Kerry's hypocrisy

If "he did more than speak out against the war," exactly what are you implying?
John Kerry earned the right to have an opinion of what happened as well as the right to speak out against the war.

 

He didn't earn the right to lie under oath by generalizing charges of war crimes and atrocities. Vietnam was an unconventional war. Even at that, it wasn't fought very intelligently due to the involvement of politicians in battefield strategy and even tactics.

Heroic POW's suffered unnecessarily due to his betrayal. His actions caused hatred and abuse towards returning soldiers. Some are simmering over his anti-war activities... and rightly so since he has vainly made his "heroism" central to his campaign for Prez.

BTW, I am beginning to think that this was a severe tactical mistake for the Kerry campaign. The Dem convention didn't define Kerry or his vision for the future. Now, he is being required to spend valuable time and resources defending his Vietnam claims.

The door stands wide open for the GOP to define Kerry by his political history... and that is most definitely his weakness. Less than 20% of the American public is as liberal as Kerry. I believe that this is in the minds of the Bush campaign also judging from their positioning of Zell Miller's speech at the convention... what could be more "moderate" than having a Dem give a main speech?

 

Just so everyone understands, every American has the right to speak out against any war, even while it's being fought.

This is not the Soviet Union.

 

Apparently not, according to some.......

 

Patrotism is always the last refuge of the scoundrel.

If a man wraps himself in the flag, you have very good reason to wonder what he's hiding under it.

 

Because he was right. He fought for America when he was in combat, and then again, when he fought to stop the war.

If there had been more like him, many good men would not have died for nothing.

If you can't tell that people like Bush and Fonda are different than Kerry, I don't know what could make any difference to you.

 

While I defend Kerry's right to free speech, I can also criticize how he uses it. I can criticize his character. I can criticize his values...whatever they may be. I can call attention to the fact that he is a liberal's liberal, and that the stark differences between Kerry and the President speak for themselves.

 

If there had been less men like him, soldiers would not have come home to the hatred and disgust of their fellow Americans. Kerry lied about his fellow soldiers. Kerry admitted war crimes.

Bush is certainly different than Kerry, and for that we can be glad. Kerry has no business being president.

 

Amen Pastor Larry!

Either he is a war criminal and murderer or his entire career in Vietnam is bogus...

He can't have it both ways...

As for 'Free Speech' rights they are mitigated even by the Constitution during times of National Crisis...

What kerry did was not a mere voicing of an opinion...

he perjured himself and gave false sworn testimony to congress...

Testimony that was used by the enemy to further demoralize and denigrate American POW's...

It gave the enemy in time of war great joy and comfort to have such an ally...

In my view kerry was, is and will always be a traitor...

Even *if* every medal was earned what he did after the war...

What he has done against our military and national defense still remains treasonous.

 

No, it was the Texas Code of Military Justice that did that. By failing to appear as ordered, Bush was AWOL, and was punished by being removed from flying status. Would you like to see the document again?

Hmmm... I called Bush a deserter? When? Desertion is either deserting one's post in combat, or leaving with no intention of returning. As you know, Bush used daddy's influence to make sure he wouldn't have to face combat, and there is insufficient evidence he intended to never come back to duty to say he was a deserter.

His campaign says he hasn't used cocaine for the past (depends) years. If so, he is no longer a drug addict.

Kind of hard to not carry out orders. Some orders, as the Pentagon later concluded, were not legal under the laws of war. Other times, commanders authorized clearly illegal atrocities such as rape, killing of children, and murder of civilians, such as happened at My Lai. This is not debatable; we know it happened. Some of it happened daily. The real horrors, such as My Lai were relatively uncommon as far as I know.

But we do know that systematic killing of civilians thought to be friendly to the Viet Cong was routinely done by US forces.

It's small, but it's growing.

 

My house is voting Peroutka, Galatian, just three of us, but, three is three.

However, I will have to disagree with you here about Kerry. I wouldn't trust a man who says things like he said about soldiers, the men, of his own country, when he did not even personally witness the atrocities he accused his fellow Americans of doing.

And then, turn right around and portray himself the true vet and the true patriot years later because he wants to be commander-in-chief of the very armed forces he accused of barbarity.

That kind of man is a politician, wouldn't trust a politician. Bush, at least, shows spine.

 

He was, however, right. Those things did happen. I doubted him myself, but I have to admit that they happened.

Fact is, it took guts to tell the truth when he knew few people would believe him. He had no way of knowing that the lid would come off, and the media would uncover the truth about My Lia and the rest. That takes more than mere physical courage.

Not in my book. Courage is more than asking Daddy to help keep one's butt out of Vietnam.

 

Galatian said:

Maybe. But the point is that he himself did not see them happen. It's one thing to talk as one who was right there and an eyewitness to those abuses, it's quite another to talk as if one saw it happen when in fact one didn't. That tells quite a lot about the guy.

For example, the chopper pilots who placed their helicopter between rampaging US troops and innocent My Lai civilians had more than enough right to have spoken against the US troops and the AFUSA, but I don't recall them saying anything sweepingly the way Kerry did in his testimony.

 

(Barbarian points out that he was skeptical of Kerry's claims until he learned that they were true)

I had no idea he made such a claim. Do you have a source for that?

It certainly would. Where did he say he personally witnessed these things?

They did. Remember, while such incidents happened, no one (including Kerry, AFAIK) said that everyone was doing it. It's bad enough that some were doing it. But if it were not for people like Kerry and those helicopter crews, we wouldn't have known about it at all.

I don't even remember Kerry saying that everyone or even most people did it. Do you have a checkable source for that?

 

I beg your pardon, do you really mean to equate Jane Fonda with John Kerry? I am not a huge Kerry fan, but at least he went over there and served. [I guess you didn't hear President Clinton's speech at the Democratic Convention?] He could have avoided the draft like his opponent did; however, he went over there and served his country. He came back to the US and spoke out against the war - and opposed it based upon his firsthand knowledge. Although I don't agree with his actions, I can respect his right to voice dissent.

As for the person who seemingly implied that free speech should be limited during times of war, I cannot express how strongly I disagree with that statement, or how disturbing I find it. Additionally, perhaps this person should consult the definition of treason before such a statement is made. Treason is a VERY SERIOUS CHARGE, and carries a rather stiff penalty.

Isn't it amazing that the people who are criticizing John Kerry are supporting a candidate who did not even serve in Vietnam?