Swifty Ad #2 hits the waves......

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-20 10:07pm

John Kerry: “They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads. . .”

Joe Ponder: “The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating.”

John Kerry: “. . . randomly shot at civilians. . .”

Joe Ponder: “It hurt me more than any physical wounds I had.”

John Kerry: “. . . cut off limbs, blown up bodies. . .”

Ken Cordier: “That was part of the torture, was, uh, to sign a statement that you had committed war crimes.”

John Kerry: “. . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan. . .”

Paul Gallanti: “John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us.”

John Kerry: “. . . crimes committed on a day to day basis. . . ”

Ken Cordier: “He betrayed us in the past, how could we be loyal to him now?”

John Kerry: “. . . ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

Paul Gallanti: “He dishonored his country, and, uh, more, more importantly the people he served with. He just sold them out.”

Announcer : “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.”

*********************

Hah, and it shows John kerry's own anti war testimony! He's going to
be forced to spend money to defeat this; and the Bush Cheney
ads are just waiting.....

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2004-08-20 10:34pm

There is nothing wrong with the anti-war testamony considering the clusterfuck that pretends to be a war, but American stupidity would prove otherwise.

Policy don't win elections, character assination wins elections. (and people wonder why few votes and fewer trusts politicians)

Stolen post from another forum

Originally posted by GePap
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/polit ... ft.html?hp

Some important excerpts, as it is a big article:

[q]His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign.

How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans.[/q]

[q]The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Admiral Calls

It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry was wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a call at his Massachusetts home from his old commander in Vietnam, Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the new biography of the man who would be president.

Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the war from a base in Cam Ranh Bay and advocated a search-and-destroy campaign against the Vietcong - the kind of tactic Mr. Kerry criticized when he was a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971. Shortly after leaving the Navy in 1978, he was issued a letter of censure for exercising undue influence on cases in the military justice system.

Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr. Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders whose military approach had led to the deaths of countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" - the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw it, straight.

"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us into it," Mr. Lonsdale said.

Mr. Hoffmann's phone calls led them to Texas and to John E. O'Neill, who at one point commanded the same Swift boat in Vietnam, and whose mission against him dated to 1971, when he had been recruited by the Nixon administration to debate Mr. Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show."

Mr. O'Neill, who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry in numerous television appearances Thursday, had spent the 33 years since he debated Mr. Kerry building a successful law practice in Houston, intermingling with some of the state's most powerful Republicans and building an impressive client list. Among the companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard, the energy firm founded by the current lieutenant governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, a central player in the Texas redistricting plan that has positioned state Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall. [/q]

[q]Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the Reagan White House, where the president's aides had enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984. She says she is also a close friend of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a client of Mr. Rove's. Ms. Spaeth said in an interview that the one time she had ever spoken to Mr. Rove was when Ms. Hutchison was running for the Texas treasurer's office in 1990.

When asked if she had ever visited the White House during Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth initially said that she had been there only once, in 2002, when Kenneth Starr gave her a personal tour. But this week Ms. Spaeth acknowledged that she had spent an hour in the Old Executive Office Building, part of the White House complex, in the spring of 2003, giving Mr. Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen Friedman, public speaking advice. Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

"Is the White House directing this?" Ms. Spaeth said of the organization. "Absolutely not.''

Another participant is the political advertising agency that made the group's television commercial: Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, based in Alexandria, Va. The agency worked for Senator McCain in 2000 and for Mr. Bush's father in 1988, when it created the "tank" advertisement mocking Mr. Dukakis. A spokesman for the Swift boat veterans said the organization decided to hire the agency after a member saw one of its partners speaking on television.

About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas in April to share outrage and plot their campaign against Mr. Kerry, she and others said. Mr. Lonsdale, who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned as "an indoctrination session."

What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry began to harden.

"That was an awakening experience," Ms. Spaeth said. "Not just for me, but for many of them who had not heard each other's stories."

The group decided to hire a private investigator to investigate Mr. Brinkley's account of the war - to find "some neutral way of actually questioning people involved in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.

But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral to some.

Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.

"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life."

By May, the group had the money that Mr. O'Neill had collected as well as additional veterans rallied by Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hoffmann and others. The expanded group gathered in Washington to record the veterans' stories for a television commercial.

Each veteran's statement was written down as an affidavit and sent to him to sign and have notarized. But the validity of those affidavits soon came into question.

Mr. Elliott, who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver Star, had signed one affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was not forthright" in the statements that had led to the award. Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe quoted him as saying that he felt he should not have signed the affidavit. He then signed a second affidavit that reaffirmed his first, which the Swift Boat Veterans gave to reporters. Mr. Elliott has refused to speak publicly since then.[/q]

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

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

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

The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment.
[/q]

[q]The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat came under heavy fire from shore during a mission in February 1969. According to Navy records, he turned the boat to charge the Vietcong position. An enemy solider sprang from the shore about 10 feet in front of the boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the shore, chased the soldier behind a small hut and killed him, seizing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr. Kerry killed as a solitary wounded teenager "in a loincloth," who may or may not have been armed. They say the charge to the beach was planned the night before and, citing a report from one crew member on a different boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed about who would win which medals.

The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts.

"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."

According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a group of Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river when several mines detonated, disabling one boat and knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign.

But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's lying."

"If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added, "that's how it was."

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author.[/q]

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

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

As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the group has remained steadfast and adaptable.

This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

The group said it would introduce a new advertisement against Mr. Kerry on Friday. What drives the veterans, they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their affidavits and their television commercial focus mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to describe what happened in Vietnam when he returned and became an antiwar activist. And they are offended, they say, by the gall of his running for president as a hero of that war.

"I went to university and was called a baby killer and a murderer because of guys like Kerry and what he was saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the first advertisement, accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star. "Not once did I participate in the atrocities he said were happening."

As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry went home and lost the war for us.

"He called us rapers and killers and that's not true," he continued. "If he expects our loyalty, we should expect loyalty from him."
[/q]

I think Lonsdale's comments at the end are the most instructive about where these guys are coming from.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-20 11:02pm

Considering mounting evidence that the "Swift Boat Veterens For Truth" are a front for the Bush Administrations campaign, I doubt this is any more than campaigning to people who won't vote for Kerry anyway.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-08-20 11:24pm

Who the fuck cares anymore? I'm certainly not voting based on records of service in Vietnam.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-20 11:29pm

Axis Kast wrote:Who the fuck cares anymore? I'm certainly not voting based on records of service in Vietnam.

Ah, but crotchedy old people and veterans care.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-08-21 12:07am

Considering that they're taking Kerry out of fucking context, I am so not surprised. He's speaking of the Winter Soldiers Investigation, and referring particularly to the testimony of the men there, not every bob joe and jack in the US Army in fucking Vietnam. Morons.

(and I'll thank the knee-jerkers to not embarass themselves into being tempted to call the WSI a massive fraud, those accusations have absolutely no basis and are based on baiting-and-switching and outright misrepresentations)

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-21 11:49am

To paraphrase Jon Stewart ... "So they served with Kerry ... in the sense that Snoopy served with the Red Baron."

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-08-21 01:27pm

Durandal, who do you think Kerry's drinking buddies were? Officers in the same unit tend to get to know each other, and oh wait, they were in the same unit as Kerry, commanding Swift Boats right next to him.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-21 02:08pm

The only member of SBV who served with Kerry was Steve Gardner. Everyone else either served in Vietnam when Kerry wasn't there, or they weren't under the swift boats that Kerry commanded. They might have known Kerry, but they knew him 30 years ago. I was a different person 4 years ago.

SBV is basically a club of Vietnam vets who are still pissing and whining over Kerry's Senate testimony 30 years ago. They might as well rename themselves "People Whose Feelings John Kerry Hurt." They're full of shit, and you know it.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-08-21 10:17pm

GQ has an interesting article about Joe Darby, who blew the whistle about the rape and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Rather than being commended for his courage, he is in fact being vilified by fellow soldiers and residents of his home town. His family has been in hiding since they received a number of death threats (a favorite tactic of the Right).

When My Lai was exposed, the two men who were most vilified were Hugh Thompson (who landed his helicopter between Calley's men and the old ladies and children they were stalking, ordering his men to shoot the troops if they came any closer), and Ron Ridenhower, who informed Seymour Hersh of the New York Times about the men of the Americal Division who BRAGGED about the atrocities they committed. In Georgia, people held parades and fundraisers for Calley.

And don't get me started on Frank Serpico...

The Swift Boat Scumbags aren't upset because they believe Kerry was lying in front of Congress. They hate him because they know he told the truth. If anything, Kerry understated the atrocities committed in Vietnam. Just do a google search of "tiger force three".

The truth is to the far Right what garlic is to Dracula. Fuck 'em if it hurts their wittle feewings.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-08-21 10:36pm

Um, I haven't seen this ad, but if the OP's a verbatim transcript then what exactly is it trying to say? That Kerry spoke out against the war and they don't like it? So the fuck what? That the NVC made POWs admit to war crimes they didn't necessarily commit? That invalidates all of Kerry's accusations by default?

Swift Boat Veterans for Bitching is more like it.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-08-22 12:32am

What the Swift Boat Scumbags have done inadvertently is expose Numbnuts as a bald-faced liar again! Remember that Numbnuts sent his stooge McLellan out to say that Bush-Cheney had nothing to do with this ad?

One of the dickheads in this ad is Ken Cordier, who is head of Veterans For Bush/ Cheney '04 and until August 19, part of Bush's re-election team.

Cordier is a piece of ratshit who used a Veterans Day ceremony as a place to yuk it up over the torture of inmates at Abu Ghraib. He doesn't just delight in the mistreatment of foreign POWs. He accused American POWs who were given early release by the Vietnamese of being traitors and even ridiculed a veteran afflicted with polio.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

This is the kind of turd you can only find at the bottom of the cesspool.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-22 12:56am

Elfdart wrote:This is the kind of turd you can only find at the bottom of the cesspool.

Yes lets be fair.

Give me enough time and I can link you to the JFK assasination.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-08-22 01:16am

I see they're still flogging that bullshit that the ads that were *submitted* to moveon.org and didn't even make the top 10 were somehow made by moveon.org.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-22 01:25am

His family has been in hiding since they received a number of death threats (a favorite tactic of the Right).

My, we do like the libel, don't we? Please provide evidence that those right of center regularly make death threats to those who inconvenience them or recant.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-22 09:32am

Vympel wrote:Considering that they're taking Kerry out of fucking context, I am so not surprised. He's speaking of the Winter Soldiers Investigation, and referring particularly to the testimony of the men there, not every bob joe and jack in the US Army in fucking Vietnam. Morons.

John Kerry: I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It seems to me he is saying that the 150 that testified not only were testifying that they participated in war crimes, but that these crimes were committed on a "day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." He also states that these are not "isolated incidents," therefore, he is inferring that there were many more occurances.

How exactly can you read between the lines and pull out that he isn't referring to the entire operation in Vietnam?

[/i]

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-22 09:37am

Rogue 9 wrote:
His family has been in hiding since they received a number of death threats (a favorite tactic of the Right).
My, we do like the libel, don't we? Please provide evidence that those right of center regularly make death threats to those who inconvenience them or recant.

One word for you my friend, Abortion.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-22 09:41am

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
His family has been in hiding since they received a number of death threats (a favorite tactic of the Right).
My, we do like the libel, don't we? Please provide evidence that those right of center regularly make death threats to those who inconvenience them or recant.
One word for you my friend, Abortion.

Yes, I see your point, but those who bomb abortion clinics and such are radicals who are not accepted by the mainstream conservative demographic.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-08-22 09:42am

Talon Karrde wrote: It seems to me he is saying that the 150 that testified not only were testifying that they participated in war crimes, but that these crimes were committed on a "day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." He also states that these are not "isolated incidents," therefore, he is inferring that there were many more occurances.

How exactly can you read between the lines and pull out that he isn't referring to the entire operation in Vietnam?

How exactly can you pull out that he is? There's nothing in his statement to indicate that he accuses everyone of doing so- neither "day-to-day" basis or "full awareness of officers at all levels of command" implies that- frankly, anyone who seeks to argue that the officers didn't know what was going on is a fuckwit.

He's speaking specifically of the Winter Soldiers- at no point in his testimony does he cast a net around the entire US Army as is implied by the ad with the blanket statement:

"The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating."

This is not rocket science. He didn't make an accusation agaisnt "the veterans who served in Vietnam".

Atrocities happen- these fuckwits just don't like it being pointed out to them- well, tough shit to them.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-22 09:43am

Talon Karrde wrote:
One word for you my friend, Abortion.
Yes, I see your point, but those who bomb abortion clinics and such are radicals who are not accepted by the mainstream conservative demographic.

Yes, but they do show that when you go far enough right, death threats are a valid and oft used course. You will find moderates of every flavour are not known for their death threats.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-22 09:46am

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
One word for you my friend, Abortion.
Yes, I see your point, but those who bomb abortion clinics and such are radicals who are not accepted by the mainstream conservative demographic.
Yes, but they do show that when you go far enough right, death threats are a valid and oft used course. You will find moderates of every flavour are not known for their death threats.

lol, tis true.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-22 09:48am

Vympel wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote: It seems to me he is saying that the 150 that testified not only were testifying that they participated in war crimes, but that these crimes were committed on a "day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." He also states that these are not "isolated incidents," therefore, he is inferring that there were many more occurances.

How exactly can you read between the lines and pull out that he isn't referring to the entire operation in Vietnam?
How exactly can you pull out that he is? There's nothing in his statement to indicate that he accuses everyone of doing so- neither "day-to-day" basis or "full awareness of officers at all levels of command" implies that- frankly, anyone who seeks to argue that the officers didn't know what was going on is a fuckwit.

He's speaking specifically of the Winter Soldiers- at no point in his testimony does he cast a net around the entire US Army as is implied by the ad with the blanket statement:

"The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating."

This is not rocket science. He didn't make an accusation agaisnt "the veterans who served in Vietnam".

Atrocities happen- these fuckwits just don't like it being pointed out to them- well, tough shit to them.

Ok, I can see your points there, but what of my other point? He says these are "not isolated incidents." Therefore, wouldn't there be more of them?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-08-22 11:12am

Rogue 9 wrote:
His family has been in hiding since they received a number of death threats (a favorite tactic of the Right).
My, we do like the libel, don't we? Please provide evidence that those right of center regularly make death threats to those who inconvenience them or recant.

This is what happens when cretins throw around legal terms without knowing what the words mean. Libel means a written assertion that is demonstrably false. Death threats against those on the Left are nothing new -nor is acting on them. Ask Coretta Scott King. Or for a more recent example, ask Natalie Maines what kind of death threats she and her family got when she spoke out against Dubya. Ask Susan Sarandon. Ask Bill Clinton, who had three different well-publicized attempts on his life from ditto-heads. Ask him what he thought of attempts by right-wingers to incite his murder throughout his presidency. Ask them or any number of others.

Then go fuck yourself.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-08-22 11:22am

Talon Karrde wrote:Ok, I can see your points there, but what of my other point? He says these are "not isolated incidents." Therefore, wouldn't there be more of them?

How many people have to be massacred for you to consider atrocities "widespread"? A few hundred (like at My Lai)? A few thousand (as Tiger Force 3 of the 101st Airborne did)? What's the threshold of murder for you?

Given the fact that the Army only prosecuted Lt. Calley after the story broke in the press, that other well-known atrocities weren't prosecuted at all, and the well-documented cover-up of these atrocities could only happen if the top brass either wanted it that way or didn't give a shit, I think for someone to say atrocities were condoned by senior military and political leaders is fair and square.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-22 02:19pm

Elfdart wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
His family has been in hiding since they received a number of death threats (a favorite tactic of the Right).
My, we do like the libel, don't we? Please provide evidence that those right of center regularly make death threats to those who inconvenience them or recant.
This is what happens when cretins throw around legal terms without knowing what the words mean. Libel means a written assertion that is demonstrably false. Death threats against those on the Left are nothing new -nor is acting on them. Ask Coretta Scott King. Or for a more recent example, ask Natalie Maines what kind of death threats she and her family got when she spoke out against Dubya. Ask Susan Sarandon. Ask Bill Clinton, who had three different well-publicized attempts on his life from ditto-heads. Ask him what he thought of attempts by right-wingers to incite his murder throughout his presidency. Ask them or any number of others.

Then go fuck yourself.

I do know what libel means, you insufferable halfwit. You said that death threats are a favorite tactic of the Right. Nothing about extremists, no qualifiers, nothing. Just a blanket accusation accusing everyone right of center of liking to make death threats. This is demonstrably false; only a very tiny fraction of extremists in this country make death threats regularly as part of their political agenda, and fewer still carry them out. And if we want to get into how very left of center Communism is, we could start in on the left as well. The use of violence in support of a political agenda is not the exclusive characteristic of the right; it's a characteristic of extremists. Extremists of almost any cause, not just conservative politics. Your statement about the whole of the right is false and obviously meant as defamatory. Therefore it fits the definition of libel.