
Military personnel who are no longer on active duty can wear medals on civilian clothing. There is no official prohibition.
From what I’m reading of the rules, that is simply not the case. I’m only looking at the Army manual 670-1, and so the other armed services may be different, but wearing medals on days other than Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Armed Services Day seem clearly improper. There does appear to be a Medal of Honor exception, but it seems to indicate it follows the same rules as wearing your uniform… i.e. no politics.
Back in 1971, when Commander Codpiece was playng hookie from his Guard duty in Alabama and Darth Cheney was pursuing his “other priorities”, a 20-something combat veteran of Vietnam named John Kerry had the guts to go before the U.S. Senate and repeat what his brothers-in-arms had told him about their experiences in-country. In doing so he was laying his career and his future on the line to combat what he and his comrades viewed as an unjust and mismanaged war.
-Was everthing that Kerry was told by his brethren literally true? Proabably not.
-Did Kerry have any reason at the time to doubt what his comrades had told him? Not as far as anyone has proven.
-Were atrocities and abuses of the sort that Kerry talked about actually committed? Absolutely.
-Did Kerry lay the blame for these abuses on his fellow soldiers, rather than those in command? Absolutely not.
-Did Kerry implicate specific soldiers in specific atrocities and abuses? Absolutely not.
This last point distingishes Kerry from his despicable present-day persecutors. Even if he wasn’t a Swift-Boater plain and simple, Colonel Day jumped on the Swiftboat bandwagon in an attempt to destroy a particular veteran: John Kerry.
Back in 2004, when he wasn’t running for president, John McCain knew that was bullshit. Now, he seems to have forgotten what bullshit smells like. That tells you all you need to know about John McCain.
Yes, we shouldn’t discuss war crimes and atrocities when our fellow citizens commit them.
Apples. Oranges.
John Kerry wasn’t talking in generalities. He was repeating specific allegations and accusations and citing them to Congress and the country as factual when he had no idea whether or not those specific charges were true – and they weren’t. Trying to make it seem like Kerry was merely engaging in a ‘discussion’ is pretty freaking lame.
Kerry was one of the commanders. He commanded a swiftboat. If what you mean by “those in command” is the leaders who were not on the scene, then why would it be more honorable to blame them than those who actually committed the acts?
Because that would have required actual facts. He didn’t have any of those. Just stories made up by a bunch of guys looking for attention and pretending they were in Vietnam.
A particular veteran whose words were used against Day in the POW camp while he was being tortured to admit he was just the type of soldier talked about by Kerry.
Do you really think McCain views Day’s actions as BS? Then you’re an idiot. McCain would pick Day’s honor over Kerry’s any day of the week.
Would either Jay or JWG like to provide a link or two backing up their claims that Kerry lied and that the Winter Soldier testimony has been largely discredited?
Which would not apply to civilians.
“Which would not apply to civilians.”
Except when they try to use their military service for their own political ends. In such cases it seems to very much apply. In fact, it has specific rules. Maybe you should read it, instead of spouting off like a fool? Just a suggestion.
And:
I’m not fooling around here. I really only have a passing acquaintance with the facts on this. Help me out guys–educate me. Which specific charges turned out to be false?
Sure, if you’ll provide a link or two showing where an investigative body found it “largely” credible that the accusations were “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis”.
Here’s a place for you to start: investigate the man sitting to Kerry’s right in this photo. His name is Al Hubbard.
I was being polite to you since you seemed to be sincerely interested and admitted that you didn’t have military experience.
But now I’ll just be blunt. I have read it. I lived it. Maybe you should learn a little bit more about the military before you look at one piece of text off the internet and start calling other people fools when they tell you it only applies to military personnel.
At this point I’ll ignore you. Please feel free to continue wasting your time trying to show Bud Day somehow broke military regulations as a civilian. After all, what would he know about the military and its decorations?
Sure, if you’ll provide a link or two showing where an investigative body found it “largely” credible that the accusations were “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis”.
I’m not making that claim, JWG. Seriously, I want to know what Kerry said that was false. What does Al Hubbard have to do with that?
OK. Al Hubbard in Wikipedia:
Now will you tell me which claims were false?
Look it up Fafaroo.
http://www.google.com
Nobody is denying that war crimes took place in Vietnam, committed by US soldiers. But these incidents were isolated and not part of overall policy. The exception. Not the rule. I know more than dozen men personally who served in Nam, some of which did two tours. None of them saw anything on the scale that Kerry claimed. Let’s remember what he specifically said it was “…not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
He also said that the United States engaged “in the use of free-fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners – accepted policy in many units in South Vietnam.
Kerry lied and in doing so besmirched the reputations of any number of veterans, both troops and their superiors.
This last point distingishes Kerry
Oh please. It’s a convenient excuse for you to defend Kerry.
Seriously, do your own reading. I have spent far too much time pointing out facts that I have been reading about since the 70s (my dad served three tours in Vietnam and I was desperate to know what he endured) to a bunch of leftists who have proven time and again they have little regard for military honor. It’s late and I don’t care if you go to your grave believing Kerry’s actions were truthful or not. Those you really served know the Winter Soldiers were liars, and the true soldiers have told their stories over and over. Go out and read them.
Let me know if you come across any investigative organization that verified any of the Winter Soldiers’ stories.
I see. You say they’re false, so they’re false. Maybe Jay’s got something.
Or not. I see Jay has posted as well and doesn’t have a link either.
I guess I’ll just have to take you fellas at your word.
JWG, apparently your pappy didn’t teach you any rules of propriety. Learn them. I came here admitting my ignorance, but there are people like JWG and “Quaker in a Basenent” whose only experience with the military is their parents or their wet dreams… yet they claim to be experts! The joke they make of themselves is pretty good, I must admit.
is growing up as an Army brat living all over the world and then serving myself. Laugh away because everyone else is laughing at you.
Yes. I gave you a name to start with. He was a VVAW leader and organized the Winter Soldiers. He turned out to be a liar about his service. He didn’t serve in Vietnam. The lies began at the top. There are plenty of books and articles that discuss other individuals.
I’ve given one name of a proven liar. How many names of proven accusers have been posted so far? Zero.
I don’t want you to take me at my word. I want you to go out and read. Let us all know whose stories turned out to be true.
there are people like JWG and “Quaker in a Basenent” whose only experience with the military is their parents or their wet dreams… yet they claim to be experts!
Howzat?!?
LOL, an Army Brat who can’t read the rules… you are a parody.
don’t want you to take me at my word. I want you to go out and read.
Hey, you’re the one who wrote:
You’re saying specific charges weren’t true. Sounds like you know something. I’m just asking which charges weren’t true. Al Hubbard said he was a Captain and he wasn’t.
Is that it?
OK, so I went and found the text of Kerry’s testimony, here.
Most of it’s not even about atrocities. The part that seems to get everybody riled is this:
Is it false that these things happened? Or is it only false that it was “accepted policy by many units”?
Also, I can’t tell if his list here came from the Winter Soldier Investigation, or from some other place. Earlier, at the beginning of his statement, he lists some gruesome events, but clearly labels them as testimony.
Is that what has been discredited?
1) Gosh, people deployed overseas would prefer to be home — there’s a shock!
2) This is the middle of 2008. They must’ve joined or reenlisted AFTER the war in both countries started. Did they not understand there were two combat operations going on when they joined the military?
Why do you hate the troops? Oh that’s right, it’s because you’re an ultra con.
I did serve in the military and participated in the first Gulf War. You can’t pull the chickenhawk crap with me.
I have no way of verifying that one way or the other. Unless you’re going to start begging me for cash like Frankie.
Bud Day spent five years as a POW in Vietnam and while he was still a POW, John Kerry DID accuse veterans of terrible war crimes by giving hearsay information to Congress and then later admitted he never actually witnessed any of it.
O RLY
Look it up Fafaroo.
http://www.google.com
Translation: I’m too lazy to look up evidence to back up my own argument, so you do it for me. Well, I won’t, so you have nothing.
I guess I’ll just have to take you fellas at your word.
When you assume that an ultra con is lying, you’ll rarely be disappointed.
“Look it up Fafaroo.”
Classic. I’m sorry, Jay, but why is anyone supposed to take you — or JWG — seriously? You seem to have a major chip on your shoulder about not having to back your shit up. As for JWG, well, he’s just too tired because he’s up past his bedtime and grumble, grumble damn hippies, or something …
I suppose now we can expect you to fly down yet another rabbit hole shrieking about “proving negatives” and “logical fallacies” or whatever you pull out of your latin dictionary, all because someone dared to ask you to provide evidence for your claims.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen two people go from macho military tough guys to whiny ass babies so fast.
Just amuse myself I googled Al Hubard.
Here’s a link I found: http://www.qando.net/archives/002160.htm
What’s interesting about this link is that it makes all the same claims that Jay and JWG make in just the same manner: Assertions of falsehoods and deceptions with out any actual evidence. Each assertion of falsehood is claimed to be supported by another assertion without evidence. To wit:
To reveal the depth of dishonesty present, Al Hubbard, one of the founders of the VVAW and its Executive Secretary, claimed to be an Air Force pilot, wounded in Viet Nam. In fact, Hubbard was never an officer, never wounded and never in Viet Nam. VVAW members Elton Mazione, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz and Kenneth Van Lesser all claimed to have been a part of the Phoenix program in Viet Nam where they routinely killed children and removed body parts as a part of their duty. They were shown to have never been in the Phoenix program nor had they ever been in Viet Nam. And the list of more frauds later found within the organization is mind-boggling.
No where in this post is evidence ever given to back up these assertions. None whatsoever. It’s all third person “They were shown to have …” without citation.
Where the author does give citations, they largely come from one source, which paraphrases another source. The first source being BG Burkett, a noted liar himself: http://mediamatters.org/items/200408300005
Burkett himself quotes Guenter Lewy, in America in Vietnam, about the military’s investigation into the Winter Soldier claims:
“The results of this investigation, carried out by the Naval Investigative Service are interesting and revealing,” said historian Guenter Lewy in his book America in Vietnam. “Many of the veterans, although assured that they would not be questioned atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorizes.
One black Marine who testified at Winter Soldier did agree to talk with the investigators. Although he had claimed during the hearing that Vietnam was “one huge atrocity” and a “racist plot,” he could provide no details of any actual crimes. Lewy said the question of atrocities had not occurred to the Marine until he left Vietnam. His testimony had been substantially “assisted” by a member of the Nation of Islam.
“But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit,” Lewy wrote, “One of them had never been to Detroit in his life.” Fake “witnesses” had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans.
Lewy pointed out that incidents similar to those described at the Winter Soldier hearings did occur. “Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations,” Lewy wrote. Those responsible were tired and punished.
And where exactly are the results of this military investigation? From Wikipedia:
Government officials today have no record of any such Naval Investigative Service report, although they suggest that it could have been lost or destroyed.[15] Lewy later said that he could not recall if he had actually seen the alleged report or simply been told of its contents.[16]
So when you finally drill down to the source, you get yet another unsubstantiated third party claim.
Now do either Jay or JWG want to refute any of this or provide actual, substantiated evidence of their claims? By the confidence of your assertions, I would expect you’d have some pretty solid evidence to back them up. So where is it?
The lies, distortion and hypocrisy you get from the right on this issue are even more disgusting than their usual lies, distortion and hypocrisy.
When Wes Clark makes the innocuous and absolutely accurate statement that getting shot down and being a POW don’t qualify one to be president, he is, according to our friends on the right, engaged in scurrilous character assassination. “How dare Clark denigrate McCain’s service record,” they howl. Yet dragging Kerry and all who testified at the Winter Soldier hearing through the filth, calling them liars, fabricators, traitors, that’s perfectly all right. Ironically, what motivated many of the Winter Soldiers to testify was seeing their fellow soldiers – guys like William Calley – take the fall for war crimes while the higher-ups who blind-eyed or even encouraged such actions got off scot free. They were defending, not attacking, the men they served with.
Were some of those who testified at WSI fraudulent? Perhaps, though you will look long and hard for actual evidence of that, and contemporary investigations by journalists and even the Nixon dirty tricks squad proved that the vast majority were, in fact, combat veterans whose testimony has never been falsified (note: Hubbard was one of the organizers, not a testifier).
Where our right-wing friends are coming from is this: reactionary right-wing neocon genocide-denying historian Guenter Lewy published a book making several vague allegations against the WSI and those who testified in it. For evidence Lewy pointed to the report from a military investigation which, when other people looked for it, proved not to exist. When asked about it Lewy laughably claimed that he couldn’t remember if he’d actually seen the report or just heard about it from someone else. In other words, typical right-wing standards of scholarship.
But let’s go ahead and suppose that some, even many, of the WSI accounts were bogus. Our right wing friends would have us believe that young Lt. Kerry acted despicably by not launching a full investigation into every claim made by his brothers-in-arms before speaking up about them. Yet the pundits, the politicians and the poseurs who stood by, legitimized and profited from the swift-boat pukes, guys like George Bush, Bud Day and now, to his utter shame, John McCain – they can’t be held responsible if the swift boat smear turns out to be an utter fraud?
And when you get right down to it, there’s no reason to believe that the vast majority of the WSI testimony was perfectly accurate. From factcheck.org:
…there’s no question that events such as Kerry described did happen, as [right-wing asshole] Lewy himself stated:
Lewy: Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated.
Some atrocities by US forces have been documented beyond question. Kerry’s 1971 testimony came less than one month after Army Lt. William Calley had been convicted in a highly publicized military trial of the murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai hamlet on March 16 1968, when upwards of 300 unarmed men, women and children were killed by the inexperienced soldiers of the Americal Division’s Charley Company.
And since Kerry testified, ample evidence of other atrocities has come to light:
*
Son Thang: In 1998, for example, Marine Corps veteran Gary D. Solis published the book Son Thang: An American War Crime describing the court-martial of four US Marines for the apparently unprovoked killing 16 women and children on the night of February 19, 1970 in a hamlet about 20 miles south of Danang. The four Marines testified that they were under orders by their patrol leader to shoot the villagers. A young Oliver North appeared as a character witness and helped acquit the leader of all charges, but three were convicted.
*
Tiger Force: The Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize this year for a series published in October, 2003 reporting that atrocities were committed by an elite US Army “Tiger Force” unit that the Blade said killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage in 1967. “Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed – their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings,” the Blade reported. “Investigators concluded that 18 soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. But no one was charged.”
*
“Hundreds” of others: In December 2003 The New York Times quoted Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University who has been studying government archives, as saying the records are filled with accounts of atrocities similar to those described by the Toledo Blade series. “I stumbled across the incidents The Blade reported,” Turse was quoted as saying. “I read through that case a year, year and a half ago, and it really didn’t stand out. There was nothing that made it stand out from anything else. That’s the scary thing. It was just one of hundreds.”
*
“Exact Same Stories”: Keith Nolan, author of 10 published books on Vietnam, says he’s heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Nolan told FactCheck.org that since 1978 he’s interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. “I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over,” he said. “Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn’t really surprise anyone.”
I see — so no one can provide any evidence that any of the Winter Soldiers were providing accurate stories. That’s because there are none. They refused to give details that investigators asked for — why do you think they refused? Wilbur provides examples of other claims that were investigated and provided convictions. You just want to believe the Winter Soldiers because Kerry claimed that these things happened daily.
You are a bunch of sick bastards.
You seem to have a major chip on your shoulder about not having to back your shit up.
Sorry, but don’t blame me for your laziness. I didn’t make some outrageous claim. It’s like asking me for evidence that the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth. It’s pretty common knowledge. A cursory search on the subject will reveal a lot of info.
And Wilbur, your copy and paste skills are great, but none of this verifies Kerry’s claims. Once again, nobody is denying that such atrocities took place. But there were 2.5 million men that served in Vietnam and Kerry throws a blanket over all of them by claiming these acts were widespread and common practice. It’s a smear on the grandest of scale. And claiming that he wasn’t blaming the individual soldiers, but their superiors is a chickenshit cop-out. The “We were only following orders” nonsense didn’t work for the Nazis. If US soldiers were engaged in war crimes on the scale Kerry testified to, then they deserve the blame as well. But since Kerry was making stuff up, we don’t have to worry about that.
Army investigators determined that 46 of the WSI stories told would qualify as war crimes. They opened case files for each one. The result? Three of them could not be identified. Of the other 43 cases: 25 individuals making the allegations “refused to provide factual data,” 13 more provided information to investigators that “did not support the allegations,” and the final 5 could not be located.
When you make an assertion, you are required to back it up. You two provided nothing, and instead challenged us to prove you wrong. That’s not how it works here in the reality-based world, children. You’ve been told this time and time again. So next time you two whine that no one takes you seriously and that CSS calls you names now you know why.
“Sorry, but don’t blame me for your laziness.”
ROFLMAO. Oh, the irony. Jay, this may be the laziest excuse for not having to back up one’s own claim that I have ever read. C’mon man. You’re not even trying.
Nevermind proving that Kerry lied, Jay. You just handed us all the evidence we need that you’re a complete clown.
They refused to give details that investigators asked for — why do you think they refused?
Um, to avoid incriminating themselves and their comrades before an army investigation whose good faith they had reason to mistrust?
Does that mean they were telling the truth in their testimony? No, but it doesn’t mean they weren’t either. Given the long list of verified similar incidents chances are pretty good that quite a bit of it was true.
But there were 2.5 million men that served in Vietnam and Kerry throws a blanket over all of them by claiming these acts were widespread and common practice.
Recently declassified pentagon documents show that army investigators substantiated at least 300 instances of torture, abuse, massacre, etc. between 1967 and 71. Here’s the source
That of course is only the number of substantiated cases, contained in a portion of the files that were (briefly) declassified. There were also certainly substantiated incidents in files that the researchers didn’t see, incidents that actually happened but couldn’t be substantiated to the investigators’ standards, and incidents that actually happened that were never reported. Anybody involved such incidents risked self-incrimination in blowing the whistle, and the LA times article I link to above documents the fact that on at least some occasions army investigators sought to discredit and punish witnesses who spoke up (another reason why the WSI might not have wanted to talk to army investigators). Add it all up and Kerry’s “day-to-day basis” doesn’t look like much of an exaggeration.
Had Kerry, and the WSI investigation been aiming to convict either the soldiers involved or their superiors in a court of law, of course higher standards of specificity and proof would be required for their allegations. But that was not their aim. Their aim was to end the war by raising public consciousness of what was actually going on over there. Neither you, Jay, nor anyone else has provided any evidence that Kerry was “making stuff up” or seriously distorting reality in the process.
So please, stop denigrating the service and the integrity of our combat veterans for cheap and cynical political advantage.
I see — so no one can provide any evidence that any of the Winter Soldiers were providing accurate stories.
I, for one, haven’t claimed they did.
JWG, you wrote a statement. I’m asking for more information. If you don’t have any more information, that’s fine.
“They refused to give details that investigators asked for — why do you think they refused?”
Ok. This is ridiculous. JWG, you are now making yet another claim again without providing any evidence. Jay then makes the same claim without providing any evidence. No link, no nothing. This isn’t a matter of me disbelieving you guys because I think Kerry or any of the Winter Soldier’s are paragon’s of virtue. This is a matter of you not providing any evidence for any of your claims, evidence that Jay says is readily available and easy to access. If you guys believe this shit so strongly, why aren’t you bothering to prove your claims?
Jay asserts that the Army investigated the Winter Soldier’s stories. I can only assume that this is the investigation that JWG is talking about as well. Jay even gives numbers and puts quotes around facts. So where’s your source for this information, Jay? Seriously, you can provide numbers and quotes but no links? Do you have this shit memorized?
Jay, all you have to do is provide a link to the results of this Army investigation. Is it on the internet? If not, could you cite your source for this information, at least? This isn’t hard stuff, guys. It’s basic argumentation: Make a claim, provide evidence to support it.
When Elightened Liberal refers to you both as children he’d dead on. Only a child would argue the way you guys are.
You just want to believe the Winter Soldiers because Kerry claimed that these things happened daily.
No, I’m asking about something you wrote!! Do you have more information or not?
Wilbur hits the nail on the head.
A google search for “Al Hubbard Winter Soldiers” pulls up this link:
http://www.qando.net/archives/002160.htm
On reading the entry you find it to be a classic of right wing logic. Take for instance this claim and its “supporting evidence”:
This too is a complete and utter lie. For instance, to pretend that torturing or killing prisoners was an “accepted policy in many units in South Vietnam” is to DISHONOR those who served in Vietnam because it requires one to then believe that gross human rights violations were encouraged by the chain-of-command and therefore committed “routinely”,as a matter of policy, by our soldiers.
So in the mind of the Right, something is automatically false if it dishonors the military? That’s what counts for evidence on the Right?
Through out the post, the author makes the same claims in the same manner as JWG and Jay. No actual evidence is provided to support the claims, just reference to a book by B.G. Burkett who quotes another book by Lewy. Burkett, of course, is a major player in the Swift Boat gang and a liar himself: http://mediamatters.org/items/200408300005
Follow all the references at hat post, however, down the rabbit hole and you come to Lewy’s claim that the Army’s investigation of the Winter Soldiers claims was met by a coordinated campaign of silence and actual proof that many of the soldiers lied. But where are the result of this Army Investigation? Here’s wikipedia on Levy:
Government officials today have no record of any such Naval Investigative Service report, although they suggest that it could have been lost or destroyed.[15] Lewy later said that he could not recall if he had actually seen the alleged report or simply been told of its contents.
That assertion is backed up by reference to a Media Matter storyhttp://mediamatters.org/items/200409130003:
But Naval Criminal Investigative Service public affairs specialist Paul O’Donnell told (registration required) the Chicago Tribune: “We have not been able to confirm the existence of this report, but it’s also possible that such records could have been destroyed or misplaced.” And Lewy himself admitted to The Baltimore Sun that “he does not recall if he saw a copy of the naval investigative report or was briefed on its contents.” Apart from Lewy’s allegations, a search by MMFA turned up no other reports of evidence that any Winter Soldier witness was an impostor.
So the government officials can’t actual confirm the existence of this investigation and Lewy can only provide a third hand account of it.
Okay. So I did some research and I call bullshit. JWG or Jay, would you care to retort with some counter evidence?
Or do you just want to take your ball(s) and go home?
Hey EL, I’m playing the rules of the game here in the OW Comments Section. I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count how many times I have asked people to prove their assertions only to be told shit like, “Prove otherwise” or “Go look it up.” Why should the rules be any different for me?
Seeing the lame defense of Kerry shows me why. He repeats dubious, outrageous and false claims and then you claim he’s right because it was proven that some atrocities were committed amongst the 2.5 million men that served in Vietnam over a 10 year period. Once again, nobody is denying that such incidents took place. The problem is, Kerry reported that it was accepted policy and that these acts were committed day to day as part of normal combat operations. Steve Pitkin, one of the guys at the WSI signed an affidavit claiming he never saw such atrocities and said he was pressured by Kerry and others there to say that he had seen them.
Of course, when Kerry was running for President he said that the word atrocities is a “bad word” and “inappropriate” when called on his use of it when describing his own actions. Of course, he could provide no evidence that he was ordered to commit such atrocities either. But I guess we should just accept that as fact as well since it was documented that there were such acts committed over a period of 10 years.
I see — so no one can provide any evidence that any of the Winter Soldiers were providing accurate stories.
Well, I did, but I don’t blame you for not noticing, since my comments are awaiting moderation. I’ll give you the Cliff’s Notes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_soldiers
Sorry, but don’t blame me for your laziness.
I explained this to Frankie, and now I’ll explain it to you. When you ask the other side to get evidence backing up your arguement, don’t act surprised when what they return with is a bit lacking.
I didn’t make some outrageous claim.
Yes you did.
I didn’t make some outrageous claim. It’s like asking me for evidence that the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth
Well, considering that we’re still talking about you, I would still ask for cites.
It’s pretty common knowledge. A cursory search on the subject will reveal a lot of info.
Yeah, when the top hits are Michelle Malkin, National Review, and American Thinker, that tends to set off a few red flags.
And Wilbur, your copy and paste skills are great, but none of this verifies Kerry’s claims.
And none of your links debunks them. Fancy that.
Once again, nobody is denying that such atrocities took place.
Except you.
Fafaroo, you can find a link to the army investigation documents on the Winter Soldier claims at the anti-Winter-Soldier site http://www.wintersoldier.com. The site is heavily biased, and it’s interpretation of the documents is not to be relied upon uncritically, but it is a convenient place to find the actual texts.
Jay’s summary of the findings is, I believe, numerically correct or near enough, but if you read the documents you find that many participants expressed their reasons for cooperating fully, or at all, with the investigation (in the words of one – because the army would end up punishing the peons not the masters). For Jay and JWG to imply that it is because they were all lying is nothing but pure, disgraceful smear.
sorry that should have been “reasons for NOT cooperating fully, or at all”
Full circle, folks:
He repeats dubious, outrageous and false claims
Which claims were false, Jay?
Sorry Wilbur, but the “I’m afraid of retribution” excuse doesn’t cut it. You can’t make such accusations, claim it was the higher ups that ordered such things to happen, but then say “No way” when asked to cooperate in a criminal investigations for crimes they committed and/or claimed they witnessed. It’s not a smear to accuse them of lying as a result. The accusations they made were a means to an end and they don’t get the benefit of the doubt simply because they were anti-war. There’s no honor refusing to do what is legally and morally obligatory when one is a witness (or a part of) to a serious crime.
To date, it has never been verified that Kerry’s 1971 claim that atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam were “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” If it was so common, and Kerry’s claims so easy to verify, why did not one Senate or House committee hold public hearings or investigate?
Such nonsense was allowed to stand unchallenged and paved the way for frauds like Jesse MacBeth and Scott Thomas Beauchamp to make similar accusations and automatically have their words taken as truth only to see it slowly unfold as nothing but lies.
He repeats dubious, outrageous and false claims
I’ll leave “dubious” alone, since one definition of dubious is “subject to doubt” which I think all claims should be. But can you back up the statement that any of Kerry’s claims in his senate testimony were a) outrageous and/or b) false? I notice you haven’t done so in any of the blustery logorrhea you’ve dumped on us so far.
some atrocities were committed amongst the 2.5 million men that served in Vietnam over a 10 year period
I don’t know if I’d use the word “some” for the number 320, but that’s just me. What about you, Jay? How many atrocities do there have to be before you’d agree there are too many. Remember also, the number 320 is bound to be just the tip of the iceberg. Oh, and the documents pertain to a four-year period, not a ten-year period.
Steve Pitkin, one of the guys at the WSI signed an affidavit claiming he never saw such atrocities
And subsequently Steve Pitkin had to admit that he was a liar. Anyone who cites him as if we can believe anything he says is either a ignorant or a liar themselves. I’m pulling for ‘ignorant’ for you, Jay, I really am.
To date, it has never been verified that Kerry’s 1971 claim that atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam were “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
OK, that sounds like a reasonable statement to me. But it’s also very different from saying his statements were “dubious, outrageous, and false.”
“Not proven” isn’t at all the same thing as “proven false.”
The question here seems to be where lies the burden of proof. In a civilian criminal court, it would appear that the burden of proof would lie with Sen. Kerry and his supporters. One does not go to prison simply because they are accused of a crime – i.e. it must be proven to have happened, not that it didn’t happen. I’m not familiar enough with the military to know whether its standard would be any different.
From AR 670-1 paragraph 30-6:
COL Day’s clothing in the commercial would be defined as “appropriate”.
This seems to be the comment that has driven people to fits. It’s not referring to being only able to wear awards and decorations on Veteran’s Day, etc. It is referring to the uniforms which organizations like the American Legion and VFW will wear for their functions.
There is no miniature version of the Medal of Honor. Although there is a lapel pin which is authorized.
COL Day wore the medal as prescribed in AR670-1 and AR 600-8-22. There is nothing in the Army regulation which would prohibit his wearing of his medals in that situation. However, COL Day was in the USAF. So let’s take a look at AFI 36-2903. The AFI is a little more broad than the Army regulation. AFI 36-2903 4.4 says
I suppose one could argue whether this is an “appropriate occasion”. However, According to Table 6.1 Rule 20B retired AF personnel are authorized to wear their uniform
So, according to AF regulations he would be authorized to wear his uniform and its associated decorations for this occasion. So it would seem that the AFI does allow COL Day to wear his Medal of Honor for this. Or at least doesn’t expressly forbid it.
I think he showers with it on.
The question here seems to be where lies the burden of proof. In a civilian criminal court, it would appear that the burden of proof would lie with Sen. Kerry and his supporters. One does not go to prison simply because they are accused of a crime – i.e. it must be proven to have happened, not that it didn’t happen. I’m not familiar enough with the military to know whether its standard would be any different.
True. However, no one went to jail over the Winter Soldiers testimonies, so that’s really a moot point. JWG, AO, and Jay are saying that Kerry explicitly lied. In that regard, the burden of proof is on them.
But can you back up the statement that any of Kerry’s claims in his senate testimony were a) outrageous and/or b) false? I notice you haven’t done so in any of the blustery logorrhea you’ve dumped on us so far.
Oh cmon Wilbur. You provided the link to the very site yourself.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=WSI_CID
Read the PDF’s. One after another states:
insufficient evidence
unfounded
unsubstantiated
Number 19 is the only one of the ones listed that was substantiated. And this is what Kerry took to Congress and to the public at large? Using these unfounded accusations to tar troops and officers with accusations that such horrible things were done routinely and with approval? Give me a break.
What about you, Jay? How many atrocities do there have to be before you’d agree there are too many.
I’d say one is too many. The problem is, you keep missing the overall point and that is John Kerry smeared troops and their superiors by claiming such atrocities were committed on a day to day basis and approved at the highest levels of our government and military.He accused the US of murdering 200,000 Vietnamese “per year” during the question and answer portion of his Senate testimony.
I just find it astounding that can actually defend what he did.
“Not proven” isn’t at all the same thing as “proven false.”
Oh I get it. So anybody can just get on national television and tell the most outrageous stories imaginable and as long as such stories cannot be proven false, they’re to be accepted as truth?
So anybody can just get on national television and tell the most outrageous stories imaginable and as long as such stories cannot be proven false, they’re to be accepted as truth?
Goalposts.
You said the statements are false. You said the testimony has been discredited. After much prodding, you finally change your tune and say the statements haven’t been proven true. That’s not the same as proven false.
That’s the end of the line for me. If you want to argue that Mr. Kerry should not have made statements to Congress with only the testimony of other soldiers to back him up, go for it. I won’t debate that point.
Offered without additional comment:
You said the statements are false. You said the testimony has been discredited. After much prodding, you finally change your tune and say the statements haven’t been proven true. That’s not the same as proven false.
I didn’t “change my tune.” If the charges cannot be shown to be true, then until such time they are, they’re false. The fact that their allegations were investigated and found to be “unsubstantiated”, “unfounded” and lacking “sufficient evidence” shows them to be discredited. Nothing has to be ‘proven’ false.
“Hey EL, I’m playing the rules of the game here in the OW Comments Section.”
The childishness continues.
I didn’t “change my tune.” If the charges cannot be shown to be true, then until such time they are, they’re false.
Very well, Jay. “Proven false” means exactly the same thing as “not proven true.” (Your experience may differ in a rational world.)
As I said, this is the end of the line for me. If you want to argue that Mr. Kerry should not have made any statement to Congress when he had only the word of other soldiers to back him up, I won’t debate that opinion.
The fact that their allegations were investigated and found to be “unsubstantiated”, “unfounded” and lacking “sufficient evidence” shows them to be discredited. Nothing has to be ‘proven’ false.
This is breakthrough logic, Jay. You should write a paper.
“Hey EL, I’m playing the rules of the game here in the OW Comments Section.”
Oh so we’re back to the, “I learned it from watching you” routine. That’s funny.
This is breakthrough logic, Jay. You should write a paper.
Quaker, I heard that Enlightened Liberal likes to get dressed up in ladies underwear and get spanked with a wooden spoon by Fafaroo.
Now, prove it to be false.
Prove it false? Why? By your very own logic, if they can’t be shown to be true, they’re automatically false.
Now do I get to say “Jay lied”?
No Quaker, YOUR logic says that just because it cannot be proven to be true, doesn’t make it false.
Now do I get to say “Jay lied”?
Oh didn’t lie. I am just repeating what I had been told.
No Quaker, YOUR logic says that just because it cannot be proven to be true, doesn’t make it false.
Are you fucking blind? YOU’RE the one who said:
It’s funny…that you keep accusing me of seeing things in black and white, and that’s just absurd. I say that…statement is wrong and immediately people ask ,”Oh so you’re saying __________??” claiming that if [the statement] is wrong, then the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he said must be what I am saying. That’s just dumb.
Can you stop burning American flags for 5 seconds and actually READ the posts?
YOUR logic says that just because it cannot be proven to be true, doesn’t make it false.
Well, that would be correct. You can’t prove it’s true. That doesn’t mean it has been proven false.
You, on the other hand, wrote this:
And this:
To which I reply, it hasn’t been proven true, so Jay lied.
EL, faf, what have you boys been up to?
Well, not on a day to day basis. So obviously J’s lying.
Zython, Quaker is quoting from elsewhere and it’s not the same thing. I’m not delving into that nonsense again and I’m not going to spend the next hour or so arguing semantics about proving things false vs. proving things true. So we’re going to make this easier. If you guys can answer these questions, then I will recant everything I have said about Kerry.
1. What evidence is there to prove John Kerry’s statement, that such atrocities were “…not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
2. What evidence is there to prove John Kerry’s statement that the United States was killing 200,000 Vietnamese a year?
3. Name the WSI claims that have been verified.
John Kerry repeated claims and made accusations of the WORST KIND. He wasn’t accusing people of spitting on the sidewalk. You don’t get to make accusations like that and get a pass on being called a damned liar if those accusations don’t have merit. The mealy-mouth, “Oh just because the stories could not be verified, doesn’t mean Kerry was lying” excuse is PATHETIC.
“I’m not going to spend the next hour or so arguing semantics about proving things false vs. proving things true.”
Hilarious.
And subsequently Steve Pitkin had to admit that he was a liar. Anyone who cites him as if we can believe anything he says is either a ignorant or a liar themselves.
Oh so because he lied previously, then we can’t believe him now. Is that it?
I wonder if your lofty standards apply to say…..David Brock?
The mealy-mouth, “Oh just because the stories could not be verified, doesn’t mean Kerry was lying” excuse is PATHETIC.
Don’t you remember what Ferris said? No lie has EVER been documented.
Zython, Quaker is quoting from elsewhere and it’s not the same thing.
Translation: My arbitrary standards only apply when they benefit me.
So far, after over 100 comments, you haven’t even provided documentation on what Kerry even said. I don’t even have proof he even said what you said he said. I’m not assuming Kerry was telling the truth, I’m assuming you’re lying.
If you guys can answer these questions, then I will recant everything I have said about Kerry.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. I’m not asking you to recant anything Jay. For about the ninth time, let me recap. You wrote this:
And this:
And this:
But when I ask: “Jay, what are you basing your statements on?” I get a three-day runaround, ending in the fantastic logical invention that “not proven true” is equal to “false.”
As for your questions above:
1. I know of no such evidence. But then, I’m not claiming Mr. Kerry’s statement has been proven.
2. I know of no such evidence. But then, I’m not claiming Mr. Kerry’s statement has been proven.
3. To my knowledge, only “number 19″ has been substantiated, but I only know that because you told me earlier in this thread.
Now follow closely:
None of this means Mr. Kerry’s statements have been proven false. Are you basing your “Kerry lied,” writings on anything else?
EL, faf, what have you boys been up to?
And can others join in?
I’m assuming you’re lying.
Well I assume you’re a jackass.
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html
Jay: 2. What evidence is there to prove John Kerry’s statement that the United States was killing 200,000 Vietnamese a year?
Someone has collected info from various sources on the number killed in various conflicts. Totals North Vietnam for the Second Indochina War (1960-75) vary from 440,000 to 1.1 million. Or, on average, about 29,000 to 73,000 per year.
Also, 223,000 per Casualties – US vs NVA/VC.
Wikipedia notes the North Vietnamese government also puts the total casualty figure for the entire conflict at the 1.1 million mark.
While these figures don’t rule out a couple years of the US killing 200,000 Vietnamese, it would require that level of death in a very concentrated time period which seems exceedingly unlikely.
Note: This took me all of 3 minutes to find. A better use of time, perhaps, than hours spent playing “you find it”, “no, you find it”.
Posted without links while th linked version sits in moderation queue:
Jay: 2. What evidence is there to prove John Kerry’s statement that the United States was killing 200,000 Vietnamese a year?
Someone has collected info from various sources on the number killed in various conflicts. Totals North Vietnam for the [link]Second Indochina War (1960-75)[/link] vary from 440,000 to 1.1 million. Or, on average, about 29,000 to 73,000 per year.
Also, 223,000 per [link]Casualties – US vs NVA/VC[/link].
Wikipedia notes the North Vietnamese government also puts the total casualty figure for the entire conflict at the 1.1 million mark.
While these figures don’t rule out a couple years of the US killing 200,000 Vietnamese, it would require that level of death in a very concentrated time period which seems exceedingly unlikely.
Note: This took me all of 3 minutes to find. A better use of time, perhaps, than hours spent playing “you find it”, “no, you find it”.
Without comment:
“Oh so because he lied previously, then we can’t believe him now. Is that it? I wonder if your lofty standards apply to say…..David Brock?”
ROFL. Jay, between your admission that you’re just “following the herd” in not providing evidence for your claims and this little wonder above, you’re really not doing much for your reputation, such as it is.
Here’s a link to a series of LA Times articles on declassified investigations into war crimes in Vietnam. Here’s one graph from one of the articles:
The men of B Company were in a dangerous state of mind. They had lost five men in a firefight the day before. The morning of Feb. 8, 1968, brought unwelcome orders to resume their sweep of the countryside, a green patchwork of rice paddies along Vietnam’s central coast.
They met no resistance as they entered a nondescript settlement in Quang Nam province. So Jamie Henry, a 20-year-old medic, set his rifle down in a hut, unfastened his bandoliers and lighted a cigarette.
Just then, the voice of a lieutenant crackled across the radio. He reported that he had rounded up 19 civilians, and wanted to know what to do with them. Henry later recalled the company commander’s response:
Kill anything that moves.
And this:
In early 1973, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Creighton Abrams received some bad news from the service’s chief of criminal investigations.
An internal inquiry had confirmed an officer’s widely publicized charge that members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade had tortured detainees in Vietnam.
But there was a silver lining: Investigators had also compiled a 53-page catalog of alleged discrepancies in retired Lt. Col. Anthony B. Herbert’s public accounts of his war experiences.
“This package … provides sufficient material to impeach this man’s credibility; should this need arise, I volunteer for the task,” wrote Col. Henry H. Tufts, commander of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division.
Now, declassified records show that while the Army was working energetically to discredit Herbert, military investigators were uncovering torture and mistreatment that went well beyond what he had described.
In one reported instance a commander in the field clearly gives the order to commit what amounts to a war crime and in another we have the Army of Chief of Staff actively trying to discredit an officer for reporting war crimes.
The central source of your rage seems to be that Kerry has dishonored Vietnam veterans by lying about what went on. The more I read, the more I am convinced that Kerry’s version is closer to the truth than yours. Does that mean that all US soldiers in Vietnam are war criminals? No. But the evidence suggests that something had goen horrible wrong in the strategy and chain of command during the war and that the highest levels of the military were complicit in turning a blind eye and actively seeking to cover it up.
Here’s the link to the LA Times articles:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnam20aug20-sg,0,7940522.storygallery
“Translation: My arbitrary standards only apply when they benefit me.”
That pretty much sums of Jay’s rhetorical strategy at every turn, no matter the subject.
Oh so because he lied previously, then we can’t believe him now. Is that it?
If he were in a court of law, then yes.
Steve Pitkin, one of the guys at the WSI signed an affidavit claiming he never saw such atrocities and said he was pressured by Kerry and others there to say that he had seen them.
An affidavit? Actually Mr. Pitkin signed two, one on August 31, 2004 and another on September 15, 2004.
In the first, he identified VVAW leader Scott Camil as the person who recruited him into the group and who traveled with Pitkin and Kerry to Detroit for the WSI.
Camil filed an affidavit in Florida on September 11, 2004 denying that he had recruited Pitkin or traveled with Pitkin and Kerry.
Pitkin filed the second affidavit four days later.
Steve Swett at WinterSoldier.com wrote up Pitkin’s first affidavit on September 8 and appended an update on September 15 noting that references to Scott Camil had been removed because Pitkin had “recently seen film footage of Camil” and realized he had given the wrong name. He makes no mention of Camil’s contrary affidavit.
Interestingly, another story about Pitkin was filed on the same day as Swett’s story, this one by Jeff Gannon for Talon News.
It’s a Google!
Scott Swett. Steve Pitkin.
Remember the official conservative history of Vietnam, folks. Everything went well, no atrocities were committed, no young men were sacrificed, we were winning and if those meddling hippies had shut up we would have won.
Or something.
Wow. I just read all of these comments.
I don’t know if any of our right-wing friends here were alive, like I was, in 1971. They certainly don’t talk as if they were.
Again, in 1971, while George Bush was drinkin shots and tippin cattle and the rest of the right-wing chickenhawk clown brigade were doing whatever it is that chickenhawks do in wartime, John Kerry, a young combat veteran, went before the senate to speak about his own experience and that of hundreds of his fellow veterans. His purpose, and the purpose of the group he represented was not to get anyone convicted and sent to jail, but to influence public policy to end a war that they and a growing number of other patriotic Americans had come to see as a great and costly mistake.
Accordingly, Kerry named no names in his statement and mentioned no specific incidents, but simply summarized what the WSI had told him and what he himself had experienced and heard of in Vietnam. The specific incidents that the WSI participants had testified to were not confirmed by any independent investigation for the simple reason that they weren’t intended to be. Most of the WSI participant had no interest in seeing their testimony being used in a criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, there was plenty of evidence at the time, and more has emerged since, that things like the incidents they described did actually happen, frequently. Nobody has exact figures for how frequently and nobody ever will, but the idea that what Kerry and the WSI vets were talking about was significantly divorced from reality is simply not borne out by the facts.
So for all their efforts, the worst his right-wing critics can mangage (or hope to manage) to pin on Kerry is that he said “day-to-day” when he should have “commonly” or “frequently” (though if you look it up, you’ll find that “commonly” and “frequently” are possible meanings of the phrase “day-to-day”), or that he said “200,000″ when he should have said “many many thousands” (note to Sean D., though, the figures you cite are for N. Vietnam only, and don’t include S. Vietnam where most of the dying took place).
Yet in the rhetoric they toss out on this issue, these minor semantic quibbles become the basis for smearing Kerry as a despicable and traitorous liar.
Kerry gave that testimony in 1971. It was in the U.S. Senate, not in some obscure publication or smoky back-room meeting. Despite his “lying” and “traitorous” remarks being in plain view in the public record, nobody but the most bitter and reactionary diehards thought his remarks were beyond the pale in the context of the times, and Kerry went on to have a successful career in elected public service.
It was only 30 years later, after a new generation had grown up and the context had been forgotten that his opponents dragged his statement out, excerpted it, distorted it, Rovified it and used it to brand Kerry as unfit for higher office. Some people were duped by the smear and undoubtedly changed their votes because of it. It is with pride in my fellow Americans that I say that not everybody was duped and that Kerry — that lying, backstabbing traitor — managed to come within two percentage points of unseating an incumbent president in time of war.
While Kerry was undergoing this smear, President Bush remained silent and washed his hands of the issue, showing once again beyond any reasonable doubt that he is the most small-minded individual ever to occupy the august residence at 1600. In contrast John McCain, combat veteran, former POW, one of the very people that Kerry was supposed to have stabbed in the back the most treacherously, spoke out against it. I really had a lot of respect for McCain when he did that, but now that he wants to be president, there’s McCain calling on the very people that bushwhacked Kerry’s record and character to defend his own record and character against imaginary attacks.
What this shows about McCain, particularly the extent to which his ambition trumps his integrity, is the real story here in 2008.
Jesus Christ that was well said, Wilbur.
TFJ >>>> Wilbur!
Thank you for the thoughtfully composed comments. Would that more did so.
One note:
Wilbur: note to Sean D., though, the figures you cite are for N. Vietnam only, and don’t include S. Vietnam where most of the dying took place
I was mentioning figures only for North Vietnamese because I was responding specifically to the comment about how many Vietnamese the US had killed. And (supposedly) the North Vietnamese are who we were aiming at.
If you check the links I gave, you’ll see the numbers for South Vietnamese vary from 181,000 to 650,000, lower numbers than those given for the North.
Sean,
Many of the Viet Cong were from the south. I don’t know where they might fit into your numbers.
The Viet Cong (other wise known as the NLF) was in fact a southern-based organization. That border didn’t really exist in the minds of most Vietnamese anyhow, aside from the scant supporters of the anti-Buddhist Catholic Prime Minister.
One hell of a complicated mess, that was. Interesting part in the book ‘We Were Soldiers,’ where one of the guys sees a dead Chinese soldier and gets told by his superior that under no circumstances is he to mention the man to anyone. Reason being, of course, that it credibly might have precipitated WWIII.
And Wilbur – Magnificent post sir.
“So we can expect Oliver to put to bed forever his idiotic, bullshit “Media for McCain” meme, right? ”
Just as soon as the right decides to drop the “idiotic, bullshit” “liberal media” meme in light of Fox News, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, the National Review, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter…
So to put it another way, it’s not idiotic and bullshit if it’s true. And Oliver’s assertion is a lot more valid than the right’s.
Sean, I believe Kerry was referring to all Vietnamese killed, North and South, civilian, military and everywhere in between. I’d be the first to admit I don’t know where Kerry got that particular figure, probably out of his ass. But I think his broader point – that the effect of US withdrawal would not necessarily have been a lot worse for the Vietnamese than our continuing presence — was still an arguable one.
Thanks for the kind words, all.
Wilbur’s post may have been well written, but it’s still off the mark and citing that you actually lived during that period is a variation of the, “I was actually around then so you don’t know what you’re talking about” fallacy that generation often whips out because the time was just “different” and you “just don’t understand what it was like.” Believe me. My parents have tugged on that one for as long as I can remember. In addition, McCain did not speak out against the criticism of Kerry’s Senate testimony, but rather the attacks on Kerry’s actual service during the Vietnam war. There’s a difference (in fact, that’s what started this entire discussion. Bud Day’s issue with Kerry revolves around his Senate testimony, but it’s ok to smear Day and call him ’scum’).
This whole notion that Kerry did what he did just to get a story told is a bunch of crap. He trotted out these stories that nobody had confirmed and went on national television and made accusations that such actions were a common occurrence. Wilbur, you can try all you want to minimize what he said, but the fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of men that served in Vietnam did so honorably and the overwhelming majority of the officers did so as well. Kerry’s testimony would have us believe that what he said happened was the rule, not the exception. “Day to day”, “common” or “frequently.” All three are bullshit. It doesn’t matter which one he used. How can anybody here defend that? Would it be fair for me to characterize the entire population of the neighborhood of Bed-Stuy Brooklyn as drug dealers and criminals simply because some of the residents there are drug dealers and criminals? He did it in a day when there was no Internet. There were no blogs. No 24 hour news cycle. His testimony was the leading story on the major networks that evening and was seen by millions. And who would doubt him? This wasn’t some long haired hippy with a peace sign dangling around his neck. This was a decorated war veteran. He must be telling the truth! He attempted to portray his testimony as a spontaneous endeavor, when the fact of the matter is, it was crafted by Adam Walinsky, a Bobby Kennedy speech writer who also coached Kerry on his delivery. After a failed run for a Congressional seat, this was the one thing he could use to launch his political career (the phony medal tossing was a nice touch). And it worked.
Trotting out several examples of atrocities committed and saying, “You see! This proves it!” is a pathetic joke. Because once again, nobody is denying that atrocities occurred. They did as I am sure they also did in Korea, World War II and World War I as well as the Civil War and Revolutionary War. But Kerry said such atrocities were carried out commonly and that such actions were part and parcel of US policy and that my friends, was a BALD FACED LIE.
What’s worse is that Kerry continues to this day to claim the WSI was valid when it turned out to be nothing but fraud. He knows those stories haven’t been verified and he admits that many of them have been completely discredited, yet he stands by it instead of apologizing for it. This notion that the men in question who made these accusations didn’t have an interest in seeing their testimony used in criminal investigation is absurd. They were accusing people of committing war crimes! You don’t make these accusations and then clam up when you’re told to prove your claims are true.
In addition, Kerry wants to have it both ways. He runs around telling everybody how ‘proud’ he was of his service in the war, but if you want to believe that his Senate testimony was accurate, then he’s also an admitted war criminal. After all, if such atrocities were so common then surely he and the people commanded engaged in such activities. Wait. Kerry admitted that he did commit such acts. That’s something to be proud of? Of course, now ee says the words “atrocities” and “war criminals” are ‘inappropriate’ now and that some of the language he used was “over the top”, but he says he stands by what he said. Huh?
The bottom line is this: Kerry essentially said in his testimony that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course and that it was American policy to commit such atrocities. That was a lie.
Remember the official conservative history of Vietnam, folks. Everything went well, no atrocities were committed, no young men were sacrificed, we were winning and if those meddling hippies had shut up we would have won.
Oh well we also have the liberal history of Vietnam folks. Everything went horribly, everybody was committing atrocities, everybody who died was drafted, we lost and if it wasn’t for the baby-killing ‘establishment’, we never would have been there.
Or something.
Geez, give it up already.
“The bottom line is this: Kerry essentially said in his testimony that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course and that it was American policy to commit such atrocities. That was a lie.”
Now we have j the mindreader.
Now we have j the mindreader.
Actually, that’s what he said. Not what was in his mind.
Jeez….
Another interpretation of the 200,000 figure – I don’t have the estimates for 1971 (the year Kerry used the figure), but Wikipedia’s total estimate (via a Vietnam war documentary called ‘Heart of Darkness’) of Vietnamese killed (that is, North soldiers plus South civilians) divided by the sixteen years of the war comes out to 172,312 per year. If one adds in America’s ARVN South Vietnamese military allies, the figure is 186,084.
All killed by American bullets and bombs? Of course not. But on the average, somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 Vietnamese did die every year of the American presence there, in a country where it could be credibly argued we had no business being. I don’t feel that excuses the ‘murdered’ syntax but it seems plausible that it was an ill-advised and misunderstood rhetorical flourish, sort of like ‘you can get stuck in Iraq.’
*And ‘Prime Minister’ should have been ‘President’ earlier.*
…time was just “different” and you “just don’t understand what it was like.” Believe me. My parents have tugged on that one for as long as I can remember.
Yes, I’m sure they do have to remind you of that frequently (maybe even day-to-day)
the fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of men that served in Vietnam did so honorably
Never said otherwise, nor did Kerry.
“Day to day”, “common” or “frequently.” All three are bullshit.
Repeating this won’t make it true. We’ve provided you with plenty of evidence that these things occurred, not occasionally, not rarely, but hundreds and hundreds of times at the very least. How many incidents would you need before you allows us to use words like “frequently” without characterizing us as traitors and liars?
Would it be fair for me to characterize the entire population of the neighborhood of Bed-Stuy Brooklyn as drug dealers and criminals simply because some of the residents there are drug dealers and criminals?
No, but it would be fair for you to say (if it’s true- I don’t know), that drug crimes and other attendant nastinesses are part of the day-to-day reality of the people there, and it wouldn’t denigrate all inhabitants – or even, really, those specific ones you’re talking about — to say that some people felt compelled by the difficult situation they lived in to commit crimes themselves. That young men the age of vietnam soldiers, for instance, would feel that their only refuge from powerlessness is to gang up, with all the antisocial rites of passage and exclusion that that entails.
That would be more analogous to what Kerry was saying, and the vast majority of people at the time, I think, realized that he was not attempting to denigrate the troops. Because the thing you’re missing, Jay, is that Kerry and the WSI vets were not tattling on others like schoolboy squeals, they were saying this is what we are doing, and this is what the comrades that we love are doing.
The other thing you’re missing is that there is no simple hard and fast line between what is acceptable wartime behavior and what is an “atrocity” or “war crime” in this context. When you bring up the number of WSI stories that were investigated, what you fail to note is that the vast majority were never even looked into because they did not fit the army’s notion of what constituted illegal behavior. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t objectional and repugnant. Some things that we now considered beyond the pale, such as establishing free-fire zones in civilian population areas, were by many accounts either ordered, condoned, or both, by at least some levels of military command. Things like that are a large part of what Kerry was talking about: good people doing bad things because they felt they had to, or felt they were expected to, when, in the context of a useless and hopeless war there was no real reason for them to be put in that situation in the first place.
So you see, Jay, it was complicated. Life often is – that’s what you learn when you get to be an old fart like me. If you think, for instance, that Kerry couldn’t possibly be proud of his service but at the same time disturbed by some of the things his service entailed, then that shows me that you haven’t yet developed the capacity to understand just how complicated life, and people can be, and it’s that sort of capacity that you need to understand what was going on back then, not to mention what’s going on today.
So listen to your parents. You could probably learn a thing or two from them, and chances are they’re pretty nice old fogeys if you give ‘em half a chance.
Bud Day’s issue with Kerry revolves around his Senate testimony, but it’s ok to smear Day and call him ’scum’).
How do the charges of Kerry self-inflicting his wounds enter into his Senate testimony? I seem to remember hearing that in 2004, but I don’t think he shot himself in front of Congress.
Hold on to yer hats, folks. Here we go again:
Nothing but fraud? Jay, what the hell? “Nothing but fraud?”
What could possibly explain such irrational behavior? Here’s a thought: maybe he believes the testimony! Ya think?
At the same time, congratulations on your improved usage, “stories that nobody had confirmed,” over more inflammatory constructions. See? It’s not so hard.
ever said otherwise, nor did Kerry.
When Kerry paints with such a broad brush about troops committing atrocities, he most certainly did say they were dishonorable.
We’ve provided you with plenty of evidence that these things occurred, not occasionally, not rarely, but hundreds and hundreds of times at the very least. How many incidents would you need before you allows us to use words like “frequently” without characterizing us as traitors and liars?
First of all, you haven’t provided evidence of hundreds and hundreds of these incidents. You’ve provided some and only as if I have been saying “There were no atrocities in Vietnam!” (kind of like Oliver’s silly comment) which I have not been. I have disputed that such actions occurred on such a widespread level that Kerry said they occurred and that such actions were accepted policy by military and government leadership.
Because the thing you’re missing, Jay, is that Kerry and the WSI vets were not tattling on others like schoolboy squeals, they were saying this is what we are doing, and this is what the comrades that we love are doing.
And that’s where Kerry was wrong. If he wanted so speak for himself, fine. If he wanted to speak for those particular men and nobody else, fine. But he decided that his little speech was going to throw a blanket over our entire government and military from the top down, speaking for all of them and making proclamations he could not back up with any evidence. And Kerry now says that he gave that information to the Fulbright committee because he had hoped it would be investigated. So that doesn’t go with what you said before.
If you think, for instance, that Kerry couldn’t possibly be proud of his service but at the same time disturbed by some of the things his service entailed, then that shows me that you haven’t yet developed the capacity to understand just how complicated life, and people can be, and it’s that sort of capacity that you need to understand what was going on back then, not to mention what’s going on today.
It’s not a matter of being ‘disturbed.’ Kerry wanted it both ways and that’s why I believe he’s a such a fake. If he truly meant what he said in that Senate testimony, he wouldn’t have had to say 30 years later that the words he used were “inappropriate” or “over the top.” You either stand by what you said and did or you don’t. You don’t implicate yourself as a war criminal, talk about your disgust for an unjust and immoral war that we had no business being involved in, but then try to ride the coattails of that service all the way to the White House 30 years after the fact.
So Kerry was one of many veterans of Vietnam that became convinced the war was a bad idea. There’s no issue with that. Problem is, he he had no business making the statements he made about his fellow soldiers. His words were used against his fellow soldiers still in Vietnam and his words were used against them when they returned. And he did it in part, to launch his political career and that’s just disgraceful. He made it worse by never apologizing for what he said nor setting the record straight.
Nice job, Jay. You made your case very well.
he most certainly did say they were dishonorable.
No, he didn’t. Your turn. You could win this argument by pointing to a single instance in his testimony when Kerry said that any of the troops were dishonorable, but we already know you can’t do that.
First of all, you haven’t provided evidence of hundreds and hundreds of these incidents
Yes, we have. Just for starters check out the source I link up above at 9:56 am 7/8/08. That documents (with the army’s own documentation) over 300 verified incidents. That by itself is “hundreds and hundreds”, and if this is the number fully verified by a reluctant military over part of the period of American involvemnt, are you seriously going to maintain that the actual total was not in all probability much, much higher?
There’s more I could say, but I figure if you can’t acknowledge, or at least respond to this basic fact, there’s not much hope of rational discourse from you.
Quaker’s right, you have a rare gift for expressing yourself, Jay. Here’s hoping you put it to good use someday.
“First of all, you haven’t provided evidence of hundreds and hundreds of these incidents.”
You obviously haven’t read the LA Times articles linked to above. The series of articles are based on the declassified findings of Vietnam War Crimes Working Group, on file at the National Archives in College Park, Md. The collection includes 241 case summaries that chronicle more than 300 substantiated atrocities by U.S. forces and 500 unconfirmed allegations.
From the articles:
The files are part of a once-secret archive, assembled by a Pentagon task force in the early 1970s, that shows that confirmed atrocities by U.S. forces in Vietnam were more extensive than was previously known.
The documents detail 320 alleged incidents that were substantiated by Army investigators — not including the most notorious U.S. atrocity, the 1968 My Lai massacre.
Though not a complete accounting of Vietnam war crimes, the archive is the largest such collection to surface to date. About 9,000 pages, it includes investigative files, sworn statements by witnesses and status reports for top military brass.
The records describe recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese — families in their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing. Hundreds of soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders, described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with impunity.
Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.
Among the substantiated cases in the archive:
• Seven massacres from 1967 through 1971 in which at least 137 civilians died.
• Seventy-eight other attacks on noncombatants in which at least 57 were killed, 56 wounded and 15 sexually assaulted.
• One hundred forty-one instances in which U.S. soldiers tortured civilian detainees or prisoners of war with fists, sticks, bats, water or electric shock.
Investigators determined that evidence against 203 soldiers accused of harming Vietnamese civilians or prisoners was strong enough to warrant formal charges. These “founded” cases were referred to the soldiers’ superiors for action.
Ultimately, 57 of them were court-martialed and just 23 convicted, the records show.
Fourteen received prison sentences ranging from six months to 20 years, but most won significant reductions on appeal. The stiffest sentence went to a military intelligence interrogator convicted of committing indecent acts on a 13-year-old girl in an interrogation hut in 1967.
* Vietnam: War Crimes
* Verified Civilian Slayings
* About this report
He served seven months of a 20-year term, the records show.
Many substantiated cases were closed with a letter of reprimand, a fine or, in more than half the cases, no action at all.
You’ll note that the Times found that these hundreds of reported incidents were limited to “a violent minority” but that they occurred through out the military. Officers and military investigators were themselves are reported to have been involved in the acts or in subsequent attempts, respectively, to undermine the credibility of soldiers who came forward (see cited portion above).
In this Senate testimony, Kerry clearly opens his remarks by noting that he is speaking on behalf of 150 soldiers and what they testified to. To suggest that war crimes and other criminal acts of violence were wide spread and regular is, based on the reports described by the LA Times, not a stretch in the least, neither is it a blanket condemnation of the military or every soldier in Vietnam.
If you think Kerry was dishonoring every American soldier who served in Vietnam by testifying about these acts, you’ve got it all wrong. It is, in fact, the soldiers and officers, whether they were in the minority or not, who committed, ordered or overlooked these acts who did the dishonoring. Your “shoot the messenger” mentality is short sighted to say the least.
Thanks for arguing this topic, everyone. I read the wikipedia entry and now have much more respect than I had for Senator Kerry previously. (But he still voted to authorize President Bush’s reprise of Vietnam.)
I’m old enough to remember the Vietnam War era. My late husband tried desperately to avoid the draft (as did nearly everyone else), and the more he talked to friends returning from Vietnam, the harder he worked at it. But they would never share the horrors with women. Just bits like “The ROKs, you wouldn’t believe what the ROKs did.” And facial tics they didn’t used to have. A truly horrible time.
You could win this argument by pointing to a single instance in his testimony when Kerry said that any of the troops were dishonorable, but we already know you can’t do that.
Wilbur, we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. His blanket accusations certainly are a de facto proclamation that he and his fellow soldiers acted dishonorably. As I said earlier, the “just following orders” routine didn’t work for the Nazis, Kerry can’t say now that he was just trying to get all of this out in the open. Again, if he chose to speak for only himself and the men from the WSI, fine. But that is not what he did.
His exact words:
“…but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
“…the use of free-fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners – accepted policy in many units in South Vietnam.”
By doing that, he was not just repeating “…what his brothers-in-arms had told him about their experiences in-country” as you said earlier or “…speaking on behalf of 150 soldiers and what they testified to” like Fafaroo says above. He was handing down a blanket indictment and in the process implicating millions of good men in crimes the majority of them did not take part in, commit, or approve of.
But as I said earlier, we’re not going to agree so there’s no point in continuing to beat the horse as we’ve made more than enough glue already.
“As I said earlier, the ‘just following orders’ routine didn’t work for the Nazis, Kerry can’t say now that he was just trying to get all of this out in the open.”
First of all, this doesn’t even make sense. One rationale has nothing to do with the other. There’s no comparison. It’s certainly reasonable for Kerry to say that the point of the WSI was to get these events out in the open, not to see convictions, but in order to hasten the end of the war. If you really read his senate testimony, Kerry was not condemning the troops, he was condemning war. War can make people do things they wouldn’t normally do and things in Vietnam have been allowed to get out of hand.
He was handing down a blanket indictment and in the process implicating millions of good men in crimes the majority of them did not take part in, commit, or approve of.
Let me ask you, Jay, is the following statement a condemnation of millions of good men:
The records describe recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese — families in their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing. Hundreds of soldiers described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with impunity.
Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.
He was handing down a blanket indictment and in the process implicating millions of good men in crimes the majority of them did not take part in, commit, or approve of.
Here’s another thing I don’t understand about what you’re saying, Jay. Where in Kerry’s remarks does he ever say _every_ soldier engaged in such activities? The part about “…accepted policy in many units…” implies pretty clearly that he thought there were at least some units, perhaps even most, where this was not accepted policy.
He was talking about a problem that was widespread and systemic, but he was most definitely not issuing a blanket condemnation of every soldier.
But as I said earlier, we’re not going to agree so there’s no point in continuing to beat the horse as we’ve made more than enough glue already.
I don’t know, Jay, it seems to me we’ve pretty effectively refuted just about every argument you’ve made here, and you can’t seem to do much about it but repeat the same baseless assertions over and over. Call it beating the horse if you want, but just remember: Your allegations against Kerry have not been proven. Therefore by the standards you promulgate above, they are false and discredited, and you are a liar for repeating them. Please think about that next time you feel like denigrating someone’s reputation and character.
Where in Kerry’s remarks does he ever say _every_ soldier engaged in such activities?
Probably in the same area where I said that no atrocities were committed in Vietnam.
I don’t know, Jay, it seems to me we’ve pretty effectively refuted just about every argument you’ve made here,
No, actually you haven’t done that at all.
Did Kerry base his testimony on stories that
A. Have never been proven
B. Were told by phonies who weren’t in the military
C. Were told by men that never served in Vietnam
Answer? Yes
Did John Kerry say that fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam and that it was American policy to commit such atrocities?
Answer? Yes
Did Kerry have any evidence to support this allegation?
Answer? No.
What the hell have you refuted???
Your allegations against Kerry have not been proven.
Sure they have. You choose not to believe it. That’s not problem. It is yours.
Please think about that next time you feel like denigrating someone’s reputation and character.
It’s hard to do that to a person who has no character or integrity and that is John Kerry.
Good night.
Probably in the same area where I said that no atrocities were committed in Vietnam.
Lame, Jay. Apart perhaps from one post where Oliver was clearly engaging in a bit sarcastic exaggeration, no one here has accused you of that, whereas you have condemned Kerry repeatedly.
Did Kerry base his testimony on stories that
A. Have never been proven
B. Were told by phonies who weren’t in the military
C. Were told by men that never served in Vietnam
A. All but a few of them have never been disproven either, and hundreds and hundreds of similar incidents have been verified, rendering the question somewhat moot.
B & C.: One of the organizers (not the testifiers) admitted to lying about serving in Vietnam. Subsequently a number of veterans signed affidavits saying that they weren’t actually at the WSI meeting in Detroit. That implies that some of the people there used false identities, but as we see in the case of your friend Pitkin, just because someone signs an affidavit doesn’t mean it’s true. On balance, it’s possible that some of the testifiers were fraudulent, but there’s no evidence that a large number of them were. The identities of the testifiers were investigated _at the time_ by both hostile (Nixon whitehouse) and supposedly neutral journalistic investigations, and no fraud was uncovered. This suggests that the vast majority of participants were actual vietnam vets.
So Jay, you have made blanket accusations of the WSI vets, those accusations are not proven, therefore, by your own standards, discredited, and you are, by your own standards, a liar and a scoundrel for repeating them.
Nice day’s work.