 |
 |
Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://www.thekerrymovie.com/
650 MB mp4 (playable in QuickTime) movie. Free apparently. I haven't seen it yet but I'll check it out before nov. 2nd 
I wonder if there are some inconsistencies in it. Fellow Republicans be warned: I have not seen this documentary and can't comment on any bias that may be in it. Even so, for the politically inclined, Kerry supporters or people interested in American history, enjoy.
When you've seen it: Discuss!™
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus  Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
So any thoughts on this? I thought it made Kerry look pretty good, although it wasn't fantastic as a documentary.
I haven't seen "Stolen Honor" or the swiftboat ads (don't watch much TV and I don't know if they were played in my state anyway). Does anyone know where I can see them online?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok, I just got done watching "Stolen Honor" (thanks, Krusty). Where do I begin? There are a number of things implied or stated in the film that I don't believe to be valid:
1. They say that the soldiers involved in the Winter Soldier hearings were "lying" "making it up as they went along" and "were never even in Vietnam." And they also say that John Kerry knew that they claims were false and was only involved in the anti-war movement for publicity. However, they give no proof of this and cite no specific examples of soldiers who were fakes or who made up testimony.
2. They imply that John Kerry's testimony was the main reason for many Americans opposing the war and for the treatment of Vietnam vets returning home. This is just ludicrous.
3. They say that John Kerry's testimony was directly responsible for lengthening the war and the imprisonment of POWs, and go out of their way to imply that Kerry was personally responsible for the torture that they endured.
4. There is also the underlying assumption that any criticism of the war was an act of treason.
It's clear to me that Kerry's testimony was not meant to condemn all Vietnam vets as "baby killers" but rather was an attempt to expose the questionable tactical decisions made by the leaders, and the futility of continuing to fight an unwinnable war just to save face for America. He was trying to help the soldiers, and to stop more of them from dying. I think twisting his action in the way that they have done in the video is at best misguided and at worst very dishonest. Considering the political affiliations of the people involved in making the film, I am inclined toward the latter.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
27" 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 iMac
13" Late-2010 MacBookAir
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
And Kerry still hasn't signed the form that makes his service records public.
So all we know about Kerry is what he lets us know.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
And Kerry still hasn't signed the form that makes his service records public.
So all we know about Kerry is what he lets us know.
Yeah, and Bush HAS released his records and we STILL have questions about his service. Besides, what SPECIFICALLY do you want to know about Kerry's record that has not been released? Seems pretty complete to me.
|
|
27" 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 iMac
13" Late-2010 MacBookAir
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Nevermind about his military records. Did you know that as soon as Bush became president-elect, he had huge portions of his records as governor sent to his father's presidential library and declared them off-limits? He also issued an Executive Order that allowed a sitting president to block access to records in a presidential library of any past president--even if the past president wishes to grant access to those records.
He also extended such unprecedented protections to vice-presidential records.
|
|
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Nevermind about his military records. Did you know that as soon as Bush became president-elect, he had huge portions of his records as governor sent to his father's presidential library and declared them off-limits? He also issued an Executive Order that allowed a sitting president to block access to records in a presidential library of any past president--even if the past president wishes to grant access to those records.
He also extended such unprecedented protections to vice-presidential records.
What's even more interesting is that that EO is not shown on Bush's website. You have to go here to find it:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/index.html
|
|
27" 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 iMac
13" Late-2010 MacBookAir
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: new york, ny
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Icruise:
Ok, I just got done watching "Stolen Honor" (thanks, Krusty). Where do I begin? There are a number of things implied or stated in the film that I don't believe to be valid:
I watched it last night as well, so I'll try to respond to your points.
1. They say that the soldiers involved in the Winter Soldier hearings were "lying" "making it up as they went along" and "were never even in Vietnam." And they also say that John Kerry knew that they claims were false and was only involved in the anti-war movement for publicity. However, they give no proof of this and cite no specific examples of soldiers who were fakes or who made up testimony.
There were several testimonies that seemed pretty extreme to me. From the film, an interviewer says he hopes to find someone who knows about a certain action in a particular village, and luckily the guy he is sitting next to says, "Oh yeah, I was there man. We killed everbody to let them know who was boss" or something like that. He then asked his buddies to remind him of that one when he testifies because he had "nearly forgotten about it" was pretty transparent. If you look at the transcripts from the winter soldiers meeting, claims were made that marines received "genocide" training. Accounts were given of woman who had been skinned alive or how whole villages had been destroyed with hundreds killed and no one reporting it to anyone.
All in all, though, I agree that there is no conclusive proof that these events did not occur, but it is confirmed that after these claims were made public, none of the soldiers would sign an affidavitt or come forward to testify even after they were granted immunity from testifying about their own personal attrocities. It is also true, that when the military invesitigated, they found out that testimony had been given under the name of people who had never even been at the meeting. Others were in the military, but had not been in Vietnam or never saw combat. Some of the winter soldiers, including one of the founders, were suspected of having never even been in the military. Several, soldiers claimed years afterwards that they had been coerced into testifying. Essentially, we were asked to take their word for it, but as the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
2. They imply that John Kerry's testimony was the main reason for many Americans opposing the war and for the treatment of Vietnam vets returning home. This is just ludicrous.
Perhaps, but I think the point is that it validated many of the horrible things the anti-war movment suspected their government of. True, that movement existed before his testimony, but it was made stronger by Kerry's comments.
3. They say that John Kerry's testimony was directly responsible for lengthening the war and the imprisonment of POWs, and go out of their way to imply that Kerry was personally responsible for the torture that they endured.
They did show how Lt. Kerry's words were thrown in the face of the POWs and how the family memebers of POWs had been approached by the VVAW to speak out against the war. The POWs believe the No. Vietnamese felt justified in their treatment of the POWs because they now had proof of their accusations. As for lengthening the war, it is impossible to tell, but the POWs are entitled to their opinion that if Lt. Kerry had had his way, the U.S. would have bugged out and left the POWs in the No. Vietnamese hands branded as war criminals.
4. There is also the underlying assumption that any criticism of the war was an act of treason.
I think meeting with the enemy while still an officer of the Navy was considered treason as was giving aid and comfort to the enemy, not criticizing. Remember, John O'Neill the swift boat vet was also a member of an anti-war movement, just not a radical one.
It's clear to me that Kerry's testimony was not meant to condemn all Vietnam vets as "baby killers" but rather was an attempt to expose the questionable tactical decisions made by the leaders, and the futility of continuing to fight an unwinnable war just to save face for America. He was trying to help the soldiers, and to stop more of them from dying. I think twisting his action in the way that they have done in the video is at best misguided and at worst very dishonest. Considering the political affiliations of the people involved in making the film, I am inclined toward the latter.
Considering the political affiliations of the winter soldiers, I think he could have been more careful in presenting their testimony to the congress. Why you put so much faith in the winter soldiers testimonies, that were not sworn to under oath nor supported by any corroborative evidence, coming from members of a group that had threatened armed inssurection and debated the killing of senators who supported the war, while John Kerry was still affiliated with them, is a mystery to me. Do you really think 500,000 raving drug addicted psychopaths came home from Vietnam to take up arms in our country? Do you really think attrocities occurred every day and with full knowledge of the chain of command? Did you watch First Blood, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Casualties of War, etc. when you were a kid? Do you really think the swift boat veterans are all republicans?
kido
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by kido:
All in all, though, I agree that there is no conclusive proof that these events did not occur, but it is confirmed that after these claims were made public, none of the soldiers would sign an affidavitt or come forward to testify even after they were granted immunity from testifying about their own personal attrocities. It is also true, that when the military invesitigated, they found out that testimony had been given under the name of people who had never even been at the meeting. Others were in the military, but had not been in Vietnam or never saw combat. Some of the winter soldiers, including one of the founders, were suspected of having never even been in the military. Several, soldiers claimed years afterwards that they had been coerced into testifying. Essentially, we were asked to take their word for it, but as the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Do you have some links regarding this?
I think meeting with the enemy while still an officer of the Navy was considered treason as was giving aid and comfort to the enemy, not criticizing. Remember, John O'Neill the swift boat vet was also a member of an anti-war movement, just not a radical one.
I'm not up with all of the details here, are people actually suggesting that Kerry was plotting with the Viet Kong against America?
Considering the political affiliations of the winter soldiers, I think he could have been more careful in presenting their testimony to the congress. Why you put so much faith in the winter soldiers testimonies, that were not sworn to under oath nor supported by any corroborative evidence, coming from members of a group that had threatened armed inssurection and debated the killing of senators who supported the war, while John Kerry was still affiliated with them, is a mystery to me. Do you really think 500,000 raving drug addicted psychopaths came home from Vietnam to take up arms in our country? Do you really think attrocities occurred every day and with full knowledge of the chain of command? Did you watch First Blood, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Casualties of War, etc. when you were a kid? Do you really think the swift boat veterans are all republicans?
If the WInter Soldier hearings were the only place that these allegations had ever appeared, then you might be justified in claiming that they were a fraud, but they weren't. It's possible that there were some exaggerations or even lies told, I have no way of knowing. But that doesn't invalidate the idea that there were some pretty questionable decisions made by the top brass with regard to how the war should be fought. And that is the main point Kerry was trying to make. His purpose was not to condemn vets as war criminals, but to expose what the system was doing to many young men sent over there to fight, and for a very questionable cause.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've finally seen this documentary, Going Upriver. I've seen Stolen Honor too.
For the record I've seen Farenheit 911 as well.
I've seen the Swiftboat Vets for truth ads as well.
Changes nothing. I'm sorry to say that the Stolen Honor documentary was very poorly made in comparison to Going Upriver. Stolen Honor feels like a 60 minutes special with interviews of a few ex-POWs. Low quality. Horrible synth music during the interviews.
Frankly the Vietnam war was a just a war. America fought, America lost. When America was losing and it was clear that America would never win that war the Democrat presidents and even to an extent Nixon delayed the inevitable pullback of the troops.
I appreciate that the people who were POWs and fighting in Vietnam when the American people realized this fact and pressured Nixon to do what he promised to pull out of Vietnam, that they are angry for essentially being treated like expendable people but that is what they were. In the bigger picture. I'd have felt the same as a POW, but as a veteran I'd have supported the VVAW movement. It was better for America. American soldiers had to suffer for it, but so be it. Rather a few suffer than thousands.
The soldiers knew what they were getting into. They should not whine like this. Shameful.
Some soldiers fought in Vietnam and they committed atrocities and war crimes. Some have been convicted for it. That does not apply to all, ie. not all soldiers were war ciminals because SOME were. Obviously.
These documentaries change nothing for me because I'm not voting for a person or a character or ancient history. I'm voting for Bush because I like his domestic policies, I've gone on record saying that I don't care for his foreign policies but then again I don't care about foreign policies so much either. I want America to take care of itself first and foremost. The Bush administration has done admirably in my opinion and me and my family are well. His administration has blundered the War on Terror so badly that I'm not even going to go into it.. when that Osama guy sent a videotape telling us that he was well and looking fine THREE years after he should have been killed well.. Bush blundered that one.
These bitter Vietnam vets don't enter the equation for whom I'm voting for. Whether they are bitter because people like John Kerry made life for them harder as POWs or whether they are bitter like John Kerry because they were sent to fight in Vietnam for no discernable cause... I don't care. This election isn't about bitter old men. It is about today and the future. I'm voting for the future.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
I've finally seen this documentary, Going Upriver. I've seen Stolen Honor too.
For the record I've seen Farenheit 911 as well.
I've seen the Swiftboat Vets for truth ads as well.
Changes nothing. I'm sorry to say that the Stolen Honor documentary was very poorly made in comparison to Going Upriver. Stolen Honor feels like a 60 minutes special with interviews of a few ex-POWs. Low quality. Horrible synth music during the interviews.
Frankly the Vietnam war was a just a war. America fought, America lost. When America was losing and it was clear that America would never win that war the Democrat presidents and even to an extent Nixon delayed the inevitable pullback of the troops.
I appreciate that the people who were POWs and fighting in Vietnam when the American people realized this fact and pressured Nixon to do what he promised to pull out of Vietnam, that they are angry for essentially being treated like expendable people but that is what they were. In the bigger picture. I'd have felt the same as a POW, but as a veteran I'd have supported the VVAW movement. It was better for America. American soldiers had to suffer for it, but so be it. Rather a few suffer than thousands.
The soldiers knew what they were getting into. They should not whine like this. Shameful.
Some soldiers fought in Vietnam and they committed atrocities and war crimes. Some have been convicted for it. That does not apply to all, ie. not all soldiers were war ciminals because SOME were. Obviously.
These documentaries change nothing for me because I'm not voting for a person or a character or ancient history. I'm voting for Bush because I like his domestic policies, I've gone on record saying that I don't care for his foreign policies but then again I don't care about foreign policies so much either. I want America to take care of itself first and foremost. The Bush administration has done admirably in my opinion and me and my family are well. His administration has blundered the War on Terror so badly that I'm not even going to go into it.. when that Osama guy sent a videotape telling us that he was well and looking fine THREE years after he should have been killed well.. Bush blundered that one.
These bitter Vietnam vets don't enter the equation for whom I'm voting for. Whether they are bitter because people like John Kerry made life for them harder as POWs or whether they are bitter like John Kerry because they were sent to fight in Vietnam for no discernable cause... I don't care. This election isn't about bitter old men. It is about today and the future. I'm voting for the future.
Nice speach. But if it's the future you're worrying about, voting for Bush will only screw you over. The future seems pretty gloomy with regards to the environment and global warming, all of which Bush doesn't give a damn about. You say you care about domestic policy but foreign policy doesn't matter? Hate to break it to you, but foreign policy affects domestic policy, no matter how you slice it, for more reference on that just open up a bloody history book. Bush, as you said, is terrible on foreign policy, and he is spending money on foreign ventures that should be spent elsewhere. What was the number? 6 Billion on establishing Iraqi Healthcare? What about your healthcare? Bush doesn't support buying drugs from canada even, that's because he's a puppet for big corperations. And Bush is perhaps the worst conservative I've ever seen. There is no doubt, the USA federal government is more powerful now than it was in Clinton's liberal days. Bush supports the RIAA and MPAA and their lawsuits that incriminate good, young individuals who otherwise would not be criminals. And furthermore, on the homefront, Bush severally limits stem cell research, research that will improve the lives of your family. My dad is a scientist, and he tells me that the scientific community does NOT have anywhere NEAR the amount of stem cell lines that it needs. Kerry is better on the environment also, his solution to high gas prices is to get an alternative energy source faster that is better for our environment and cheaper, meanwhile, Bush's solution is to dig for more oil on our soil and steal it from Iraq.
I do not see how you can justify voting for Bush if you think he's better for you on domestic policies, because he is most definitely not.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
