Interesting read on Bush, Kerry, and Vietnam

[John Reynolds]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-18-veterans-edit_x.htm

Kerry's own comments were filled with hyperbolic exaggerations that sought to make egregious acts seem commonplace. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971, he testified that fellow veterans had routinely "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." With those words, he defamed a generation of honorable men. No matter how he spins it today, at a minimum, he owes them a full and complete apology.

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.

At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries.

 

[Sazar]

if you read any of the transcripts of the time concerning kerry... it is quite apparent he was making his point concerning the administration and not the soldiers of the war though the circumstances he saw were a key reason for him to turn against the war on his return...

 

[epicstruggle]

if you read any of the transcripts of the time concerning kerry... it is quite apparent he was making his point concerning the administration and not the soldiers of the war though the circumstances he saw were a key reason for him to turn against the war on his return...

actually he was painting a picture of human rights abuse. The fact that he had to trash the common soldier to do it, was of no concern to him. An added bonus was the amount of press he got from it. I wont accuse him of lying to get the attention of the press, but it looks like it.

later,
epic

 

[pax]

Not much to look forward to this election year. Save the removal of bush and really much more importantly his hawkish entourage.

http://amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

But maybe Edwards can pull off a comeback on super tuesday. He seems more likely to reopen nafta that I would love to see happen.

 

[Sazar]

if you read any of the transcripts of the time concerning kerry... it is quite apparent he was making his point concerning the administration and not the soldiers of the war though the circumstances he saw were a key reason for him to turn against the war on his return...

actually he was painting a picture of human rights abuse. The fact that he had to trash the common soldier to do it, was of no concern to him. An added bonus was the amount of press he got from it. I wont accuse him of lying to get the attention of the press, but it looks like it.

later,
epic

yes.. I am not negating that.. my point was he was bringing up concerns against the administration... not the soldiers...

but I spose I could have been clearer

 

[Sage]

well, but let's be honest, many soldiers did commit unspeakable acts. Now ther certainly does not mean that most, or even a large number of the soldiers did. I think that the vast majority of men who served in Vietnam were good people that had to do a dirty job. However, there was a lot of soldiers who relished the violence. American soldiers did commit horrible war crimes and got away with it, that's something that many Americans seem incapable of believing.

 

[StefanS]

well, but let's be honest, many soldiers did commit unspeakable acts. Now ther certainly does not mean that most, or even a large number of the soldiers did. I think that the vast majority of men who served in Vietnam were good people that had to do a dirty job. However, there was a lot of soldiers who relished the violence. American soldiers did commit horrible war crimes and got away with it, that's something that many Americans seem incapable of believing.

War just brings out the worst in people ...

 

[RussSchultz]

if you read any of the transcripts of the time concerning kerry... it is quite apparent he was making his point concerning the administration and not the soldiers of the war though the circumstances he saw were a key reason for him to turn against the war on his return...

We must not be reading the same thing, then.

He testified that war crimes were rampant, and that the chain of command and administration were complicit. He did say that the administration was "responsible", but (my own words), the only way the murder of 100,000 could happen was if soldiers did the killing. He could not indict the chain of command unless he first showed soldiers were regularly acting improperly.

 

[Sazar]

if you read any of the transcripts of the time concerning kerry... it is quite apparent he was making his point concerning the administration and not the soldiers of the war though the circumstances he saw were a key reason for him to turn against the war on his return...

We must not be reading the same thing, then.

He testified that war crimes were rampant, and that the chain of command and administration were complicit. He did say that the administration was "responsible", but (my own words), the only way the murder of 100,000 could happen was if soldiers did the killing. He could not indict the chain of command unless he first showed soldiers were regularly acting improperly.

yes... I admitted as much my wording could have been better... but his goal was.. apparently (from what I read of it anyways) to place the cross-hairs on the administration...

 

[Babel-17]

John Reynolds, I think Kerry was aware of some of the coverups that are even now, decades later, just coming to light.

These are old wounds and no one wants to take anything away from the hard duty so many performed in Viet Nam. Putting Kerry's position on the war in perspective may not be a task we american's will enjoy.

Type > Army 101st Airborne Division's Tiger Force < into google for a sample of what I mean.