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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nothing but fraud? Jay, what the hell? “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.

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.

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.

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.

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.*

Actually, that’s what he said. Not what was in his mind.

Jeez….

“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.

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.

Thanks for the kind words, all.

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.

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.