[RAILhead]

Since people seem to get a kick out of pointing out the minute details in Bush's military record, I thought I'd go ahead and post something about Kerry's. Here's the article from NewsCentral.tv:

In his campaign book Massachusetts Senator John Kerry notes there was fine line between actions that merited a court martial -- or a medal. He reported that medals were given for questionable activities in order to boost morale.

This narrow distinction figures into the controversy that has raged for a several weeks regarding the Silver Star Kerry was awarded for killing a Vietnamese man.

For more than 30 years, Kerry has portrayed a heroic version of a life and death struggle -- of staring down a suspected guerilla who was about to fire upon Kerry's swift boat. It was kill. Or be killed. At least, that's the version Kerry tells.

Eyewitnesses offer a far different account. They allege Kerry shot a wounded teenager retreating from battle.

Kerry has made public, hundreds of pages of official Navy documents to bolster his many claims. Conspicuous by its absence is the official after action report of what actually happened that day. The after action report written by John Kerry, himself.

In an exclusive, The Point has obtained this document from U.S. Navy archives (you can see it here). The pertinent section reads:

"PCF 94 beached in center of ambush in front of small path when Viet Cong sprung up from bunker 10 feet from unit. Man ran with weapon towards hootch. Forward M-60 machine gunner wounded man in leg. Officer-in-charge, LTjg Kerry, jumped ashore and gave pursuit while other units saturated area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore. Kerry chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled -- capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with round in chamber."

So there you have it. The official record -- written by John Kerry -- supports what the critics have alleged rather than the John Wayne Kerry version the Massachusetts liberal has been telling.

Death is a reality of war. Events occur that are not for the faint of heart. Yet, John Kerry's account of killing what turned out to really be a wounded man while he fled continues Kerry's pattern of lies, exaggerations and embellishments.

Killing a wounded man while he retreated from battle is not an action that most servicemen would brag about. But then again, most servicemen would not return home and attack the very country they were supposed to fight for.

Here are the documents Kerry wrote:






The point of this? Kerry boasts his heroism and so do his followers, but in reality, things weren't quite as heroic as he'd have everyone believe. Do I blame him? Would I have done the same thing if I were in his boots back then? SURE!

What I wouldn't do, though -- or I hope that I wouldn't do -- would be to set myself up as a Vietnam Hero knowing the story I'm telling isn't true in the middle of a Presidential campaign.

The devil's in the details, so they say...

[Zimphire]

[Spoogepieces]

So when do we put Kerry on trial for war crimes?

[nredman]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
So when do we put Kerry on trial for war crimes?

really, what a piece of crap he is!!!!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
So when do we put Kerry on trial for war crimes?

Right after the trials of the US soldiers who dropped bombs on civilians in Iraq.

Oh, and the US soldiers who shot civilians in urban combat mistakenly.

I guess we'll also have to have trials for any US soldiers who shoot an Iraqi with a rocket launcher even if the Iraqi was running away, right?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I guess we'll also have to have trials for any US soldiers who shoot an Iraqi with a rocket launcher even if the Iraqi was running away, right?

Um, No. If an enemy hasn't surrendered and they're running away with a rocket launcher ? Um, kill the fool.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Um, No. If an enemy hasn't surrendered and they're running away with a rocket launcher ? Um, kill the fool.

But if a Democratic presidential candidate did it, he's a war criminal, right?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But if a Democratic presidential candidate did it, he's a war criminal, right?

I don't know the specifics of what Kerry has done or not. Isn't he the dude who himself said he commited war crimes ? Who am I to argue with his own word ?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I don't know the specifics of what Kerry has done or not. Isn't he the dude who himself said he commited war crimes ? Who am I to argue with his own word ?

Are we reading the same thread???

On a side note, Kerry's infamous Congressional testimony has been heavily edited in the latest round of sound bytes. He never claimed to have performed those acts--he was reporting the confessions of fellow soldiers who had performed them or seen them performed in order to make the argument that these soldiers were the victims of immoral leadership.

Dozens of soldiers testified that day to what they saw and did in Viet Nam.

[MindFad]

Shhh. We don't need none o' dems facts 'round these parts, y'hear?

[Atomic Rooster]

Anyone who went to Vietnam is a hero in my book. Maybe not in yours Railhead.

Those who chose not to go...Clinton, Bush etc....that's their business.

Now about the economy.

Hey! by the way aren't you the guy who posted a humorous picture of a monkey in that thread with the link to a story and pics of dead children?

[Gee-Man]

Now you guys are just inventing "controversies" out of thin air. This information is not any kind of "exclusive" or even hidden - the same description of what happened is right on John Kerry's official web site!

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_...t_reports.html

Look under the section titled "28 FEB 1969 Bay Hap River". This description has never changed, it was even described during the Dem's convention. It's also in the book written about Kerry.

Kerry has always said he shot the wounded guy because he was running away with a rocket launcher, and that he (Kerry) thought the VC would turn and fire on the boats once he got into a safer position. Most people, even Republicans, would agree that this was a very likely possibility, this wasn't merely a "wounded teenager", he was still armed and potentially dangerous. Even if you don't agree, there's nothing hidden or suspicious about this particular event - the records have been available and Kerry's story has been the same for many years.

Come on, you've got to be able to do better than this. Find something we don't already know, ok?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But if a Democratic presidential candidate did it, he's a war criminal, right?

I think he was J O K I N G , man. Seriously.

Maury

[zigzag]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
The point of this? Kerry boasts his heroism and so do his followers, but in reality, things weren't quite as heroic as he'd have everyone believe.

1. This isn't news.

2. Are you saying that Kerry wasn't entitled to the Silver Star? Have you read the citation? Do you understand that it pertains to a series of actions taken that day that demonstrated valor under direct enemy fire? When was the last time you turned a boat into enemy fire?

3. Are you suggesting that he should've talked the enemy combatant out of a loaded rocket launcher?

Friggin' juveniles.

[Spoogepieces]

Sounds like to me that he shot him in the back. I mean, how else do you run away? Running backwards?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Sounds like to me that he shot him in the back. I mean, how else do you run away? Running backwards?

I woulda shot the muthafukca too. And twenty feet on either side would have been made into salad until my ammo ran out.

I'm glad you weren't there covering my back.

Sir, would you please stop and drop your cannon please...please with sugar on it.

You'd be dead in a day in that jungle, buddy.

[Spoogepieces]

A reasonable person would have shot him in the leg.

A coward shoots people in the back.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
A reasonable person would have shot him in the leg.

A coward shoots people in the back.

A lot of Vietnam veterans upon reading your post are probably be happy you weren't there.

[Spoogepieces]

Rules of civilized warfare and common human decency dictates that you don't shoot people in the back. You use non-lethal force. If the enemy is facing you in a threatening manner then you have the right to use lethal force.

How is a person running away threatening?

I wonder how many died because of what Kerry did during and after the war?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I wonder how many died because of what Kerry did during and after the war?

I wonder how many died because of what Bush did during and after the war?

[Spoogepieces]

Bush didn't shoot fleeing people in the back. That's a clear violation of ROE. An enemy combatant who is merely carring a weapon isn't justification for use of deadly force unless the combatant is engaging in a hostile action to use said weapon upon the soldier in question. Escaping combatants aren't supposed to be shot. In upholding the office of a U.S. military officer said officer is supposed to do his best to minimalize human casualties and suffering, even those of the enemy.

If Kerry wins in November we might just have the first war criminal elected to office in our history.

[ringo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I think he was J O K I N G , man. Seriously.

Wow, common pattern in team play here....

Step One: Launch Attack on Candidate
Step Two: Have Attack on Candidate shot down by facts and/or reason
Step Three: Hey wow, it was just a joke, ha-ha, funny.

Go team!

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by ringo:
Wow, common pattern in team play here....

Step One: Launch Attack on Candidate
Step Two: Have Attack on Candidate shot down by facts and/or reason
Step Three: Hey wow, it was just a joke, ha-ha, funny.

Go team!

What? Re-read the thread, and you'll see what I was referring to, ringo, when I said I thought he was joking.

Some research on your part will turn-up that the docs I posted about were NOT among those Kerry released regarding his military record. however, he told the story -- and he does so on his web site -- but the official document states that, rather than being the heroic figure chasing the VC into the jungle and killing him, Kerry ran toward the VC and shot him in the back as he fled.

As I said to BEGIN WITH, I'm sure I would have done the SAME THING. The point of this post, however, was to be as anal and nitpicky as SOME Dems are being about Bush being the Air Force.

I'm casting no judgment on Kerry per se, just pointing out that the documents of him heroic VC kill aren't quite as heroic as SOME Dems would want people to believe. As to why this specific instance is such a big deal to some, it's because the Kerry team brought it up to begin with -- but upon closer inspection, it seems he was really NOT wanting all of the story to come to light.

Like I said to BEGIN WITH, the devil's in the details -- and if the Dems want to play that game, SOME of the Reps will, too.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Bush didn't shoot fleeing people in the back.

That's a clear violation of ROE. An enemy combatant who is merely carring a weapon isn't justification for use of deadly force unless the combatant is engaging in a hostile action to use said weapon upon the soldier in question. Escaping combatants aren't supposed to be shot. In upholding the office of a U.S. military officer said officer is supposed to do his best to minimalize human casualties and suffering, even those of the enemy.

If Kerry wins in November we might just have the first war criminal elected to office in our history.

OK, G.I. Joe - next time one of our guys finds himself in the middle of a firefight in Baghdad, we'll have him call you for a consultation.

I'm sure Dubya would've done the right thing - a precise shot to the hand, causing the rocket launcher to fly out of the guy's arms and into Dubya's, just like in the movies. He would then chase the guy for a hundred yards through dense jungle, yell "Stop" in perfect Vietnamese dialect, tackle and handcuff him, and drag him back to the boat, all while dodging bullets. Under pointed but humane interrogation, he would discover that they were actually distant cousins and pop open some brewskis to celebrate. Just another day in Nam.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by zigzag:
OK, G.I. Joe - next time one of our guys finds himself in the middle of a firefight in Baghdad, we'll have him call you for a consultation.

I'm sure Dubya would've done the right thing - a precise shot to the hand, causing the rocket launcher to fly out of the guy's arms and into Dubya's, just like in the movies. He would then chase the guy for a hundred yards through dense jungle, yell "Stop" in perfect Vietnamese dialect, tackle and handcuff him, and drag him back to the boat, all while dodging bullets. Under pointed but humane interrogation, he would discover that they were actually distant cousins and pop open some brewskis to celebrate. Just another day in Nam.

Hey! Quit stealing stuff from Rambo XV.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Eeesh. You guys have muddied the waters and handed a bone to the left. (RailHead et al.) Sorry, but sloppy.

Even the Swift Boat Veterans have defended Kerry’s actions during this event as not being war crimes. The problem they have was that the actions didn’t merits the Silver Star. Now, of course Kerry supporters have tried to twist this very clear distinction into “first they supported Kerry, now they’re against him!”

No. They’ve never wavered in defending the action as legitimate, and never wavered that although legit, it didn’t merit a Silver Star- two completely different issues.

This is indeed old news, and should not be confused with the real issue. What’s actually happened here has allowed the usual suspects to put up a smoke screen over the real issue of Kerry’s self-admitted war crimes- which I see some have indeed leaped on.

The real issue stems directly from Kerry’s own fat mouth (100% the source all Kerry ‘scandals). After his famous bull session about Genghis Khan and cutting off limbs and all sorts of things, he stated: “Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed.”

THAT is the REAL issue, NOT the Silver Star incident. The real issue is one that Kerry still owes the soldiers he maligned a detailed explanation. Kerry was more than happy to describe in detail war atrocities others supposedly committed, at a time when they were still trying to fight the war, and having to survive POW camps. Now he should be man enough to explain his own actions in the same detail he attributed to others. He claims to have burned villages and such- let’s have the full details of his role in such. Or were the actions he ascribed to others really from personal experience? Or on the flip side, was he lying about the whole thing just to malign the troops? Either way, it stinks and he owes the Vietnam vets for it.

Don’t allow the Kerry shills to throw smoke screens over the real issue, because they’ll of course gladly take the opportunity as handed to them, and then pretend they don’t know what you mean when you bring up Kerry’s actual admissions.

Face it, if there was some quote of G W Bush saying: “Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed." the left would be all over it, every news organization would be demanding he explain that statement and come clean to the exact details of what acts he committed. It’d be a 24/7 feeding-frenzy. But for Kerry, the silence is deafening. We all know See-BS and Dan Blather were too busy having MS Word documents from 1973 created to bother to ask the tough questions of Kerry’s self-confessed war criminal past.

[Zimphire]

Even Jane Fonda has apologized for her part in it all.

I'll give her that.

[thunderous_funker]

Statement of Fred Laughlin, Capt, US Army, West Point, Class of 1965, Bethesda, MD LAUGHLIN: I graduated in 1965, spent 5 years in the service, 2 1/2 years in infantry, 1 year in Vietnam as a company commander and as a platoon leader.

I was a 1st LT.

I would like my testimony to center more on the distortions of war and my examples to be more illustrative than shocking. I would like to give 3 examples and hope that I can--I, we can--draw something from it. When I arrived in Vietnam in 1966, in October, I was sent to a jungle warfare school in Lai Khe. Lai Khe is on the northeastern tip of the eastern triangle. I spent a week in the jungle warfare school being taught the way it really was in Vietnam by non-commissioned officers [NCO's], some of whom had been in battle themselves. At the time the BODY COUNT idea pretty will hit the military in Vietnam, and we were taught at the jungle school, that it is very important to get BC. There is a big difference between BODY COUNT and so-called killed in action [KIA].

It is very important to verify some member of the body, particularly the ears.

The ears seemed to be the favorite in order to report validly a BC. This was not promulgated officially. It could not be, of course. but this was taught in the school and it was clear to a what the sergeant [Sgt] was talking about. and these people were blank pages when they came to Vietnam, They had no idea what was coming off. I did not. I was supposed to be educated. I did not know. As far as I knew, he was giving me the straight story. The 2d example that I would like to give of the distortions in Vietnam occurred during my 2d month in Vietnam as a platoon leader. VC had reportedly run into a village, a village not unlike my Lai. We surrounded the village with our platoon and began to seal it off in the typical manner. Civilians were pouring out of the village at the time. It was late in the evening. All of a sudden, with no warning, the platoon opened up on the civilians. It was their job to keep the civilians in, and God knows where they got the order.

I was in charge, completely. By the time I could get the firing stopped, which seemed like an hour--it was probably 30 seconds--1 man was shot in the back, an old Vietnamese. We picked the man up and took him back to base camp, which was not far from civilization. It was about a 2 minutes' helicopter ride from Du Lai. The man was clearly bleeding internally and didn't have long to go. I wasn't a doctor, but that was pretty clear. I reported this to my company command, said that we needed immediate evacuation, and there was none forthcoming. The man died about 5 the next morning.

The 3d example I would like to give has to do with the distortions of a different type. It occurred late in my Vietnam tour when I was company commander, just south of the Cambodian border, about 25 miles north of Tay Ninh. It was called the battle of Prec Loc. the battle of Prec Loc is probably the only claim to fame that the 2d Battalion [Bn], 2d Infantry, had at the time, and, of course, these are things that people like to cherish: battles.

The battle of Prec Loc occurred late in the summer of 1967. The perimeter that we had, and it was 2 companies, was attacked by supposedly a regmt of enemy troops. The battle waged throughout the thing. The brigade [Bgd] commander was over my head, and over his head was a helicopter, over his head was the asst division [div] commander, the div commander was over his head and God knows who was over his head, and it was really terrific. It was just the thing you want when you are in battle.

During the night in radio conversation after the battle lulled, there was a wager made by 1 of the company commanders, the A Company commander to the C Company commander, as to who would find the most bodies out in front of their positions, a case of beer, as a matter of fact. The next morning they went out to police up the bodies. The A Company commander had 8 and the C Company commander had 5, for a total of 13, as I recall. The asst div commander landed his helicopter, surveyed the situation. It was clear to him there were 13 bodies in front of the position. He proclaimed by some strange way that I will never be able to figure out that there were 197 bodies, and that is what was printed in the paper the next day.

Now, the distortions that I described here, and I think it is pretty clear what they are, run across the board, and are a result of some type of immoral template that seems to be superimposed on the whole world in Vietnam--the whole horror, aberration, aspect, concept. These same distortions caused the general, 1 of the members of my platoon, and a Sgt at the general school, the same distortions that seem to be causing Americans to shrug now, and perhaps this is the greatest price for America.

The way I feel about it is the term "war crimes" is a bit of a misnomer itself, in that war seems to be a repudiation of all laws except those that are sanctioned by bodies. I think that America needs to undergo a bout with reality, which I hope you people can do during these hearings, for in the long run America is the one, not the people who fought in Vietnam, not the Calley's, not the Westmorelands, but America is the 1 in the long run who bas to carry this stigma. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them.

DELLUMS: Thank you, Capt Laughlin. I appreciate your testimony. I have 1 question I would like to ask. From where do you understand the policies that you have enumerated to come?

LAUGHLIN: I don't know. They seem to permeate throughout Vietnam, and I could not associate them with any particular source. I think they seem to be a major component of war. You are going to have these policies if you are going to have war.

You may recognize Capt Laughlin's name. He's a member of the Swifties. I guess Kerry wasn't the only one who claimed to witness atrocities in Vietnam.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You may recognize Capt Laughlin's name. He's a member of the Swifties. I guess Kerry wasn't the only one who claimed to witness atrocities in Vietnam.

Laughlin isn't the one running for POTUS.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Laughlin isn't the one running for POTUS.

So we only investigate claims of war crimes when they are alledged by Democratic presidential candidates?

Gotcha.

[Spoogepieces]

We should investigate if a candidate claims to have committed them as well.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You may recognize Capt Laughlin's name. He's a member of the Swifties. I guess Kerry wasn't the only one who claimed to witness atrocities in Vietnam.

Wow someone clear out all that smoke!

Kerry didn't just claim to witness atrocities- he also claimed he COMMITTED THEM.

Also let's see... last time I checked Laughlin wasn't running for president. Gee... now why would I care more about whatever he witnessed vs. a guy who confessed to committing war atrocities asking to be the commander-in-chief?!?!

I love this tactic; it cracks me up every time I see it: "Hey, lots of people committed war crimes! No biggie! So what's the big deal if a guy who wants to be commander-in-chief did too?"

It's like: "Oh hey, so the guy is a self-confessed arsonist! Big deal! Lots of people are arsonists! What's the big deal if the guy wants to be fire marshal?! Oh boo, so we only go after arsonists that want to be fire marshal!?? Gee, how terribly biased!"

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Even Jane Fonda has apologized for her part in it all.

Has Colin Powell apologized?

How about Tom Glen or Ron Ridenhour?

Should they have apologized?

Jesus was a Gook.

Kerry's record should indeed be examined and if he personally committed war crimes then he should be held accountable for those crimes to the same degree that all the other war criminals were held accountable for war crimes committed by members of the U.S. armed forces in South East Asia during the Vietnam conflict. Accountability all through the chain of command, from president to private grunt. Accountability for acts committed. Accountability for omerta and for sometimes open support for war criminals that continues to this day.

If Kerry has something to apologize for it is not for speaking out though. That is for certain. These crimes needed to be exposed and those who exposed them -and sometimes stopped them- deserve credit not scorn.

Hugh Thompson had to wait 30 years for his medal but he was one of the most courageous men of those confronted with war criminals in flagrante delicto. I wonder what would have happened to him if his crew had actually opened fire.

Should Hugh Thompson apologize?

Lyndon Johnson didn't run again. Was that good enough?
Robert McNamara apologized. Was that good enough?
William Calley never apologized. Certainly not good enough. Was what happened to him Justice?

Meanwhile back in 2004:

"On Abu Ghraib
IMUS:_ What should happen, Senator Kerry, to the guards and their superiors if they're found guilty of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq?_

KERRY:_ Well, obviously, if somebody has engaged in activity like that, they're going to have to pay a price for that._ But what irks me is that every study and every analysis shows that this goes all the way up the chain of command._ And you still don't see the civilian leadership or people at the top of the chain of command taking responsibility._ And I object to some sergeant or, you know, some enlisted person being held accountable and held up to this scrutiny when this came from both the White House and a Defense Department that changed the behavior in how prisoners were going to be treated._ They did it in Guantanamo, they did it in Afghanistan, it spilled over into Iraq, and no one yet is being held accountable, and that's wrong._

IMUS:_ But if these guards and superiors are in violation of the Geneva Conventions...

KERRY:_ They have to be health accountable, and they will be._

IMUS:_ What does that mean?_ What does that mean?

KERRY:_ Well, It means that they're going also have to pay a price for that, but it's got to be appropriate._ It can't be scapegoating._ They can't be the only ones and they can't pay the higher price while other people walk free._ It has to be appropriate to the level of sort of their understanding of what the rules were, and wrong as it may be, it has to be put into a context, and I don't think it has been yet._

IMUS:_ Back in May of 2001 on "Meet the Press," you said you yourself have committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers in violation of the Geneva Conventions._ And my question, Senator Kerry, is, is there a difference between what happened in your case in Vietnam and what happened at Abu Ghraib, in that both were acts in violation of the Geneva Conventions?_

KERRY:_ There is a difference._

IMUS:_ What is it?_

KERRY:_ There is a difference._ What I was referring to in that testimony was the general categorization of free-fire zones in Vietnam and the general categorizations of some of the weapons that were being used, which were in violation of the accords._ We didn't learn that until we came home._ I didn't know any of that while I was there._ I didn't know any of that over there, nor did most soldiers._ And I never meant to impugn, I've never meant to categorize, you know, all soldiers somehow in that category, but it was a general -- if you talk to Neil Sheehan, who wrote "Bright Shining Lie," or you look even at the military manuals today that have drawn lessons from that period of time, there were policies put in place overall._ We had a program called "The Phoenix Program," which was an assassination program, and people were taken out of villages, and you know, the CIA ran it._ There were a whole bunch of things that regrettably, and you know, it's an awful period of America's history, but I told the truth about it, and that truth has been confirmed in countless documents since then, and I regret that some people are still upset about that period of time._ You know, I was angry about it when I came home._

IMUS:_ That's what they're angry at you about._

KERRY:_ Yes, that is what they're angry -- and I understand that, Don, but I had the courage to stand up -- look, I went, I did my duty, I came back, I saw what I saw, and I told the truth._ If some people have trouble with that still, I'm sorry about it." MSNBC Transcript.

Edit to add this bit about Clinton so I can pretend that Zimphire responded to my message. Maybe Zimphire can then edit his message to include answers to some of the questions I really asked and some of the issues I really addressed.
Bill Clinton never apologized for exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq and for falsely claiming conclusive evidence where none existed. Bill Clinton should apologize for this and for the hardships caused by his callous actions.

The members of the Bush administration should apologize for changing positions from their 2001 statements about Iraq although they received no new credible evidence after 2001 that warranted their later shifts in the build up to the invasion of Iraq. Something U.N. inspectors repeatedly reacted to with skepticism.

George Bush himself apologized belatedly for Abu Ghraib but is that good enough? He has yet to apologize for the deceptions that led to war and yet to explain why Abu Ghraib was only worth apologizing for when the evidence ended up in the public domain, while he had access to the real facts for much longer.

The Abu Ghraib scandal is echoing the way My Lai was dealt with. People falsely believing that you honor the troops by first sheltering and then standing by men like Calley and women like England. Falsely believing that you attack the whistle blowers in stead of the real criminals. Sometimes long after irrefutable evidence makes such a position completely untenable. While at the same time promoting those who remain silent through the ranks and eventually appointing them to high office.
Now Seymour Hersh has another book. Thirty years ago William Wilson observed:
“I had prayed to God that this thing was fiction, and I knew now that it was fact,”
It seems appropriate to repeat those words.

In any case it looks to me that there are two possible war criminals on the ballot as the most likely candidates for the office of the President of the United States in 2004. Please choose wisely.

Italicized words are edits

[Zimphire]

I don't recall Clinton apologizing for his deceptions about Iraq.

BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. Clinton wasn't purposely deceiving anyone.

And either was Bush.

KERRY on the other hand..

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Rules of civilized warfare and common human decency dictates that you don't shoot people in the back. You use non-lethal force. If the enemy is facing you in a threatening manner then you have the right to use lethal force.

How is a person running away threatening?

I wonder how many died because of what Kerry did during and after the war?

Rules of civilised warfare means that you shoot to kill. Not to injure. I guess you don't know what a M-16, AK-47, AK-5 or any other assault weapon does when it hits any part of the body. Not only will it rip your arm or leg off it will also leave it in such a state that if you don't get the best medical attention possible within a few minutes you are dead. Also, military personnel is trained to shoot at the torso.

Also.

If you would let him run away it is very possible that he'll give up your position and thereby causing severe problems for you.

The only way to surrender and keep your life(most of the time) is to make certain the opposition knows you are surrendering. You don't do that by running for your life.

But I guess you've never been in the military so all your "knowledge" comes from movies so I guess we can forgive you for showing your ignorance and hypocrisy on this matter.

[lurkalot]

Perhaps a Yahoo! link for an AP story should be posted in every thread that addressed this topic?

Some excerpts from the memo sent Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England by Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general who conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-era military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, can be found in the AP story and are quoted below:

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed,"

"Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive," he wrote. "The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.

"Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter."

Will these words satisfy everybody? Doubtful.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Logic:

But I guess you've never been in the military so all your "knowledge" comes from movies so I guess we can forgive you for showing your ignorance and hypocrisy on this matter.

Bull. ****ing. ****.

Stick a ****ing grenade up your ass and read the goddamned U.S. Military's Rules of Engagement, **** face.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Bull. ****ing. ****.

Stick a ****ing grenade up your ass and read the goddamned U.S. Military's Rules of Engagement, **** face.

Regardless of the type of grenade you want Logic to use for this I would say that such advise puts at a minimum unreasonable time restraints on Logic for completing the assigned reading task.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Bull. ****ing. ****.

Stick a ****ing grenade up your ass and read the goddamned U.S. Military's Rules of Engagement, **** face.

lol.

Looks like Logic scored a direct hit. Hurts bad does it? Poor baby.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Bull. ****ing. ****.

Stick a ****ing grenade up your ass and read the goddamned U.S. Military's Rules of Engagement, **** face.

So I guess that comment of mine hit pretty well at home. Ah well, unfortunately I'll have to report that post but I forgive you since I know language like that comes from movies like Full Metal Jacket and the Platoon.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Logic:
[So I guess that comment of mine hit pretty well at home.

Your ignorance of military regulations is astonishing.

You haven't a clue, have you?

Why do you refuse to read the Rules of Engagement as set forth that all U.S. military members must follow?

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Logic:
Ah well, unfortunately I'll have to report that post..

Be careful what you reap after you have sown.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Your ignorance of military regulations is astonishing.

You haven't a clue, have you?

Why do you refuse to read the Rules of Engagement as set forth that all U.S. military members must follow?

Well they were good enough to get me into the international troops of Sweden and got me into the Balkans working.

But I'm not here to compare qualifications with you. I'm only here to enlighten you, and the best way to enlighten someone is to get him to read the stuff he claims he know. So off you should go and read the Rules of Engagement and the GC.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Be careful what you reap after you have sown.

Feel free to report me if I've violated the rules of this forum.