Double Standards of some Liberals

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Double Standards of some Liberals
200
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 1:39pm
I thought this was interesting while driving home from work I heard this whole thing. Tell me what you think.



I was listening to the radio the other day and two men were debating in regards to Kerry. The liberal man was holding a sign that read "Kerry-a war hero"...When asked why he believed Kerry to be a war hero he explained his courage in fighting in Vietnam and that alone should qualify him as being a "war hero"...then the conservative asked him if he was going to vote for Kerry and the liberal man said "Definately!" The liberal man brought up the prisoner abuse in Iraq and how those men and women who performed those war crimes by putting underwear over these prisoners head and humiliating them were a disgrace to the country. He was then asked by the other man if he'd ever vote for any of these men or women that performed such acts down the road for President? The liberal man said "heck no". The other man went on to play a tape where Kerry himself in an interview spoke of the atrocities he and fellow militarymen participated in such as burning down Vietnam villages and other activities that were war crimes while in Vietnam. Kerry with his own words and voice admitted such things happened and do happen in a time of war no doubt about it. ( you could hear the audio tape of his interview) The man then asked the sign holding, Kerry supporting, liberal man how he could vote for someone who actually burned down and killed people in their own villages during Vietnam for President but would never consider voting for those who commited war crimes such as humliation in Iraq in the future as President? Does that make Kerry a war hero he asked? The liberal man was at a loss for words. He contradicted himself...he judged these soldiers in Iraq as a "disgrace to their country" but would vote for Kerry for President of the United States of America.

The reason for posting this story was to give a little insight on the double standards some liberals hold for their own and the mind-set the have.

Sorry so long but it's worth the read :)

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 4:34pm
Huh? This man said he'd never vote for these soldiers that were accused of humiliating the Iraqi prisoners because they were a disgrace to the country for doing so and then goes on to say that Kerry is a war hero and he is going to vote for him. This isn't about disagreeing with some of the views of the candidate...it's about blinding voting for someone and not having all the facts. It turned out he contradicted himself when saying he'd never vote for these current soldiers if they ran for Presidency in the future for their behavior in Iraq...what about Kerry's behavior in Vietnam?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 4:43pm
I recall Kerry pointing out atrocities he was aware of while in Vietnam, but I doubt he ever claimed to have been a direct participant in such an event. To have done so would have led to charges against him.

What Kerry's record indicates, and what those that tortured have done, are far, far different.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-11-2004
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 5:28pm
Honestly I don't think you can compare the two things, for a couple of different reasons.

-First of all whatever happened in Iraq led to Kerry becoming an anti-war activist. Clearly he believed what was happening in Vietnam to be seriously wrong and he spoke out about it... and most importantly before being caught. I haven't heard of any of the people in Abu Ghraib speaking out *prior* to being busted. I think what Kerry did, coming back and speaking out took a lot of integrity.

-There is also the fact that he is in fact an "actual hero" credited with saving the lives of several of his men.

- I also think there is a large difference between what is done on the battlefield and something that occurs when a person already in custody and vulnerable, as the prisoners were in Abu Ghraib.



iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 5:39pm
Oh really?

Hmmm...

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 5:49pm
If that isn't a copout I don't know what is.

It is the same thing when it comes to the Geneva Conventions...Kerry himself admits to committing such atrocities that went directly against the Geneva laws. If you want to look at differences, lets look at the actual crimes and atrocities committed...those of the current soldiers with humiliation tactics and Kerry and soldiers actual killing or innocent people in villages by burning down their homes...how is that part of the combat? They are "villages" where innocent people reside. I can't believe you are defending or justifying it all the while condemning those current soldiers for not coming out and saying "sorry". They haven't had a chance to yet have they so that point is void.



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 5:57pm
I don't see any mention of him harming innocent civilians, only seeing he was part of missions ordered to burn villages. That is a far cry from knowingly torturing someone... or are you saying superiors are responsible in Iraq? In that case, I agree with you, Rumsfeld should have resigned and taken the heat to spare most of our troops criticism.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 6:00pm
Was Kerry acting on orders? Were those soldiers in the prison in Iraq?

There is no comparison between the two, and Kerry ultimately came back here and bravely stood up and said it was all wrong. I live in New England, was in high school when he started speaking out, and admired him for doing so. I wasn't crazy about some of his campaign stuff later, but on this issue was totally behind him. His record on this is above board.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 6:04pm
Oh ok, just innocent people's homes who were probably on vacation when the war in their town was going on...gotcha! Good time to take a vacation or visit some relatives. Does he have to say he killed these people in the village or does burning down villages that consist of homes that are owned by innocent people say anything to you? As for Kerry calling the higher ups "war criminals"...I don't recall any soldier in Iraq calling Bush a "war criminal". So what are you basing this on?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 6:14pm
Was Kerry acting on orders?>>

So he says.

Were those soldiers in the prison in Iraq?>>

Maybe but not under Bush and what policies he supports...it is also up for debate and in court to figure out what these prisoners were and where the line is crossed or where it can be considered to stop before crossing the line.



There is no comparison between the two, and Kerry ultimately came back here and bravely stood up and said it was all wrong.>>

When have these soldiers been able to have the chance to say it was wrong?...looking back on it in retrospect like Kerry did, he admitted to it being wrong...during trial you are not allowed to speak publically or at least have restrictions on what you can or can not say...admitting it and saying sorry for it may be taken as them admitting to being guilty and fully responsible...lets give them some time before jumping the gun as if they have no intentions of being or saying sorry.

I live in New England, was in high school when he started speaking out, and admired him for doing so. I wasn't crazy about some of his campaign stuff later, but on this issue was totally behind him. His record on this is above board.>>

That's fine you can have an opinion and I have mine...it's a double standard missed by many who support Kerry and I feel it is the same thing but maybe even worse...just because you say sorry later doesn't mean it didn't happen.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 6:34pm
Were you alive during the Vietnam era? Have you done any reading on it?

I was against the Vietnam war at that time, as were an increasing number of Americans, by then we were the majority. LBJ *a Democrat was reviled and chose not to run in 1968. It didn't take Nixon long to pick up where LBJ left off, except he was also paranoid.

My previous post was saying that there is a clear distinction between Kerry in Vietnam and events at the prison in Iraq. No comparison.

Pages