The term “swiftboater” is a badge of honor in either context.

“Swiftboating” - Telling the truth about democrats.

Let’s scrape the mud of Kerry’s boots from the Vietnam war era and the mud off the wingtips, loafers, boat shoes, tennis shoes, etc. of the people from the Bush administration from that same time period…after we complete some exhaustive experiments, which group of shoes will have evidence of actually touched vietnamese soil? Kerry’s one pair or the 20 or so ones from GW’s admin. I mean, gorsh, the numbers favor the Bush admin, right?

Excellent points, Dan. It’s unfortunate that the anti-Kerry smearers chose to denigrate a decorated war hero for his war service. It’s no accident that the chickenhawk Republicans did this. These are the same people that disrespected and insulted wounded vets, and all people in the service, by handing out Purple Heart band-aids at the 2004 convention. They are remarkably anti-vet, and incredible hypocrites.

I personally believe John Kerry. I also worked with a man, now retired, who says he served with Kerry, provided proof, and said Kerry was a honorable man. That’s all I needed then and now. In my opinion the “boaters” made themselves look bad.

William,

Just for clarification, by “chickenhawk Republicans,” you mean Sater and the “Swift Boat Veterans and POW’s,” right?

I could not agree more with Terry Sater’s comments. His main point is to not rehash the John Kerry campaign. His main point was to remind everyone that the the term swift boats refers to a group of sailors, who risk their lifes for their country, and this should not be lost in the back and forth bickering of a political campaign.

Terry, a Navy Vietnam veteran

Well, by Mr. Sater’s kinda twisted righty-logic, I should be highly indignant that the occupation and reputation of my late Grandfather (an engineer for the Missouri-Pacific Railroad from the late 1890s until the middle 1930s), is tarred and feathered and maligned by the term “railroaded.” From whom can I demand an apology and retraction for such a scurrilous indictment?

I suppose his next article will be in justification of George-the-Texan-fighter-pilot’s friends’ attacks on John McCain a few campaigns ago…

I also liked his Bush-speak definition for waterboarding: “…an intense interrogation technique…” Kinda like calling the medieval rack an “intense torso-elongation instrument.”

To paraphrase Mr. Sater, “It is long past time to scuttle the terms “railroaded” and “railroading.”

One of Mr. Sater’s final points was this: the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry was personal, about as personal as it can get: a man’s actions under fire are pretty much unpredictable until it happens.

My personal opinion is pretty simple: what happened in combat belongs there, to the people who experienced it. One should never try to rehash the stories looking for ‘truth’. There is a reason it’s called the ‘fog of war’. The DOD brought a lot of this on all by themselves by creating the whole system of deferments, “obligation fulfillment” in the national guard, and so on. My perspective is this: If you wore a uniform, and spent time “in country” then you don’t have to justify anything to anyone who didn’t go in country, whether they fulfilled their obligation some other way, or not. If members of the Swift Boat units want to have pissing contests about who did what when, then have at it guys…just keep it to yourselves, the rest of us don’t have any right to say anything about it.

Here is a couple websites that may shed a little light on things;

http://michellemalkin.com/2004/08/24/a-vietnam-vet-fisks-tour-of-duty/

http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2004_08/ind_003968.html

It is a misrepresentation to say that the men making up the Swift Boat Veterans group were “chicken hawks”. The group was founded by people who served with John Kerry. Every single officer in John Kerry’s chain of command endorsed the group.

John Kerry returned from the war and slandered these same individuals. He made many claims that were demonstrable false and ultimately he admitted as much. These claims included illegally being in Cambodia on Christmas day and witnessing atrocities committed by U.S. servicemen.

Obviously those that were slandered were furious. The very members of the group you would have expected to be in his own “band of brothers” were his biggest critics. I have never been in combat. I agree with hs that it is up to the people who were there to judge the actions of other servicemen. That is exactly what happened in this case.

Excellent points, Dan. It’s unfortunate that the anti-Kerry smearers chose to denigrate a decorated war hero for his war service. It’s no accident that the chickenhawk Republicans did this. These are the same people that disrespected and insulted wounded vets, and all people in the service, by handing out Purple Heart band-aids at the 2004 convention. They are remarkably anti-vet, and incredible hypocrites.

Comment by William

Sorry William, the republicans are not anti-vet. In fact, veterans benefits increased under the Bush administration by than more than 20% But if you want to look at hypocrisy, look no farther than your beloved democrats and Bill Clinton. Who is the one dodged the draft during the Vietnam War and then condemned our military overseas during that war. Clinton. Then who sent our troops into battle in Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia , which by the way, who are still there? It was Clinton. So it was Clinton who refused to serve when his time came, but yet had no problem sending other soldiers into battle. This all gets lost among the hypocritial liberal democrats as it always does. You hav e the gall to call, the republicans hypocritical. There are other facets of hypocrisy concerning the dems. But that’s for a later argument.

Some good points made in here. Lost in all of this debate though, in my opinion, is this: Did it really affect the outcome? I don’t think it did. He would have lost anyway in my opinion. I disagree with Bush as much as anyone, but I don’t think Kerry would have done any better of a job as Bush in the end.

Excellent point David H. Let’s not forget how this traitor John Kerry accused his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes by which he showed absolutely no evidence in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So yes, these veterans had every right to be angry at this piece of crap. I have a good friend living in Chicago who served in Vietnam. And it was good thing Kerry was standing before or he would punched Kerry’s lights out. And so would have I, if I was in that situation. And for Kerry to call these soliders war criminals is saying this friend of mine committed war crimes. If a person is going to accuse American GIs of such atrocities, then show the evidence. HE DID NOT. John Kerry is a loser as far as I’m concerned.

I doubt John Kerry really meant what he said when he accused Vietnam veterans of behaving in a matter reminiscent of Genghis Khan. He was just trying to impress Jane Fonda. Who could blame him after seeing Barbarella. She sure looked better in that movie than sitting on that anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi wearing that goofy helmet.

However, I think Jane has paid her dues after being married to the insufferable Ted Turner for all those years.

In his book, “Tour of Duty,” Kerry made the blanket statement that the Cobra gunship pilots average age was 19 and that they killed civilians, “for sport.” He didn’t name any dates. Didn’t give any names. Didn’t list any places. When he came back, he said everybody in Nam committed war crimes and that it was sanctioned all up and down the chain of command.

When he ran for President, he said he was “reporting for duty” and made his four months in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. When the almost 300 men who were there with him, tried to dispute his accounts, they were smeared. Their claims have not been repudiated.

For almost four decades, he has been smearing Vietnam vets. We are tired of being “kerry’d.”

The Swift Boat Veterans and POWs organization disbanded, after the election. They no longer talk about him. When Kerry endorsed Obama, he started pushing the term “swiftboated,” again.

By the way, he STILL has not signed the DD180 form.

William,

Do you even KNOW what a “chickenhawk” is?

Who cares about Lurch…he’s got his ketchup fortune now and seems to be happy with his crazy wife - but why the long face?

JMP should be careful when casting stones at Bill Clinton for utilizing deferments…seems that Mr. Cheney made no bones about having “had other priorities than military service”,,,,,

And how about Karl and Roy and Pat and Newt and Phil and George and Clarence and Dennis and Dick and Tom and Trent and - oh, heck, my fingers are tired…

Oh I just have to throw this out there. Considering the chorus, no anthem of the left regarding military service and the ability to lead. Specifically “chickenhawks” and Congressionals without family serving. Does that mean that John McCain has an instant one up on both Obama and Clinton? Since he dutifully served and spent time as a POW for our nation. Since he has two sons serving in the military, one returning home from Iraq. Does that me he has the moral authority and knowledge to lead above and beyond Obama/Clinton as was the argument for Kerry over Bush? Just curious.

Didn’t Al Gore also do his duty in Viet Nam? I realize he wasn’t in a combat unit, but he was actually THERE, and did what the army required him to do.

At the beginning of the movie Flags of our Fathers it was said every jackass knows what war is, especially the ones who never been to war or in battle. Most veterans don’t talk a lot about war, but it amazes me how the ones who never been there can tell us who have been there what it was like. I am sure Mr Sater has never been to places like Hue, Bong Son, Pleiku, Khe San, Ia Drang Valley, etc or any of the place being fought in Iraq. I would like all the people supporting Mr. Sater to describe their battle expierences.

“Swiftboating - telling the truth about Democrats”…you forgot to add “while stealing $1M from the GOP.”

What is McCain’s response to fellow POW’s and others who are charging him with (alledgedly) being a traitor, collaborting with the NVA by making upwards of 32 taped propaganda messages and blocking the release of classified POW/MIA documents during/after the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA hearings?

Among them:
Tracy Usry, former Joint Chiefs Investigator and U.S. Senate minority staff
Senator Bob Smith (R-NH)
Al Santoli - American Foreign Policy Council & former Congressional Chief of Staff
Bob Dornan - Rep. (R-CA)
Dr. James Lucier - fomer U.S. Senate Chief of Staff

If other candidates have to respond to questions about their minister or religion, spousal infidelity, voting records, etc., why can’t McCain answer questions about his actions in Vietnam and as a Senator to suppress POW/MIA documents?

I guess Obama is now being “swiftboated” about his connections with his pastor that is the biggest racist around, and hates the USA? Why didn’t he denounce this racist 20 years ago, 10 years ago or even 2 years ago? Could it be, this is why Mrs. Obama was never proud of this Country until now, because of Rev. Wright? If telling the truth is called swiftboating, so be it.

Mr./Mrs. Retrac,

I am enjoying reading everyone’s comments and I appreciate yours, certainly. You may want to read my column, however, prior to posting. While you are correct that I have never been to Hue, Bong Son, Pleiku, Khe San, Ia Drang Valley, etc or any of the place being fought in Iraq,” I served with the Mekong Delta Mobile Riverine Force, manning automatic weapons, in such places as Dong Tam, My Tho, Ha Tien, “Snoopy’s Nose,” “Rocket Alley,” “Route 66,” Vung Tau Rach Gia, Can Tho, The Rung Sat Special Zone and the Uh Minh Forest. I was involved in intense combat, on patrols and operations throughout “IV Corp,” with a Navy unit that at times, carried the 9th Infantry Division, Navy Seals, Green Beret, or Vietnamese forces. I survived without a scratch, but I lost a number of good friends, that are never out of my mind, or my prayers. I don’t want to get into my battle experiences, however, over a beer or a glass of wine, I can tell what it feels like to have RPG’s fired at you, personally, what nightly mortar attacks feel like, what a grenade sounds like when it lands six feet from you, or what goes through your mind when you are taking sniper fire, but don’t know exactly where it is coming from. I can tell you that some of the men posting here, can tell you their stories of combat, but they won’t, either.

I didn’t do anything special. I didn’t get a chest full of personal medals, not even a Purple Heart. I’m not a hero, but I served with hero’s. I don’t like it when the men I served with, living and dead, are maligned.

I hope that clears things up for you. That is all I have to say, here.

Thanks again, for your comment.

Mr. Slater,

Fantastic posting from a fellow Viet Nam Vet.

The truth shall set you free and it also shot down John Kerry.

Mr. Slater,

You may think that you are not a hero. Many of us would beg to differ. You are definitely a hero. The experiences you have gone through took a great deal of courage and the vast majority of Americans have a tremendous amount of respect for what you did.

It disgusts many of us that your honor and integrity was so severely maligned for political purposes. In addition, it also took a great deal of courage to stand up and tell the truth about Mr. Kerry. The liberal smear machine has responded full force aided by the mainstream media.

Again thank you for your service and for standing up for the truth.

#22: Did Ronald Reagan or any other candidate supported by the religious right every call out Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson for their racism? I didn’t think so.

#21: Because Republicans never demand the same level of accountability of their own that they demand of their opponents. Before you jump all over me for that, the same statement applies to Democrats. Which is why GWB, Cheney, et al can get away with labeling Bill Clinton a draft dodger with impunity.

Is Retrac a combat veteran? If so, he has my respect. However, you have to be careful when suggesting that Terry Sater has no right to comment. Mr. Sater served in some pretty hot spots. The Brown Water Navy was not easy duty.

Also, as a matter as fact Vietnam was a dangerous place regardless of where you served. A friend of mine was killed in 1971 with a .45 slug from an ARVN on Tudo Street in Saigon. He is just as dead as those killed in I-Corp, the central highlands or the delta.

Would Retrac suggest that the Blue Water Navy was an easy ride? If so, tell the 134 sailors killed on the USS Forrestal in 1967.

hs,

I am not a Christian and have no interest in defending Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Frankly, I think they are both a bit nuts. However, it is beyond ridiculous to label either one of them a racist. Neither has made racist comments and have done many out reach efforts in the black community. I believe that Pat Robertson has several blacks featured on his programs.

Pat Roberson and Jerry Falwell never served as spiritual advisors to Ronald Reagan. The Rev. Wright did serve as Senator Obama’s spiritual advisor. It is not credible that over the 20 year relationship, that Sen. Obama was unaware of the Reverend’s core beliefs and inflammatory rhetoric. It is not like Sen. Obama is being asked to defend the comments of racists like Al Sharpton that are supporters of the Democrats. He is being asked to defend comments of a very close associate.

If you can’t differentiate the two situations, you are too mired in dogma to have a rational discussion.

Actually, the Nixon hand picked head of the “Swiftboaters”, Mr. O’Neill. admitted to President Nixon that they had been in Cambodia at the time claimed by Kerry.

O’Neill, who was Nixon’s hand-picked hatchet man against Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), did this in a Watergate era secretly taped conversation in Nixon’s White House.

Kerry is a hero, the VVAW is the representative of the Vietnam veterans, O’Neill is a scumbag liar, and Nixon is burning.

Shaddap, you ignorant buncha right wing neocon Brown Shirt weblog echochambering yobbo yappers!!!

Brown Shirt yappers! Why can’t we just get along?

Damn… we’ve been “timmyhoganed” again, with another mindless tirade.

Mr. Hogan:

Was Nixon the President when the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed?

Also, Kerry claimed he was sent to Cambodia in Decemebr 1968 by Nixon but Johson was still in office. Who is burning next to Nixon?

Take a laxative and calm down.

#18 - From the standpoint of the role of president as a commander-in-chief, I would have to admit I personally would give McCain a leg up on the rest of the candidates and I still think if all of our troops came home tomorrow it will be one day too long. I just think McCain has got it wrong on this one.

The point being made about the laundry list of W and his deferment-enabled saber rattlers was that they were the very same people who were so willing to get us into something they themselves previously chose to avoid.

My qualifications? I’m a West Point graduate who served in Germany and at home. Admittedly, I do not have combat experience. However, I was trained and prepared to lead soldiers into harm’s way and that is a very sobering responsibility. I do not believe W or his civilian warmakers ever understood the gravity of this responsibility.

Good Grief, what a bunch of comments on this swiftboat article. Facing the facts would simply be admitting that when Kerry was unfairly assaulted for his service to the American people in Vietnam, it was a slinging of mud on every soldier who ever fought for this country.
Those veterans who were responsible for this did nothing more than treat themselves and their fellow soldiers to disrepute in the name of politics. How sad.
More sad, they did this in backing a man who said he was far Veterans rights and helping the Vets while continuing to slash funding for Veterans behind their backs.

Duane, you got it all wrong. Please point out what part of their assault was “unfair”, and why, four years after the fact, Kerry hasnt set the record straight by releasing all service records by signing an SF 180.

Since you claim Kerry was smeared, and also since “Winter Soldier II” is this weekend, would you consider these unsubstantiated remarks by Kerry to congress were a smear job on American Soldiers:
“They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape 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 country side 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. “

Kerry didn’t stop his attacks on Vietnam veterans when he testified with the comments SVPPB noted above. His book “Tour of Duty,” released in time for his run for the presidency, is fill with comments like this, referencing Cobra gunship pilots;

“Yet Kerry found himself troubled by the realization that some of these wild boys could kill innocent people from a distance and not be bothered by it. He was no pacifist - far from it- and understood that “accidental atrocities” were a part of war. But it disturbed him that even a few trigger happy American yahoos considered killing Vietnamese civilians a sport.”

The “unfair” attacks on Kerry? 254 men who served with him, said that he wasn’t the “Rambo” his self-portrait would indicate.

Which “attacks” were worse?

I don’t know about anyone else on this thread, but I live in the USA, and have for 51 years. One of the things I’ve learned about this country is that there are plenty of people in it who are perfectly willing to beat, murder or rape others. If you don’t believe me, read this paper. The idea that some of this type didn’t get drafted, go to another country and take advantage of the guns the US provided them with to practice these activities is either naive or dishonest. Especially given the accounts and testimonies of US VETS WHO SAW IT HAPPEN. Unfortunately, there are people who, for personal reasons, want to distort the reality of the horror and tragedy of war into a glory for them to bask in.

William,

I guess there is a chance you could be right, but then again, aren’t you the dumb-ass that doesn’t even know what the hell a “chickenhawk” is?

“US VETS WHO SAW IT HAPPEN”

Al Hubbard?
Jesse McBeth?
The guy from McCaskill’s add?

Ha! No, that’s someone else. Where do you keep your purple heart band-aids, happy pants? By the way my being right has nothing to do with chickenhawks. It has more to do with the efforts of people to cover up the crimes committed by some American soldiers in Viet Nam. It’s connected to Mr. Sater’s letter. Some will use the misdeeds of the few to tarnish the many, but that doesn’t mean those misdeeds should be ignored or forgotten. The misdeeds of American war criminals should be acknowledged and remembered, just as the misdeeds of the SBVFT should.

William (or “William”),

So you didn’t mention “chickenhawks,” on #4? That was a DIFFERENT Willam?

What war crimes did you witness in Nam? Do you have any names, dates, or places, of crimes that were committed and the people who did it were not punished?

If you are simply saying that as a “general rule,” that guys in Vietnam committed war crimes, can we extend that kind of thinking to classifying other groups of people as guilty of certain behaviors? Do we apply your line of generalizations to races, nationalities, or religions? How about saying all Muslims are terrorists? We KNOW some of them have been terrorists!

How about people who go by “William,” instead of “Bill,” are self-important, egotistical morons?

Who said “Truth is the first casualty of war”?

It’s interesting in a way that this conversation is happening today, the 40th anniversary of My Lai.

Were there terrible things done to civilians in Viet Nam by men in American uniforms? Yes, but they were the minority. They should not be ignored, and those who dare to talk about them should be honored, not pilloried.

What I think is that, in many ways, we’re still fighting the Viet Nam war, 35 years after it ended. We’ll keep fighting it for another 20 years at least, until the last veteran dies of old age.

What exactly happened on the Mekong river on a particular day in 1969 is known only to those who were there….and they, all of them, see it in a mirror dimly. Those of us who weren’t there should not be passing judgment on any of them, they, and they alone, have to live with their memories.

“It’s a good thing that war is so terrible, else we could come to love it too much” Robert E. Lee

That’s what I think , too, hs. Happy pants you misread my post. I wrote “some American soldiers” and also wrote that the misdeeds were committed by a few. Please take the time to read the posts you respond to, dumb-ass.

Ditto to William’s last post! O’Neill reported to Nixon his and Kerry’s ventures into Cambodia, I never said Nixon sent anyone there….he and Henry Kissinger just ordered the illegal bombing of Cambodia which killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and led to the Khmer Rouge and the Killing Fields, sprayed chemicals on Mexican marijuana leading to those guys going into Colombia and sending us cocaine, and wiretapped us like W!

Timmy,

Did that make sense to you, as you wrote it?

Having read Kerry’s testimony again, I am having trouble seeing what the uproar is over. Unsubstantiated? Certainly, but I have no doubt as to it’s truth. I know that I have talked with Nam vets who have related similar tales to me. I remember the guy at the Texaco station in St. Charles who was an artilleryman telling stories of routinely firing on elephants visible in the highlands and calling in body counts for them. Stories of tossing C rats between trucks in convoy in order to run over the kids retrieving them abound. I’ve been hearing these stories for over 30 years now, and while no doubt these are attributable to a very small minority, there is no question they happened in one form or other. While we would all like to believe the American serviceman IS that guy who gives his John Wayne bar to the little kiddies, you are bound to have a couple of misfits in an organization that size (especially one that consisted of draftees) and they will get the publicity and that will afix itself to the whole in some minds. John Kerry is guilty of speaking his mind in a country where you are allowed to do that. He mentioned no names but I’ll bet he knew some.

While it may be true that there were “some” guys who “williamed” villages, they had their “timmyhogans” handed to them, when they were thrown in the stockade.

Slam, what do you think of Kerry, as recently as the last few years, accusing troops in Iraq of “terrorizing” women and children in the dead of night on useless raids?

slam,

I understand now. By the way, I’ve heard that gays are all child molesters, blacks want to sit back and collect unemployment and liberals are really socialists. I don’t have any names, but I’ll bet somebody knows people like that.

I think Kerry got what he had coming and the rest of us, no matter how we feel, should stay out of it. The military prides itself on being a big family. Yeah, we may not all like each other and we may fight against amongst ourselves, but unless you’re in the family, stay out of it. This whole thing was brought on by what he said about the men he served with. They waited to hit him back and they did. Oh well, should have kept his mouth shut and handled it differently. Alot of folks won’t like that answer but it’s still true.

What do you mean “may” hp? It’s either true or it isn’t. If it isn’t true, why would they be thrown in the stockade for it? You’re implying that the US armed forces jails servicemen for crimes they didn’t commit. The US is much more likely to coverup than to invent, although they’ve done both. The inventions are usually coverups themselves, as in the case of the Iowa. This is one of my problems with the SBVFT and other groups. They slam the gov’t and American soldiers unfairly and then whine about others telling the truth. Americans who expose atrocities and crimes by Americans, regardless of whether the perpetrators wear uniforms or not, are acting patriotically. People who try to hide the crimes, especially the ones who do it for no other reason than concern that their own reputations would suffer by association, are not.

Re 53: “Americans who expose atrocities by Americans, regardless of whether or not the perpetrators wear uniforms or not, are acting patriotically.” My response is that you are mostly correct, however, there is a right way and a wrong way to expose it. Using a bullhorn on the steps of the capitol, or in a book, are not the correct ways. If what he said really happened, he should have immediately reported it when he was in the service. By not saying anything right away, he is just as guilty of CAPITOL MURDER as the men who did the supposed act because he covered it up. Look up the law, that’s how 1st Degree Murder works.

So, is he still a hero or patriotic? Or is he an opportunist/murderer, preying on the anti-war feeling that existed, and still exists, and using it to gain political points?

By not saying anything right away, he is just as guilty of CAPITOL MURDER as the men who did the supposed act because he covered it up. Look up the law, that’s how 1st Degree Murder works.

You know, I don’t know what’s up with military law, but in civilian law, if someone has knowledge of a crime, and waits to report it, that doesn’t make them guilty of the crime they have knowledge of.

So, is he still a hero or patriotic? Or is he an opportunist/murderer, preying on the anti-war feeling that existed, and still exists, and using it to gain political points?

Since we’ve established that the person in question is not a murderer, and I’ve already said I consider them patriotic, let’s take a look at opportunistic. That’s certainly a possibility. If it’s a singular act, unaccompanied by similar preceding or following, than It’s more likely to be an act of opportunity. If the individual has a long, say, 30+ years, history of these kinds of acts, than it probably isn’t opportunistic. However being patriotic and opportunistic are not mutually exclusive. An act can be both.

Now let’s take a look at the other side of the coin. Apply your opinions to people who still seek to deny that atrocities are committed in wars, depending on the uniform worn, despite abundant evidence that those atrocities have occurred. Do you think they are guilty of a crime for colluding with the coverup? How about people who deliberately distort the statements of others trying to expose the existence of these acts, in order to derogate the source, thereby acting to continue the coverup? This is the kind of thing we see happening on this thread and other places, where statements made by Kerry and myself that a few Americans committed atrocities in Viet Nam, are distorted into a generalization about all American forces. Then we are attacked for things we did not write by the very people that invented the distortions. Is this honest on their part? Clearly not. Are they being patriotic in their dishonesty? Or are they being opportunistic, preying on pro-vet sympathies? I think the latter is more likely.

Amazed-did any of them do that?

Happy-some will, some do, some are….some

In Military AND Civilian law he could be held just as accountable as the men who supposedly did it. Especially in the military since he was more than likely the ranking person and did little to stop it. Not doing anything is the same as being a part of it. Or at least not doing anything at first, then once a civilian, then it became an issue he wanted everyone to hear about. Spare me.
God bless him for serving his country, but damn him for allowing the alleged atrocities to take place. If it truly bothered him that much, he should have done something about it then and there. War is terrible, no question. People do horrific things to one another in the name of their country. I’m not naive enough to believe the soldiers of the good ‘ol US of A are immune to such acts. The ones who break the laws of war should be punished for being the criminals they are. My problem with this issue comes when one of their supposed leaders turns a blind eye to their acts then attempts to politicize their actions later when it suited him. That my friend is deplorable.

Js, I think we agree on some things, but disagree on others. I also think that not doing anything to stop the kind of atrocities is deplorable, but not because the individual tries to correct their actions and do something about it later. It is deplorable in and of itself. The act of trying to talk about the kind of terrible things that go on in war, in order to stop more of it from happening in the future is noble, regardless of the military or civilian status of the individual doing it. If we’re talking about Kerry, it should be remembered that he was not just some Johnny-come-lately who decided to speak out when he was running for Pres. He spoke out during the war. At least he spoke out, and continues to speak out, instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet, like many of his detractors do. That, I’m sure you will agree, is especially heinous.

I’m still pretty sure you’re wrong about your take on the law. I think you have to actually be involved in a crime with the murderer to be accused yourself. However, if you can point me to the military and civilian statutes, I’ll be happy to admit my mistake.

Anyvids…

Blue chamber solution

Blue mountain cards

Blue book value boats

Blog

Blackzilla

Blacksonblondes

Blackplanet

Blacklisted sportsbook

Blackbarbara

Bird feeders

Bionicle set 2008

Bion tanning

Bingo game on the web

Bin…