Obama nominating Kerry for secretary of state

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

North, OK, you didn't read the US News piece from 1973. I did, and there is no mention of Kerry. Here it is.

link

First of all I did read the original item.
If you had actually read my last post I said That I read it. Actually I read twice. Once at the beginning of this thread and again yesterday.

Again you are are ducking, dodging, and spinning half truths to defend an undependable position.

Originally Posted by rivergator

In other words, you continue to rely on flaky rightwing sources like Newsmax and World Net Daily rather than actually look at the source. That's why you keep claiming McCain said something that he hadn't.
I have no doubt that some former POWs joined the Swift Boat attacks against Kerry. But, let's be honest, a lot of that Swift Boat stuff has been shown to be pretty bogus. People who claimed to be with Kerry really weren't.

You either have poor reading comprehension or you are not a respecter of the truth? Which one is it?

I responded in total honesty that I misread the original US News and World Report article. This was an honest mistake on my part. I stated that McCain admitted that he was fed anti war news from the USA by his captors. I even said that McCain listed several sources of the anti war news and that he did not list Kerry by name.

As far as Swift Boating I am only focusing on the POW's. most of them who were in Hanoi with or near McCain. Also, I am not going into Kerry's Vietnam experiences. I have my doubts with his side of that story but that is another topic for another thread.

Originally Posted by rivergator

As far as Galanti, he claims that Kerry said all American soldiers were war criminals. He said that Kerry said he personally witnessed ears being cut off. Did Kerry really say those things? Or was this just politically motivated BS?

I am not sure if Galanti actually said that. To be fair I will assume that you are accurate with this statement. If you are proven inaccurate I will assume that you are making an honest mistake.

However, to add some more accuracy this is what Kerry said.

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....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~e...Testimony.html

As for Galanti's response, it does not invalidate his claim that he heard Kerry's speech at the Fulbright hearing. It does exposé his loathing for the man

The only place where Kerry used the word "all" was in a reference to "awareness to officers at all levels of command".

Originally Posted by rivergator

By the way, even if Hanoi Hannah read Kerry's statement on air, how would that have put US soldiers in increased danger, as you claimed?

I posted few quotes along with several links explains this item.

Here is a summary.
1, The prison guards and the civilian population were fed Kerry's and the other anti war protestors statements. You would have to be a fool not to see how these comments are not inflammatory to the ears if the enemy. Prison guards did beat on the POW's. Of course the real harsh beatings ant torture lightened up in the last years if the war. I believe that the term used by some POW's us that they were roughed up. A lot of these POW's were very frail physically and mentally after years if mistreatment. This "roughing up" was still painful and it was criminally wrong and put the lives of the POW's at risk.
2, Kerry's statements were made on April 22, 1971. The last US deferred all offensive activity on January 15, 1973. In that 22 month period US forces were in active a active combat status that exposed them to the risk becoming a POW. That risk exposed them to the risk of torture, beatings, and murder at the hands if their captors (Vietcong and North Vietnamese military/civilians). In that time frame about another 120 Americans became POW's. some of the actions by Kerry and the anti war movement exposé these guys and the existing POW's to unnecessary risk.
http://www.nampows.org/nampowslist.html

I respect Kerry's feelings about the Vietnam War. In many aspects he was right. Where he erred was in his actions that smeared the reputations if his fellow soldiers and exposed the current and future POW's to harm or worst. Also, I am not totally convinced how much of Kerry's motivation was geared to the anti war movement as was geared to a political career

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Not sure I'm following. You're abandoning the McCain quote and switching to someone else?

...and the dance goes on.

[Spurffelbow833]

Our new #1 diplomatic goal--Heinz ketchup in every kitchen and eatery in the world.

[rivergator]

North, actually, my reading comprehension isn't the problem. The truth is that I glanced at your response, figured it was the same-old, same-old and didn't actually read it. Inexcusable on my part and I apologize.
Otherwise, we agree that McCain did not talk about Kerry in that article, despite how many times rightwingers have claim he did.

You're really questioning whether Galanti said those things? From your link:

“I couldn’t believe it, a Navy officer saying we were all war criminals, that we raped and pillaged the countryside like Genghis Khan,” said Galanti.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...#ixzz2GeDFqwip

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

North, actually, my reading comprehension isn't the problem. The truth is that I glanced at your response, figured it was the same-old, same-old and didn't actually read it. Inexcusable on my part and I apologize.

Apology excepted.

Originally Posted by rivergator

Otherwise, we agree that McCain did not talk about Kerry in that article, despite how many times rightwingers have claim he did.

That one paragraph in the US News and World Report is an easy one to misread. When it list Fulbright you can easily read into the message that it is referring to Kerry's testimony to Sen Fulbright .

By the way I am not your classic right winger.
For the record I am a libertarian.

Originally Posted by rivergator

You're really questioning whether Galanti said those things? From your link:

Actually I was responding to your own words.

As far as Galanti, he claims that Kerry said all American soldiers were war criminals. He said that Kerry said he personally witnessed ears being cut off. Did Kerry really say those things? Or was this just politically motivated BS?

At that time I was not totally on my game and I did no feel like reviewing the post on this thread on who said what. Since you sounded so convincing I gave you the benefit of the doubt that Kerry did not actually witness ears being cut off. I believe if you review the preview of his testimony that Kerry explains his information of the war crimes came from letters sent to him by other Vietnam war vets. A good part that he recited was from those letters.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Apology excepted.



That one paragraph in the US News and World Report is an easy one to misread. When it list Fulbright you can easily read into the message that it is referring to Kerry's testimony to Sen Fulbright.

Fulbright himself was an outspoken opponent of the war. Furthermore, he held dozens of hearings about the war. Pretty big stretch to claim it's easy to assume that a reference to Fulbright must have been about one guy's testimony in one of those hearings.
But that's exactly what you and others have done.

Actually I was responding to your own words.

At that time I was not totally on my game and I did no feel like reviewing the post on this thread on who said what. Since you sounded so convincing I gave you the benefit of the doubt that Kerry did not actually witness ears being cut off. I believe if you review the preview of his testimony that Kerry explains his information of the war crimes came from letters sent to him by other Vietnam war vets. A good part that he recited was from those letters.

So ... given that Galanti claimed that Kerry called all Vietnam vets war criminals. And given the fact that Kerry didn't do that ... why should we take Galanti's word on all this?

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Fulbright himself was an outspoken opponent of the war. Furthermore, he held dozens of hearings about the war. Pretty big stretch to claim it's easy to assume that a reference to Fulbright must have been about one guy's testimony in one of those hearings.
But that's exactly what you and others have done.

Pretty big stretch? More like something less than a short reach. Kerry's Fulbright testimony drew a lot of attention nationally and internationally. Kerry's speech was controversial, thought, provoking, and dramatic. The just listed items are the factors on why the testimony is so well remembered or known. I was 19 years old when Kerry testified. I still remember after all these years. One reason is the dramatical why Kerry delivered it (actually a good job), two for the controversy it generated. Three, it never goes away as long as Kerry stays in the public eye.

Originally Posted by rivergator

So ... given that Galanti claimed that Kerry called all Vietnam vets war criminals. And given the fact that Kerry didn't do that ... why should we take Galanti's word on all this?

Actually Kerry's wording and dramatic delivery gave the impression that called all Vietnam Vets war criminals. This is a situation were Kerry could of used the word "some" in his speech so that impression would of been different. The following quote explains what I just said. Please note where Gary Solis points out how Kerry erred.

"Summarizing the accounts of American soldiers he had heard at an antiwar conference in Detroit weeks earlier, Mr. Kerry said the men told how 'they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.' " the Times reported in a February 28 retrospective on Kerry's Vietnam war protests.

"But Gary Solis, a former Marine lieutenant colonel, Vietnam veteran and expert on war crimes who is an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center here, said Mr. Kerry had made a grave error. 'Sure it's true,' Mr. Solis said. 'Sure there were people raped, ears cut off and so on. Each one of the things that he mentioned happened, in some cases I know, and in others I'm confident. But when you put them all together in one sentence and say this was well known at every level of command, it impugns, it seems to me, everyone who fought over there and it gives the impression that everyone who fought over there was a war criminal and that's just not true,' " the Times report concluded.

http://www.vvaw.org/commentary/?id=399

Here is a quote from Galenti. Please note that Galenti was a POW for five years and endured torture, beatings, and isolation. The sole objective of Gallanti's captors was to break him for propaganda purposes. These items were most likely factors that left Galanti with the feel that Kerry called all of the American soldiers in Vietnam war criminals.

Paul Galanti, captured in 1966 after ejecting from his fighter jet about 100 miles south of Hanoi, said on the Sean Hannity radio show yesterday he first heard Kerry’s testimony in late 1971 when it was broadcast by his Vietnamese captors over the public address system in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” prison.

The broadcast on Radio Vietnam by “Hanoi Hannah” was used to reinforce the message of his captors during torture sessions, said Galanti, 64, now retired in Richmond, Va.

“We were not prisoners of war, we were ‘war criminals,’ they would say. ‘You are going to be tried, you will never go home.’”

Then came Hanoi Hannah introducing a clip from Kerry’s testimony.

“I couldn’t believe it, a Navy officer saying we were all war criminals, that we raped and pillaged the countryside like Genghis Khan,” said Galanti.

Galanti, who flew 97 combat missions, said he had not suffered a flashback from the war until he recently heard a recording of the April 22, 1971, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

His memory was triggered when he heard Kerry mispronouncing “Ghenghis Khan.”

“Then I was back there again,” he said.

Galanti said Kerry broke a covenant with his fellow servicemen, to never jeopardize their safety with public criticism. But he believes, moreover, the Massachusetts senator betrayed his country.

“John Kerry was a traitor,” he said, adding the “definition of treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy in the time of war.”

As for taking Galanti's word let me remind you that you are now questioning Galanti's war record. If you choose to go down this raid you are opening the door to question Kerry's war record into this thread.

I have mixed emotions concerning Kerry's war record. There are a lot of conflicting opinions. The pro Kerry opinions come from the men who actually served on his boat and his commanding officers. The anti Kerry opinions come from other officers and men from other boats. most likely Kerry was a good officer but probably rubbed outsiders the wrong way. With that in mind I choose not to question Kerry's war record.

However, I do question Kerry's anti war actions. Some of those action really did betray fellow officers like Galanti and McCain. As for Kerry protesting the war I understand how he got to that point. If you were to read "The Pentagon Papers" you would understand too. The actions that I question is the grandstanding. That grandstanding appears that Kerry was using the anti war movement for self personal/political gain. You don't betray subordinates and fellow officers for gain.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Pretty big stretch? More like something less than a short reach. Kerry's Fulbright testimony drew a lot of attention nationally and internationally. Kerry's speech was controversial, thought, provoking, and dramatic. The just listed items are the factors on why the testimony is so well remembered or known. I was 19 years old when Kerry testified. I still remember after all these years. One reason is the dramatical why Kerry delivered it (actually a good job), two for the controversy it generated. Three, it never goes away as long as Kerry stays in the public eye.




Actually Kerry's wording and dramatic delivery gave the impression that called all Vietnam Vets war criminals. This is a situation were Kerry could of used the word "some" in his speech so that impression would of been different. The following quote explains what I just said. Please note where Gary Solis points out how Kerry erred.


http://www.vvaw.org/commentary/?id=399

Here is a quote from Galenti. Please note that Galenti was a POW for five years and endured torture, beatings, and isolation. The sole objective of Gallanti's captors was to break him for propaganda purposes. These items were most likely factors that left Galanti with the feel that Kerry called all of the American soldiers in Vietnam war criminals.


As for taking Galanti's word let me remind you that you are now questioning Galanti's war record. If you choose to go down this raid you are opening the door to question Kerry's war record into this thread.

I have mixed emotions concerning Kerry's war record. There are a lot of conflicting opinions. The pro Kerry opinions come from the men who actually served on his boat and his commanding officers. The anti Kerry opinions come from other officers and men from other boats. most likely Kerry was a good officer but probably rubbed outsiders the wrong way. With that in mind I choose not to question Kerry's war record.

However, I do question Kerry's anti war actions. Some of those action really did betray fellow officers like Galanti and McCain. As for Kerry protesting the war I understand how he got to that point. If you were to read "The Pentagon Papers" you would understand too. The actions that I question is the grandstanding. That grandstanding appears that Kerry was using the anti war movement for self personal/political gain. You don't betray subordinates and fellow officers for gain.

I appreciate your fair minded approach to the issue but keep in mind that grandstanding in opposition to the war was an appropriate response to a government that had decided years before it ended that the war was a lost cause and a logical attempt to see that the "last man to die for a mistake" was in the past and not the future.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by Row6

I appreciate your fair minded approach to the issue but keep in mind that grandstanding in opposition to the war was an appropriate response to a government that had decided years before it ended that the war was a lost cause and a logical attempt to see that the "last man to die for a mistake" was in the past and not the future.

Rowe, Kerry had every right to protest the Vietnam War.
Kerry was a Commissioned Officer it is never appropriate for a Commissioned Officer to provide any aide to the enemy that can harm your country and especially harm his fellow soldiers who are being held captive as POW's.
Kerry is a very smart man. He had several years of active duty experience. He should of and could of expressed his feelings and viewpoint in a more productive and effective manner.

Some things to keep in mind about Kerry's anti war movement activities:
1, In 1971?or 72 Kerry let it be known that he was running for a US Congress seat. Some of his colleagues in the movement were not happy with Kerry because it gave the appearance of being opportunistic and that he was using the movement for person at gain.
2, A lot of the people and groups that Kerry associated with were active members if the communist party or had been infiltrated by communist.
3, The Vietnam Veterans Against the War and affiliated groups got into some illegal or at the least shady activities. Some of these groups were on the verge to use violence on US Citizens and the US gov't to end the war.

I am not accusing Kerry of any wrong doing but you have to admit he had some questionable associations in the 1970's. one if those associations was the North Vietnamese gov't. That association may of gone deeper than the meeting in Paris in 1971.

Here us an interesting read
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/p...y/061703.shtml

[Row6]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Rowe, Kerry had every right to protest the Vietnam War.
Kerry was a Commissioned Officer it is never appropriate for a Commissioned Officer to provide any aide to the enemy that can harm your country and especially harm his fellow soldiers who are being held captive as POW's.
Kerry is a very smart man. He had several years of active duty experience. He should of and could of expressed his feelings and viewpoint in a more productive and effective manner.

Some things to keep in mind about Kerry's anti war movement activities:
1, In 1971?or 72 Kerry let it be known that he was running for a US Congress seat. Some of his colleagues in the movement were not happy with Kerry because it gave the appearance of being opportunistic and that he was using the movement for person at gain.
2, A lot of the people and groups that Kerry associated with were active members if the communist party or had been infiltrated by communist.
3, The Vietnam Veterans Against the War and affiliated groups got into some illegal or at the least shady activities. Some of these groups were on the verge to use violence on US Citizens and the US gov't to end the war.

I am not accusing Kerry of any wrong doing but you have to admit he had some questionable associations in the 1970's. one if those associations was the North Vietnamese gov't. That association may of gone deeper than the meeting in Paris in 1971.

Here us an interesting read
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/p...y/061703.shtml

Thanks for the link, but I didn't find anything significantly blameworthy in it regarding Kerry. I also continue to think that his duty to the country outweighed his duty to fellow officers and given the continuation of the war effort for largely political reasons - not because anyone seriously thought we could win it by then - some level of outrage and bad behavior was understandable. I knew a couple of members of VVAW, though not well, including Camil, and believing their stories I also felt that I understood their bitterness and frustration. These were still young guys, not seasoned politicians, and the extremes of belief some of them settled into were part of that I think. In fact, the famous Gainesville 8 trial of VVAW activities at the Republican convention in Miami Beach demonstrated that the incendiary plans - which never happened - were introduced by undercover agents.

"While organizing protests, the group received information that during the convention the government was going to shoot someone or use explosives and blame it on the antiwar protesters. They were also going to raise the five drawbridges so that antiwar demonstrators would be trapped on Miami Beach and shot by police and soldiers during the commotion. In response to this information, the VVAW group planned to draw those police and soldiers away by attacking federal buildings, police stations, and fire stations in the two adjacent counties to occupy the government forces, then reopen bridges to aid escape of the demonstrators. These plans were typed up and distributed among the rest of the group by a VVAW member and undercover FBI agent, Bill Lemmer. The eight were accused of planning to use automatic weapons, explosives, incendiary devices, as well as slingshots and crossbows.

The jury got to read the letter containing all the proposed plans on attacking the federal buildings, but they also got to read the constantly repeated admonition in the letter, "This will be done for defensive purposes only." The jury saw that their goal was to protect the rights of the protesters, and they acquitted the eight men of all charges without the need for them to present a defense. In Camil's words, "We had no conspiracy to disrupt the convention. Our conspiracy, if you want to call it that, was to go down to the convention and exercise our Constitutional rights as citizens and to defend those rights against anybody who tried to take away those rights, whether it be the government or anyone else. And the jury sided with us."

Bill Lemmer, the Southern regional assistant coordinator of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, revealed himself as an undercover FBI operative in May 1972. During the 1973 trial it was revealed that the VVAW had been infiltrated by government agents and informants, such as Emmerson Poe and Lemmer. Showing that these agents provocateur led the illegal activities severely damaged the prosecution's case. The prosecution also tried to use the defendant's Vietnam records as indication that these were violent people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gainesville_Eight

[northgagator]

Rowe like I said.

I am not accusing Kerry of any wrong doing but you have to admit he had some questionable associations in the 1970's. one if those associations was the North Vietnamese gov't. That association may of gone deeper than the meeting in Paris in 1971.

I do believe Kerry was politically motivate.
However, I hope Kerry and his fellow protestors stayed true and clean for their cause. If they did not then they not only betrayed their fellow soldiers but their country too. For the most part the goals and the objectives of the anti war movement were patriotic and honorable. The move had many legal and morally correct options to exercise to achieve the goals and objectives. Hopefully they did not resort to the illegal or morally wrong options.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Pretty big stretch? More like something less than a short reach. Kerry's Fulbright testimony drew a lot of attention nationally and internationally. Kerry's speech was controversial, thought, provoking, and dramatic. The just listed items are the factors on why the testimony is so well remembered or known. I was 19 years old when Kerry testified. I still remember after all these years. One reason is the dramatical why Kerry delivered it (actually a good job), two for the controversy it generated. Three, it never goes away as long as Kerry stays in the public eye.

Right. When someone said Fulbright was quoted, it must actually have been Kerry. Yeah, that's a stretch.

Actually Kerry's wording and dramatic delivery gave the impression that called all Vietnam Vets war criminals. This is a situation were Kerry could of used the word "some" in his speech so that impression would of been different. The following quote explains what I just said. Please note where Gary Solis points out how Kerry erred.


http://www.vvaw.org/commentary/?id=399

No, he didn't give the impression that each and every Vietnam vet was a war criminal. He said criminal acts took place. And they did.

Here is a quote from Galenti. Please note that Galenti was a POW for five years and endured torture, beatings, and isolation. The sole objective of Gallanti's captors was to break him for propaganda purposes. These items were most likely factors that left Galanti with the feel that Kerry called all of the American soldiers in Vietnam war criminals.


As for taking Galanti's word let me remind you that you are now questioning Galanti's war record. If you choose to go down this raid you are opening the door to question Kerry's war record into this thread.

[/quote]

No, I'm obviously not questioning Galanti's war record. I'm saying that it's hard to know if what he said 30 years after the war during a hotly contested political campaign is accurate. Seriously, why would you say that?

I have mixed emotions concerning Kerry's war record. There are a lot of conflicting opinions. The pro Kerry opinions come from the men who actually served on his boat and his commanding officers. The anti Kerry opinions come from other officers and men from other boats. most likely Kerry was a good officer but probably rubbed outsiders the wrong way. With that in mind I choose not to question Kerry's war record.

However, I do question Kerry's anti war actions. Some of those action really did betray fellow officers like Galanti and McCain. As for Kerry protesting the war I understand how he got to that point. If you were to read "The Pentagon Papers" you would understand too. The actions that I question is the grandstanding. That grandstanding appears that Kerry was using the anti war movement for self personal/political gain. You don't betray subordinates and fellow officers for gain.

I think you could certainly make the case that Kerry was doing it for political gain. And we disagree whether he betrayed anyone.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Right. When someone said Fulbright was quoted, it must actually have been Kerry. Yeah, that's a stretch.

River, Galanti and and few other POW's were quoted that they heard the speech by Kerry. They most likely did not know who he was at the time or remember his name but they did remember that speech.

Originally Posted by rivergator

No, he didn't give the impression that each and every Vietnam vet was a war criminal. He said criminal acts took place. And they did.

You are so closed minded they you never open you mind to the opportunity that all opinions you oppose to are always wrong.
Also you are parsing words again without thinking what you are actually saying.
Questions:
1, Did Kerry say that war crimes toke place in Vietnam?
2, Did Kery say who were committing those war crimes?
3, If he did say who was committing those crimes, then who did he identify?

Originally Posted by rivergator

No, I'm obviously not questioning Galanti's war record. I'm saying that it's hard to know if what he said 30 years after the war during a hotly contested political campaign is accurate. Seriously, why would you say that?

You are being dishonest and you don't even know it.
For the record, you are challenging Galanti's war record. Don't spin any BS on this point.
1, Galanti heard the Kerry speech while he was a POW in North Vietnam.
2, Galanti's POW experience is part of his military record.
3, Galanti is is referring to the exact speech that Kerry made. Under the circumstances Galanti was under anyone can see why he remembers that speech? Wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by rivergator

I think you could certainly make the case that Kerry was doing it for political gain. And we disagree whether he betrayed anyone.

Making careless statements that put POW's in harms way is not betrayal?
Making statements and performing actions that worked to the North Vietnamess favor is not betrayal?

Making careless statement and performing actions for political gain is not betrayal?
That gain was at the expense of the POW's.

I guess the next thing you will say is that Benedict Arnold was not a traitor.

I am done messing with you until you can come up with reasonable argument that is backed with facts and links.

[rivergator]

nm

[JerseyGator01]

It really shows how far left our government has become with Kerry breezing through the nomination like this. He lost to a weak Prez in W yet breezes through the Senate with just 3 votes against him.

[g8orbill]

nm

[vertigo0923]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

It really shows how far left our government has become with Kerry breezing through the nomination like this. He lost to a weak Prez in W yet breezes through the Senate with just 3 votes against him.

he 'breezed' thru because the republicans were hoping to get a shot at his senate seat. that's why they really didn't want susan rice. they wanted kerry cuz they wanted his seat. so strange about scott brown though.