John Kerry Is The Light Of Truth, The Congressional Hearing

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
Good GOD man, it sounds to me as if you were enjoying your self over there in Vietnam, and wanted to stay there forever,........ because , if John Kerry and the other Veteran Protesters hadn't gone forward to the Foreign Relations Committee ,.................... you'd still be there,....... or maybe not there as in alive and kicking,................ as you are now . Kerry was trying to stop a senceless war before anyone else died, and that includes your life too.

Vietnam was the biggest challenge of my life. My six months in country were boring, difficult, terrible, horrific, dangerous, less dangerous, adrenaline fueled, frightening beyond words, frustrating, gratifying, brutal, vicious, exhausting, intensely painful and sometimes fun. So what? I was serving my country in the defense of freedom. I did my best, even when my hands would shake so bad, I could hardly cut a charge. I only regret that I was wounded at just about the time that I was really getting hang of my job and felt comfortable under fire.

I owe nothing to John Kerry. Only the revisionists, like yourself would dare to suggest differntly. Kerry wanted the communists to win the war and with his help, they finally defeated the ARVN in April of 1973, two years after the last US combat troops were removed.

The statement that we would still be there, except for John Kerry is a statement based solely upon an ingorance of the facts. I'd be ashamed to expound the utter nonsense that you spout everyday. The blood of the millions slaughtered by the communists of Southeast Asia after the fall of Saigon is on your hands and Kerry's, too.

Deny Ignorance, nanna. Stop reading only what you want to believe.

John Kerry is a traitor is the highest magnitude and you want him to be president. That doesn't say much for you.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is a lie. Free fire zones were not zones in which non-combatants could be slaughtered with impunity. No such zones, existed.

HUMMMMMMMM, That's not what this says, Grady, you need to check yourself.


lists.village.virginia.edu...

free fire zone
free strike zone
free strike zone
area where everyone was deemed hostile and a legitimate target by U.S. forces

Originally posted by nanna_of_6

free fire zone
free strike zone
free strike zone
area where everyone was deemed hostile and a legitimate target by U.S. forces

This is just another instance where an uninformed individual reads into a definition, that is not official in nature, what they will. I have been in free fire zones. Free fire zones are swept of all civilians who may be in harm's way and they are temporarily relocated. These sweeps were exhaustive and every effort was made to remove everyone. Leaflets were dropped from airplanes and the infantry units and combined action units who worked with the village leaders made sure the word was promulgated.

Under any circumstance a challenge must be given to whomever comes into your field of fire, to prevent killing your own who may be returning from patrol. If fired upon, contact with higher ups was not required. Artillery and air support are given free reign when suspicious activity was observed, but coordinates were called in by observers. Massive areas were bombarded in what was called zone and shift excercise.

Under no circumstances, is anyone allowed to fire upon non-combatants. When this happened, heads rolled. If an artillery unit fired out an killed civilians or even cattle and especially friendly troops, someone's head would roll.

There were abuses in Vietnam, but free fire zones were not free crime zones. Kerry made this assertion and made it stick. If that's the way he conducted operations in free fire zones, he is a war criminal.

Kerry was careful in his smearing of the US, not incriminate himself. Some suggest that he was trigger happy in free fire zones and that he charaterized them in that way because that's the way he interpreted the term.

Free fire zones were areas where the enemy saturated the area and every effort was made to evacuate all civilians. When you're on an outpost with no wire and only claymores for protection and it is so dark you cannot see without a starlight scope and you see or hear movement and a challenge goes unanswered. It is a given that you will light up the night. If you are fired upon under those circumstance, the its the same scenario. Who else would be sneaking around an infantry company or a artillery battery at night. Christmas carolers?

Nanna, for you, the US military is the enemy. Nothing we do is right. You ignore the slaughter of tens of thousands by our enemies and make a few accidental deaths and the very rare atrocities carried out by a few individuals into policy.

You can watch our enemies in the war on Terror, slaughter in the most brutal and senseless ways over and over again and turn the actions of a few Reservists at a prison into a holocaust.

When I call people like you the enemy, I mean that you support the enemy with fervor and demean and disparage the military of your nation with glee. No other fighting force in the world has ever carried out military operations with so few abuses and with such effort to bring the guilty to justice.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

These are the best definitions I could find on the internet. Even these are grossly lacking in comprehensiveness:

free-fire area. [JP 1-02] (DoD) A specific area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters. See also area; fire.www.fas.org...

FREE FIRE AREA:
A SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AREA INTO WHICH ANY WEAPON SYSTEM MAY BE FIRED WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL COORDINATION

FREE FIRE ZONE:
AN AREA WHERE PERMISSION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SHOOT IN [VN]
members.aol.com...

Free Fire Zone - An area supposedly cleared of civilians where artillery could fire without prior clearance.
www.angelfire.com...

free fire zone: free to fire upon any forces you may come upon�Do not have to identify. Sometimes called free kill zones. Everyone is deemed hostile and a legitimate target.

dictionary.reference.com...

A one sentence definition of anything does not exist in military policy. And there were never any zones where atrocities were authorized. I wish you would understand that. If you want to vote for John Kerry, do so. Just don't try to make him out to be the light of truth. He is not the light of truth. He is the master of prevarication and deceit.

Well Grady I wouldn't call...

Making piles of naked grown men
threatening men with electrocution
siccing dogs on naked men'
covering grown men in feces
sexual molestation of men and boys

...exactly 'the actions of a few Reservists.'

How would you feel if you saw pictures of that happening to Americans?

But if that's how you want to spin it, be my guest.

Originally posted by taibunsuuHow would you feel if you saw pictures of that happening to Americans?

Those actions were deplorable and inexcusable and those responsible are being brought to justice. I would hate to be treated like that, but I would prefer it to having my head sliced off with a combat knife.

I just want to keep it all in perspective. I don't think I spun anything, at all.

Originally posted by nativeokie
Any chance of a link to a real media organization to back up these claims? These sites seem to be rather simple sites done by people with an obvious agenda.

You mean like CBS ... a 'real media organization'?
They don't have an obvious agenda, do they?

We can't trust the 'real media' anymore. It's the
bloggers and the internet folks that are getting down
to the truth these days.

KERRY IS A LIAR. His only truth is 'the truth of the moment'.
Wait a few days and that 'truth' will change to fit what ever
audience he is addressing.

Much of Kerry's testimoney is backed up by the false testimonies
of the Winter Soldiers. All liars. All with an agenda.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Making piles of naked grown men
threatening men with electrocution
siccing dogs on naked men'
covering grown men in feces
sexual molestation of men and boys
...exactly 'the actions of a few Reservists.'

That's sick and wrong but it definately
isn't torture. And it really was the
actions of a just a few and those few
are being punished. It wasn't common
place or wide spread or cheered at by
the government - like our enemies do.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Bush deserted and opted not to have his physical due to drug problems.
Everyone knows his whole life has been with an addiction to something or other. The secretary stated on 60 minutes that although she did not type the document 60 minutes produced, she said everything there was correct and true. With the exceptions of certain things "left out".
Its hard for right wingers to be told this, but its the truth.
Insane? Lying? Senile? I dont think so...And HOW DARE you call a woman who spent 20 plus years serving in the military dishonest?
I noticed this little story was brushed under the rug real quick.
Just like everything else.

Proof please of the "didn't take his physical because of drug use??? WHAT?? You HAVE NONE???? Why doesn't that surprise me? I guess the "everyone" you are referring to is you and your other "buddies" who think it's all about the "Illuminati"... what little credibility you might have had at one time is shot to hell. Get on the planet with the rest of us, will ya?

The woman was a civilian secretary. Of course, she surely couldn't have any political leanings, now could she? THAT would be IMPOSSIBLE!!! Why? Because it would shoot your story down in flames. I'm sorry, what story. You have no story, because your "proof" is forged documents and the word of an 80 something year old Democrat.

Get real, and get off it. Done deal.....

Originally posted by taibunsuu





The facts about his desertion and his inability to prove that he served have been around a lot longer than the recent documents that have come to light. How about the $60,000 being offered for one shred of proof that he ever served in the Alabama Air National Guard? Care to offer some? Yeah, thought so.


It's not that they're difficult. You probably don't mind taking flight physicals, because to you the USAF is more than an annoying necessity to skip the draft.


If I could prove he was there I would, because that'd be a quick $60,000 - $10,000 from Gary Trudeau (contest now over, $10k dontated to USO, no one was able to show a shred of proof in the 'reward for proof of service' advertised in his syndicated comic strip) and $50k from some pundit group Texans for Truth, which is probably the antithesis of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth.

So, if you have a single shred of proof that Bush served in the Alabama Air National Guard, go ahead and submit it.

I'll tell you what. All you've done here is pontificate and puke out what you have "heard" about these "facts". Show ME some proof. You can't, because it's not true. GWB received ALL his points EVERY YEAR he was in the Guard, and most years, received many MORE points than necessary to fulfill his service commitments. MANY more. He was honorably discharged. You don't get an honorable discharge if you are AWOL of have deserted, PERIOD!

You ask me to prove he did not desert...sorry, it is impossible to prove a negative. If he was AWOL or had deserted, there would be charges against him, and TONS of paperwork. Guess what? THERE IS NONE! Why? Because it isn't true.

So, if he was AWOL or had deserted as you erroneously claim, that is a positive and there will be proof. Pretend I'm from Missouri...Show me....

Originally posted by nanna_of_6

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Something else is that the TROOPS you claim to worry about DO NOT TRUST KERRY!!!

[edit on 19-9-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

How would you know, who the troops trust and don't trust,............. are you over there with them, talking to them every day ??????????

So, tell me how do YOU KNOW THAT,............ oh I know,............ you can read minds,.............. RIGHT

How do I know???

BECAUSE I AM ONE OF THOSE TROOPS YOU POMPOUS CHILD, AND I HAVE ALREADY SPENT TWO 120 DAY TOURS IN THE AOR!!!


I am on active duty, honey, have been for over 20 years, and would be back there right now for my THIRD tour were it not for mandatory retirement hitting me.

So before you go shooting your mouth off, perhaps you should try to find out to whom you are speaking. Although I didn't think it possible, you make yourself look even MORE foolish than you NORMALLY do with your gibberish.

How�s that shoe leather taste this morning???




[edit on 20-9-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

FlyersFan,

That is very true, it was wrong and sick, but remember we are the civilized nation and they are not.

We are there to bring them democracy, they don�t know what democracy is.

We are a Christian nation, they are �barbaric� and with barbarism as such they behave.

Now how can we condemn what they do when we know all alone what they are and what they believe by?

Should we use totalitarian type of government like Sadamn type to get them back in control?

That in other to work was better to be done during the inmetiatly hours after getting Sadamn on the run,

What US did? It let them loot and ransack the place; it let them run the streets and didn�t even take the time to protect the borders.

Poor planning, and over confidence, if US tried to control them now guess what.

Then we will be criticizes for double standards and people will scream, �where is democracy�?

Every way you see it is not way to win, and If any body here has a better way to do it without ripping each other apart with negative comments I will like to hear.

This is a matter that is affecting us it will affect our children and the generations to come.


[edit on 20-9-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
pzzzz.tripod.com...
by Gary Jacobson

There has been a great deal of misinformation spread about the veteran community concerning John Kerry's statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on April 22, 1971. Many vets have been led to believe Kerry cast all veterans as evil criminals, and baby killers. He did not! This is far from the truth...not what he said...and not what he felt! John Kerry deserves the light of truth and justice given his truly spoken words, not the half-truths that say he said what he didn't, innuendoes, unfair falsifications, misrepresentations and character assassinations, downright mean-spirited lies and dirty tricks perpetuated by those who do not wish to see him in office.

Thank you Nanna. The Vietnam era is indeed a difficult and painful subject to even bring up these days, though some do with gusto.

Acknowledging the contributions of John Kerry though, does not dispute or negate the very real anger that alot of quite lucky surviving Vietnam era veterans may feel. Sadly many will die just as angry as they may have felt then hearing pivitol testimony on that day in 1971.

The arguments against Kerry's anti-war activism vary on themes from communist sympathies to just plain old being anti-American. Confirmed opinions like those developed and reinforced with 30 years of hate do not suffer contradiction lightly. They are understandable and sympathetic. When stoked and spread however 30 years later with a very real political agenda by some media and political forces (not to mention politicians) not even involved in Vietnam pushing those same old notions of treason are not only unforgivable, but increasingly intolerable. I thought we buried Nixon once already!

But both sides of opinion do agree on one thing though about John Kerry's testimony. It shaped public opinion and led to change, some of which people cite as a negative.

I wasn't in Vietnam being a newborn in 69, but then neither was my teenaged father that just missed being called up. I never even considered I may owe his life (and possibly my own) to anti-war activists like John Kerry before this all came up (again). Now I do.

It's certainly had me thinking on the issue. And since Kerry critics base their charges on how influential his testimony was, I looked for something concrete (not opinion) on what Kerry may have impacted even if only in some small way.

Vietnam War Statistics and Facts

1961 to 1965: 1,864 US Forces KIA
1966: 5,008 US Forces KIA
1967: 9,378 US Forces KIA
1968: 14,594 US Forces KIA
1969: 9,414 US Forces KIA
1970 4,221 US Forces KIA
1971: 1,380 US Forces KIA
~(Kerry Testifies April 22)
1972: 300 US Forces KIA

And of course for good or bad (as some wished to continue), Nixon eventually ironed out an acceptable end to the Vietnam War.

Now I don't expect a single Vietnam veteran that has hated John Kerry for the past 30 years to ever see things the way I do. That maybe the anti-war activites of Kerry and other Vietnam veterans weren't such a bad thing after all, if not indeed outright heroic.

People are just wired different and each conditioned to believe alot of things. Arguing over opinions can be fun, but it changes none of them.

John Kerry is just one hero among many in my mind, including those Vietnam veterans that oppose him so ferociously.






[edit on 20-9-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by RANT

Vietnam War Statistics and Facts

1961 to 1965: 1,864 US Forces KIA
1966: 5,008 US Forces KIA
1967: 9,378 US Forces KIA
1968: 14,594 US Forces KIA
1969: 9,414 US Forces KIA
1970 4,221 US Forces KIA
1971: 1,380 US Forces KIA
~(Kerry Testifies April 22)
1972: 300 US Forces KIA

I think you are suggesting a causal link here where none exists. Correlation is not causation.

And of course for good or bad (as some wished to continue), Nixon eventually ironed out an acceptable end to the Vietnam War.

Nixon did not iron out an end to the war. He devised a withdrawal of American troops, which was the death knell for South Vietam and millions of Southeast Asians. US combat troop removal was completed in April of '73. The war ended in April 1975 when Saigon fell to the communists. This fact and the subsequent exodus from Vietnam by millions of Vietnamese and the genocide carried out by the communists in Southeast Asia with out so much as a peep from the "anti-war" movement gives greater testimony to the agenda of those who "opposed the war" than all the keyboard banging in all the world.

This is the huge inexplicable blind spot of those who claim to be so morally superior. How much blood is on the hands of those who supported the enemy? Far more than is on my hands that is for sure.


[edit on 04/9/20 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Making piles of naked grown men
threatening men with electrocution
siccing dogs on naked men'
covering grown men in feces
sexual molestation of men and boys
...exactly 'the actions of a few Reservists.'

That's sick and wrong but it definately
isn't torture. And it really was the
actions of a just a few and those few
are being punished. It wasn't common
place or wide spread or cheered at by
the government - like our enemies do.

It wasnt cheered at by the government? It isnt abuse?
Just what would you call it?
It was the actions of a few with full government knowledge. This is old news that specially Rumsfeld knew of all the atrocities.
Just like this government, the sick puppies they are.
I'd hate to see what you call abuse!

here's one "link" that shows John Kerry's senate record.


www.issues2000.org...

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
www.issues2000.org...

I think this says it all.

US soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, including me. (Apr 1971)

Vietnam was genocide, but no point calling it "war crimes". (May 2001)

Kerry staunchly resists restrictions on abortions. (Apr 2004)

Partial-birth abortion ban undermine women's right to choose. (Nov 2003)

No criminalization of a woman's right to choose. (Jun 2003)

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)

Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)

Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Opposes death penalty except for post 9-11 terrorists. (Jul 2004)

States should not engage in killing-too many mistakes. (Feb 2004)

Moratorium on federal executions-only exception is terrorism. (Jan 2004)

Death penalty for Osama bin Laden. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)

Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)

Voted NO on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)

Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)

Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)

Voted NO on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. (May 1994)

Voted NO on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)

More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)

Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)

Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)

Gun owner & hunter, but rights come with responsibility. (Mar 2004)

Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA. (Nov 2003)

Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill. (Oct 2003)

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

Voted NO on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003

[edit on 04/9/20 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by dgtempe
Bush deserted and opted not to have his physical due to drug problems.
Everyone knows his whole life has been with an addiction to something or other. The secretary stated on 60 minutes that although she did not type the document 60 minutes produced, she said everything there was correct and true. With the exceptions of certain things "left out".
Its hard for right wingers to be told this, but its the truth.
Insane? Lying? Senile? I dont think so...And HOW DARE you call a woman who spent 20 plus years serving in the military dishonest?
I noticed this little story was brushed under the rug real quick.
Just like everything else.

Proof please of the "didn't take his physical because of drug use??? WHAT?? You HAVE NONE???? Why doesn't that surprise me? I guess the "everyone" you are referring to is you and your other "buddies" who think it's all about the "Illuminati"... what little credibility you might have had at one time is shot to hell. Get on the planet with the rest of us, will ya?


Get real, and get off it. Done deal.....

Oh, MG! waaa waaa waaa ..have mommy wipe your face...
Bush was too drunk and high to take the fizical....(hick)

I dont care to be in the planet with the likes of you. I, along with half this country KNOW the real truth behind this president, and you are a warmongerer Bush lover, wrapped in the American flag, waving your little flag all the time--Just dont disagree with you, because you'll eat them for dinner.
You're entitled to your opinion, and i'm entitled to mine. I'm married to a Marine. Top secret clearance, medals, has been offered top jobs within government, and im going to tell you, my husband doesnt agree with the likes of you or Grady..
My husband has told me stories of atrocities in Viet Nam- he lived it. He saw it and was involved. It does not mean he's less of a veteran because he speaks the truth.
How you armchair warriors (sorry, you said you wore some kind of uniform...) can sit there and pass judgement on everyone and everything, and pounce on everyone who dares say anything you dont agree with, I'll never know.
You and Grady need to realize you both are not the only people in uniform.. and you're not the only patriots...and if it werent for smilies and bogus right winged posts, there wouldnt be any substance to your posts at all...

dgtempe,

I applaud you for that post,

I wonder what it takes for a man to have the guts to accept that their service was appreciated and respected but now this is the present and we have to keep with the program that is what we are dealing with now, Vietnam is over and we have to thanks Kerry and others for that, at least they still have their lives.


[edit on 20-9-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by taibunsuu





The facts about his desertion and his inability to prove that he served have been around a lot longer than the recent documents that have come to light. How about the $60,000 being offered for one shred of proof that he ever served in the Alabama Air National Guard? Care to offer some? Yeah, thought so.


It's not that they're difficult. You probably don't mind taking flight physicals, because to you the USAF is more than an annoying necessity to skip the draft.


If I could prove he was there I would, because that'd be a quick $60,000 - $10,000 from Gary Trudeau (contest now over, $10k dontated to USO, no one was able to show a shred of proof in the 'reward for proof of service' advertised in his syndicated comic strip) and $50k from some pundit group Texans for Truth, which is probably the antithesis of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth.

So, if you have a single shred of proof that Bush served in the Alabama Air National Guard, go ahead and submit it.

I'll tell you what. All you've done here is pontificate and puke out what you have "heard" about these "facts". Show ME some proof. You can't, because it's not true. GWB received ALL his points EVERY YEAR he was in the Guard, and most years, received many MORE points than necessary to fulfill his service commitments. MANY more. He was honorably discharged. You don't get an honorable discharge if you are AWOL of have deserted, PERIOD!

You ask me to prove he did not desert...sorry, it is impossible to prove a negative. If he was AWOL or had deserted, there would be charges against him, and TONS of paperwork. Guess what? THERE IS NONE! Why? Because it isn't true.

So, if he was AWOL or had deserted as you erroneously claim, that is a positive and there will be proof. Pretend I'm from Missouri...Show me....

Bush, pilot who didn't have to go to ROTC or OCS to become an officer, becomes an officer on his first day out of six-week airman training.

To get in the guard, passes to the top of a line of a 100,000 person waiting list for National Guard entry, scores 25% on his Officer and Pilot qualification tests, then goes through a million-dollar training course for pilots, ends up grounded. Wow, grounded due to lack of a flight physical, the dream of every interceptor pilot.





Then, after four years, he applies to go to a non-flying unit in Alabama:




Denied. He has obligation to fly for the Guard until May, 1974:



But he didn't stay in Texas. He went to Alabama. Then didn't go to the base. He was ordered to the base:






According to Turnipseed as quoted in the Boston Globe, he didn't remember him ever showing up.

Bush goes back to Texas and we see he gets 35 flight days in 1973:




If you're in the military or reserve, tell me what's odd about this page. Unsigned, undated. It also is not in his TexANG service book, which means these are gratuitous days granted to him.

Then, despite being scheduled and obliged to serve until May, 1974, he recieves his discharge in October, 1973.




Besides the above...

No one remembers him in Alabama.

No one remembers him in Texas when he returned.

He was commissioned without ROTC or an OCS. College degree + Airman Basic makes you officer in his case.

Then leaves with honorable discharge 8 months early.

Dad was Congressman from Houston.

Who needs 60 minutes? thank you for the post.
You made my day!