Smear Starts at White House

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Smear Starts at White House
105
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 5:26am
Everyone I know (Republican, Democrat & Independent) thinks that the anti-Kerry smear campaign on his Vietnam War record began at the White House. Not a person, I know, believes the administration denials.

Does that matter? I think it does!

C

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 5:41pm
Good to see you around again!

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 5:45pm

Hi cottonbaxter!


I haven't had the chance to welcome you to the board, yet, but I wanted to let you know that I've been enjoying your posts.


:)

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 5:49pm
Welcome to the board mahopac2004!

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 9:25pm

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the vast right wing conspiracy isn't behind the SBVs.


http://www.hayekcenter.org/prestopunditarchive/003996.html

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 10:29pm
_C.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 10:52pm
MIght I remind you that voting to give the authority to go to war to the President is not the same as voting to go to war, although in this case it ended up being the same because Bush never intended to do anything else but go to war in Iraq from the moment he took office. Then Mr. Kerry did not like the manner in which Bush had gone into the war and voted not to fund it as a protest.

Donna

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 10:57pm
Your words make it clear you have never been in a war. Those of us who have not have no right to criticise those who were.
Donna
Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 10:57pm
<<" just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question. ">>

Is this a false statement? Were there questions being asked at the time that made this issue relevant? Kerry is a politician and he will use an issue to his advantage as will Pres. Bush. IMO it was a real mistake to initially characterize Kerry as a Dukakis clone.

The problem with the SBVT allegations is that by attempting to smear Kerry, they then also cast doubt on how the Navy awarded Purple Hearts and Medals of Honor, which then once again hurts the Veterans who served honorably in Vietnam.

Again I can understand the SBVT anger at the antiwar stance Kerry took after his service in Vietnam and I think those are legitimate issues for them to bring up. However, I don’t know how much credibility they’ll have, since so much of their attack on Kerry��s actual service and his heroism under fire has been proven to be false and politically motivated.

But hey the summer could have been as boring as the 2000 campaign was – LOL!

OT – Thanks for the tip.

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 10:59pm
I don't think you understand the nature of the "atrocities" which John Kerry participated in. They were not the terrible actions - rape, torture, cutting off of ears - which he outlines in his congressional testimony. He has always stated that he did not himself witness those acts. The crimes which he did take part in, were more proceedural in nature, in that they were tactics which the US Military and Naval command were well aware of - free fire zones, harrassment and interdiction fire, the emphasis on body counts. If he had taken the trouble to "report" these tactics as crimes because they are in violation of the Geneva Convention, he would have been greeted with the largest "duh" every recorded in history. It was not news to anyone that these actions were taking place. It was policy. What Kerry fought against in his protests and testimony when he returned from the war was a criminal POLICY put in place by the administration and military brass. He was not accusing his fellow vets, but rather, the leaders who had abandonded US soldiers in a dirty war because they didn't want to get their own hands dirty.

I've written this before many times but it doesn't seem to get through to anyone. Posting the truth on this board is like pissing in the wind.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:15pm
< There were, and still are things that go on in the military that are illegal, against the Ganeva Convention, and are considered by many "atrocities." Leting them slide by with no accusations to detest them would leave things as bad or worse then they were over 30 years ago. Our military needs to have accountability for these crimes, and that's what Kerry was trying to accomplish back then. >

Accountability? So where is Kerry's accoutnability for the war crimes he stated that he himself committed? How about the ones that he has personal knowledge of? Did he, as our brave soldier at Abu Ghraib did, report his comrades for committing these war crimes? Did he refuse to follow the orders (as is an officer's duty when he knows an order is illegal) to commit war crimes himself?

Pages