We Asked For It
By: Reilly On: Oct/23/04 -
And We Got It!
The makers of the John Kerry documentary “Stolen Honor” were having such a difficult time getting it on the air due to threats of legal action and so much more that they have made it available to all of us on the web FREE of charge.
I just finished viewing it and it is a must see. To view the documentary click HERE
Articles of Interest:
Stolen Honor
More Stolen Honor
FCC Won’t Block Doc
Even More Stolen Honor
October 23, 2004 - 05:21 AM on October 23rd, 2004
I linked to this spot on my blog. It’s important that people see this. Good work!~Cao
October 23, 2004 - 07:49 AM on October 23rd, 2004
And this is what some people want to put in the White House. And they have the temerity to call Bush a liar.
October 23, 2004 - 07:57 AM on October 23rd, 2004
Thanks, Reilly — just in the process of downloading it as we speak. I hope even more people get to see this than would have initially, and I think that, in a way, since this will hopefully be more accessible to more people who might not have initially gotten the Sinclair channels in question, the legal action threats made by Kerry and Company will have ironically helped, rather than hindered, the distribution.
October 23, 2004 - 08:01 AM on October 23rd, 2004
I hope you’re right, AG. This needs to get around.
October 23, 2004 - 08:29 AM on October 23rd, 2004
It looks like the usial socialists are trying to keep the truth from comming out and they like always use their socialist lawyers to get what they want its a outrage these left-wing socialsits should be exposed to the public time to expose these cockroaches to the light of public critisizm
October 23, 2004 - 09:44 AM on October 23rd, 2004
Is the whole point here to somehow prove Kerry is a liar and that US troops did not commit atrocities?
October 23, 2004 - 10:19 AM on October 23rd, 2004
[...] oilfhionn@ 5:19 am
Right Voices has Stolen Honor Wounds That Will Never Heal for free. All you have to do is click here. Background: When John Kerry appeared before [...]
October 23, 2004 - 10:30 AM on October 23rd, 2004
I will have to remember to keep an eye on the far left bank of the mainstream for reaction to this one.
When Moore came out with F-9/11 the far right bank of the main stream tried to close ranks and refuse to even watch it. (Right)WingNuts like Sean Hannity and Michael Savage spent hours and hours or radio time virtually begging people not to watch it.
It will be interesting to see if the left, and folks like Franken & Rhodes, try and engage in the same tactics.
As for me…. I’m downloading as I type.
October 23, 2004 - 11:37 AM on October 23rd, 2004
No dg ,the point is to show kerry’s character, or should I say lack of it!!
October 23, 2004 - 11:42 AM on October 23rd, 2004
I know a guy who was in “the Nam” as he calls it. He hates the US government for lying about that war. But he is a crazy fucker.
He said it wasn’t nothing to collect the congs ears. “They were killing us!”
He also said he paid for a 12 year old hooker. When the father offered him an older sister, he demanded the 12 year old. The starving father complied and “it was good.”
For you guys that think US soldiers did not commit atrocities, talk to a Vietnam vet.
The soldier cannot be held solely responsible when they were trained by the US military to kill and survive, search and destroy, and to win hearts and minds. These conflicting realities compounded with the horror and fear of dying in the jungle played on the psycology of a young soldier.
Kerry helped bring these truths out into the open to disprove the Government’s claim as to what was really going on in Vietnam.
Ask yourself this: 58,000+ American soldiers killed in Vietnam — for what?
…and Bush is doing it all over again in Iraq!
October 23, 2004 - 11:47 AM on October 23rd, 2004
Well, I watched it - as I just mentioned on >#mixedwingnuts just now:
My review will be posted on stageleft by the end of the day.
October 23, 2004 - 12:37 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Watched the first part of it, and while I can’t judge the whole thing yet, this is the worst piece of journalism I’ve ever seen. At least Michael Moore did not call his movie “journalism”. I’ll post a review on my blog in a bit
October 23, 2004 - 01:14 PM on October 23rd, 2004
dg, you are so blinded by your hate for Bush you blame him for everything.
Was there atrocities committed in Nam? Yes, its’ been proven, as I’m sure there was in other wars.Was it committed on a wide scale? NO! I also personelly knew a Nam vet. He was also Fucked up from it, not because he committed crimes but because of drugs mostly. He never got straightened out and died young. A lot of soldiers in Vietnam didn’t want to be there because of how they were looked down on and spit on in this country. Many were drafted and didn’t want to be there but had to be.
Many Vietnam Vets did their jobs honorably even though it was very unpopular back home mainly because of the press and people like kerry.
kerry didn’t bring the “truth” out in the open to disprove the Government, he did it to be in the spot light to further his agenda.
What truth was he bringing out when he meet with the enemy while still an officer?
58000+ died for what? I’ll tell you what,they died trying to stop communism and would have if not for the press and people like john fucking kerry. The North Vietnamese said so. He’s a hero to them.
I have a brave young man currently deployed to Iraq. He’s like a son to me. He’s been there since Feb, he’s doing his job because it has to be done. That’s it, but how do you, you pompous ass, think he feels when your man exclaims WRONG WAR AT THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME??? Then claims to support the troops, HA! He only supports himself.
October 23, 2004 - 01:39 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Geo
It IS the wrong war at the wrong time!
How does this brave young man like the fact that he was told he was going to war to disarm Iraq only for there to be no WMD?
How does this young man feel that Bush admin. officials made every effort to support the unfounded claim that Saddam was tied to al-Qaeda, only to be proven false?
How does this young man feel about his Commander-In-Cheif grandstanding on a Carrier in a flight suit claiming “major combat operations in Iraq have ended…” while US soldier were still being killed in Iraq?
Does this brave young man feel like a liberator in Iraq? Do the Iraqi’s see him as a liberator?
Doese this brave young man know who the enemy is in Iraq?
Bush says things are getting better in Iraq? How does this brave young man feel about the situation in Iraq?
October 23, 2004 - 01:41 PM on October 23rd, 2004
dg - you are so filled with hate toward Bush that you could not understand an active duty military members respect for him or the pride they take in doing their job.
October 23, 2004 - 01:42 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Wow - How could anyone vote for Kerry after this - one has to wonder why anyone is really voting for this traitor…..
I am 74 and remember WW2 and the Vietnam War very well - I remember the public treated the vets in a dispicable way - I could never understand why, but after this I see a small reason.
I was brought up by a great Republican lawyer father who was in WW1 - we all loved our military, and I still do.
One has to wonder why John Kerry has still NOT signed the standard form 180 to release all of his medical records - George Bush did.
October 23, 2004 - 01:49 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Well Reilly,
my brother, who was a Srgt. in Dessrt Storm, told me that the miltary was to protect democracy — not practice it.
That says something, now doesn’t it?
October 23, 2004 - 01:52 PM on October 23rd, 2004
George W. Bush, 1994:
“I supported my government during Vietnam. But I either had to go to Canada or let off a shotgun next to my ear, or go into the Texas Guard.”
Where is your outrage over Bush, a non-pilot at the time, getting into the Air National Guard in 1968, a near impossibility for a non-connected kid?
Many Vietnam vets did serve honorably. But most anti-war people never blamed the troops for the war (regardless of the spitting on troops upon return), they were against Johnson and then Nixon for their intervention in a Vietnamese civil war. As for Geo’s tirade, the Vietnam experience began, in earnest, with Kennedy’s attack on South Vietnam to root out insurgents who supported the north, without direct Northern involvement. Millions of lives later, in 1975, three countries were communist. Many historians argue that it was American intervention that allowed this to happen. It was not Kerry or the “media” (who from 1962-1968 were strongly on the side of the army) that lost the war. It was the ill-advised nature of the war, and the willingness of the North Vietnamese, Kymer Rouge, and Pathet Lao yto take horrendous casualties in their cause. No American effort would have won the war, without bringing in direct Chinese or Soviet retaliation. John Kerry’s testimony is edited in this movie. The journalist, a Pulitzer winner in the past, should be ashamed of this partisan tripe.
October 23, 2004 - 02:09 PM on October 23rd, 2004
dg, this brave young man doesn’t second guess his commanders or his Commander in Chief. He knows it’s not his job to do that. He also knows he’s making a difference. Yes it’s difficult but tell me a war that wasn’t.
dg, answere me a question please, What would you do to fight the war on terror?
October 23, 2004 - 02:19 PM on October 23rd, 2004
dg, tell me something else. How do you feel about your man kerry not supporting Desert Storm?
A war the UN sanctioned!!!
October 23, 2004 - 02:23 PM on October 23rd, 2004
dg - - why are you so afraid of the spread of democracy and liberty?
October 23, 2004 - 02:25 PM on October 23rd, 2004
First, I would NOT have gone into Iraq. I would have increased troop support in Afgahnistan and focused on that hven for terrorists.
Osam bin Laden would have been a priority, not an oil pipeline through afgahnistan and pakistan.
I heard the miltary question the hell outta Clinton, so don’t feed me that shit.
I don’t know why Kerry voted against it. Maybe he didn’t trust daddy Bush, I sure didn’t.
Burt as you pointed out, even Bush’s father said the world past the test!
What did that mean?
October 23, 2004 - 02:39 PM on October 23rd, 2004
This film, without compunction, is the most manipulative, politically interested piece of propaganda I’ve ever seen. The music is forboding, only one view is served (making it not, by definition, journalism - at least Moore interveiwed people who did not directly serve his political purposes), and outright lies and exagerrations are presented without comment. Sherwood, by association, compares Kerry’s anti-war advocacy to doctors withholding food from patients. But specifically,
1. Kerry was not a “singular voice” in 1971.
2. The anti-war movement was not “waning” in 1971, the elimination of the draft did that in 1972.
3. Kerry’s comments were edited in audio and textual form.
4. The film does not admit any of the well documented war crimes committed by United States forces in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos (2 of which are still killing people - the use of Agent Orange, and the dropping of millions of unmarked mines from the air *the US is the only country to deploy mines without charts, as it did in Cambodia, killing 30,000 people in that country since 1980 alone.)It only admits that My Lai happened. How objective.
5. Vietnamese torture of American POW’s is well documented. This film breaks no ground there. Vietnam, after all, was not a signatory of Geneva.
I have one message for Carlton Sherwood and those who accept the message of this movie - I know that you are sore about public and Congressional condemnation of America’s war in South East Asia in the early 1970’s. But argue honestly. Include 1 person that disagrees with you.
Let’s flip this.
2009: A Jordanian documentary airs, accusing Americans of atrocities in Guantanamo in great detail. Only those detained are interviewed. The documentary attacks the King of Jordan for being a moderate voice in the war on terror at the time, siding with the Americans against Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.
Finally - I would like someone to defend this movie as a piece of journalism. Let’s go.
October 23, 2004 - 02:47 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Reilly
I don’t mind the spread of democracy or liberty. But neither can be imposed by force on a nation. That is completely parodoxical to democracy and liberty.
You can’t see that?
October 23, 2004 - 03:11 PM on October 23rd, 2004
So dg, you are one of those people that believe the war on terror ends with the capture of OBL.I personelly think that a democratic Iraq hinders the terrorists because it gives them one less safe heaven to operate from. President Bush said if you harbored or give aid to the terrorists you are also a terrorist(not verbatum). Iraq was, even though you will never agree.
It is very confusing to try to understand kerry on the first gulf war though. He had his precious UN authority to knock saddam out of Kuwait. He had his precious multilateral coalition. Yet still no go on his part. Not much leadership if you ask me.
How would increasing troops in Afghanistan have helped. I think the Afghan war was very productive the way it was. Have you read General Tommy Franks book, American Soldier? Maybe you should.
I agree completely with the idea of spreading the hope of freedom and democracy, like President Bush, and that will do a lot to win the war on terror. Do you?
October 23, 2004 - 03:17 PM on October 23rd, 2004
No takers? I wouldn’t want to defend this “journalism” either, that uses emotional POW testimony as a crutch for its own argumentative shortcomings. You guys cannot defend a documentary that only represents one point of view - indeed only interviews one type of POW? This is a cynical, manipulative film that serves as the disappointingly inept fruit of a personal crusade. This will backfire with most of the nation. And Sherwood should lose his Pulitzer. Not because of his politics, but because of his violently cynical assault upon journalism. Rather has been roundly criticised. But his piece, forged documents or not, was eminently more respectable than this diatribe. I ask that you condemn this movie as dirty journalism, or at least address it’s grossly unfair character (remember - Moore never called his film “journalism”). And releasing it for free over the internet - a perfect way to circumvent McCain-Feingold. I look forward to someone’s defense of this embarrasing, childish vendetta game of a “documentary”.
October 23, 2004 - 03:36 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Sandy, I can’t comment on Stolen Honor, but moore called his film a documentary. Was it?
If the demopcratic party wasn’t pulling out all the stops, by threatening lawsuits, to keep Stolen Honor from the public it wouldn’t have to be shown on line.
Do you have a problem with freedom of speech? As soon as my copy comes and I have a chance to watch it then I’ll respond to your other observations about the “documentary”.
October 23, 2004 - 03:44 PM on October 23rd, 2004
A link to the film is on this site, Geo. Moore called his film a “documentary”, as it is. This film is also a documentary. But “journalism”, as Sinclair called it last week, it is not. Actually, today’s stories reflect the GOP sending of a team of lawyers to swing states to contest votes:
http://www.slate.com/id/2108608/
I have no problem with freedom of speech. But I do have a problem with “Stolen Honour” being described as “journalism”, or honest. In an interview with Democracy Now last week(www.democracynow.org), the vice president of Sinclair defended the film as journalism and the filmaker as a Pulitzer winner. I can not speak for Sherwood’s earlier work, but this is shoddily done. And I am no Michael Moore fan, by the way. Yet this film doesn’t even stand up to his shoddy example. For those of you who know McCain Feingold inside out (which I don’t), can someone answer as to whether “Stolen Honour”, as it only interviews one side of an important issue, can be sold 10 days before an election?
October 23, 2004 - 03:58 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Sandy, again I’ll hold judgment untill I see it.
You do know the DNC is massing large numbers of lawyers also.
October 23, 2004 - 04:11 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Of course. Bush sued first in 2000 to stop th recount. A shining example of the power of litigation. If this election is a mess again, it is not going to be the fault of only 1 party. I await your analysis of “Stolen Honour”, as do I anyone else who frequent this site of a conservative persuasion.
Best
October 23, 2004 - 04:23 PM on October 23rd, 2004
I am old enough to remember that a lot of these things really happened. Kerry is NOT a hero - in fact, he did so much to hurt the Viet Nam vets and surely is to blame for a lot of the animosity that many Americans showed to these brave men and women.
October 23, 2004 - 05:24 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Kcourt,
Wrong. You are disingenously branding Kerry for speaking to Congress only because he is a Democratic candidate, as is “Stolen Honour”. I can’t speak to Kerry being a hero, but I have a question for you to answer, if you would be so kind. Are Morley Safer, Walter Cronkite, and Seymour Hersh traitors for their negative coverage of Vietnam? Was Vietnam worthy of no dissent, and should the American people been subject to the kind of deceptive reporting that concealed the horrors of war and America’s war aims?
The irony of these Kerry attacks is that Republicans have been inflating his importance and highlighting his address before Congress in 1971, while their own candidate had no accomplishments before 1994, and indeed lived in an alcoholic haze well into his father’s Vice Presidency. Vietnam vets do not deserve our animosity. Generals and politicians who served at that time do, however. “Stolen Honour” misrepresents Kerry’s aims. He was critiquing policies such as free-fire zones, the destruction of villages SUSPECTED of harbouring NVA and Vietcong and the aerial bombardment of civilan areas. The documentary only highlights his forwarding of info brought forth during the Winter Soldier hearings, and makes it seems like he was attacking veterans. That’s dishonest. And its the worst in journalism, something that would have been laughed off of tv sets in the 1960’s.
October 23, 2004 - 06:13 PM on October 23rd, 2004
The irony of these Kerry attacks is that Republicans have been inflating his importance and highlighting his address before Congress in 1971, while their own candidate had no accomplishments before 1994,
no kerry was doing all the inflating, HE brought Nam up not the right, he started the mess and now people attack the right for going after an issue he brought up, the reason people are not worried on the right about Bush 30 years ago is because..no cares a whoel lot abotu 30 years ago but kerry.
but if he wants to bring it up and inflate his importance and try to be the big war hero..i say he needs to be attacked on that issue.
it would be irony is the right had started in on Nam and made it an issue first while ignoring Bush 30 years ago…but it’s not.
October 23, 2004 - 06:29 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Kerry brought up his service, not his anti-war activities, wallywest80. Obviously your statement “noone cares about 30 years ago except for Kerry” is not true. Sinclair cares, the administrators of this Blog care. And the fact that Kerry started talking about Vietnam does not justify “Stolen Honor”’s blatant disregard for journalistic decency. But it is in good company:
The new Bush ad, also - the one with the wolves (http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia/Player.aspx?ID=1102&T=5&PT), is also a lie. 6 billion dollars in intelligence cuts voted by Kerry? Actually he voted to reduce the budget of a specific department that was embroiled in scandal. The cuts amounted to money the department had extorted from the government over a cancelled satelitte program. And the bill was sponsored by Arlen Spector, that paragon of liberalism.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108598/
October 23, 2004 - 08:17 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Kerry brought up his service, not his anti-war activities, wallywest80
um it all goes together. how damn hard is that to understand? it’s like “i was a super major uber great spectacular war hero..please only look at those couple of months!!!”, and of course what he did when he came home is PART of that time period..unless your a lefty it seems, but i’m not buying it, so please don’t insult my.
as they said in the godfather
“Don’t tell me you’re innocent. Because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry”.
and of course NOW we care, after kerry made it an issue and tried running on that time perdiod, even clinton told him to shut the hell up about it, and he still can’t, don’t try and fool me sandy.
also what has the ads to do with kerry’s war era record? sure it’s a good way to derail the debate beyond the losing argumen you have, and you hope we start talking about it and not look at the kerry point any more, but your don’t fool me one damn bit, the left does this all the time, i mean look how many tiems DG will post some unralted thing about bush so people will ignore what has kerry has just done.
Homeie don’t play that…
wow from godfather to in living in color in one post!
October 23, 2004 - 08:40 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Maybe someone said this, I didn’t read all the posts. I just want to point out that those who think we should have put in more troops in Afghanistan and left Iraq alone because bin Laden was in Afghanistan - lack brains.
Those people (dg is one) need to realize that the border of Afghanistan can be walked across quite easily and that is what has been happening. That’s why we were trying so hard to get Pakistan to let near the borders on their side (but they never agreed). In short, nailing Iraq removes another safe haven, supporter and funder of terrorism.
Kerry wants to go after bin Laden. Bush wants to go after the big picture of terrorism. That makes Bush the only true President available for this election.
October 23, 2004 - 08:45 PM on October 23rd, 2004
My late husband was a Viet Nam vet and he was an honorable man who never committed atrocities. The myth dies hard. The bad stuff is easier to believe and these idiots who think they know Vets who are a mess, apparently never met an honorable vet who served his country and is ashamed to say anything about VietNam because of the stigma. My brother in law was in special forces and there is a book written about him and his company. Yet he never brags or talks about it, he is just a silent hero, unlike John F–ing Kerry, who has emerged the only hero out of Vietnam what a joke! Vote for him you liberal anti-war idiots and see what a coward he is in the face of terrorism. I hope you don’t reside in one of those big cities that typically vote Democratic, because you cowards will be the first to go!!! Bon Voyage!
October 23, 2004 - 08:46 PM on October 23rd, 2004
6: DG, you’re quite capable of dishing it out where Bush is concerned. I would assume you would be just as capable of taking it where Kerry is concerned, especially in the name of free thought and the pursuit of the truth.
October 23, 2004 - 08:49 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Bye the way Lib’s John F Kerry entered the Naval RESERVES, not the NAVY, THE NAVY RESERVES, check your stats. So those of you who claim Bush enlisted in the Reserves need step back and eat some crow. He was in the Reserves and he just happened to be deployed. Read UnFit for Command.
October 23, 2004 - 08:53 PM on October 23rd, 2004
38: Wait a minute now.
Should this in fact be true, considering the scuttlebutt about George Bush being in the National Reserve not qualifying as true military experience, shouldn’t Kerry not be considered a true military man, being a mere Reserves man?
Thus, wouldn’t this be a good time for the “Bush wasn’t a real military guy”-people to eat their own share of crow?
October 23, 2004 - 08:55 PM on October 23rd, 2004
It is true American Girl— Read Unfit for Command they mention it about 10 times.
October 23, 2004 - 09:01 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Sorry, Kathy…guess I misunderstood to whom you were making your point.
Pretty good catch! 
I do have the book. I’m trying to finish up Ann Coulter once and for all before I get to it. It may be after the elections by that point, but I guess that old saying, “Better late than never,” applies in spades.
October 23, 2004 - 09:07 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Theres someone in our town who has a sign in their buisness window reading CHRISTIANS FOR KERRY how can any christian support a person who is a proabortionist and a supporter of the radical gay agenda they sure are not christains and they should be excommunicated from the christain faith forever.:mad: And those who oppse the antikerry film are the usial brownshirts that hitler would have:cool:
October 23, 2004 - 09:09 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Am. Girl, that book is very disturbing, I can hardly sleep thinking this liberal communist could win this with his dirty tricks and scare tactics. Imagine saying in a Black Baptist Church that the Republicans blocked one million blacks from voting in 2000!!!! It is insane, what did we use Tanks at the polling places. And how could these people believe this, how gullible can they be?? And that the seniors will lose 45% of their social security. Or sending out fake draft cards to teenagers and Michael Moran giving out free underware for thier votes and colleges. The irony is 2 Demoncrats proposed the Draft bill and 100% of Republicans voted it down? Are people just stupid or uniformed. I am really worried. It is so easy to find out the facts with the internet. A Democrat strategist said on one of the 24 hour news shows that if Kerry loses they have thousands of lawyers standing by ready to sue!!! It boggles the mind what Gore has done involving the courts in the election process. If we lose the Whitehouse we may never get it back!!!
October 23, 2004 - 09:53 PM on October 23rd, 2004
This was a a good documentary. It presented another side of the man that would like to be the POTUS, using the very foundation of his conventions platform. He is John Kerry and he is reporting for duty. He brought this to the forefront, but doesn’t seem to think there is another side.
I liked the fact that they used first hand accounts of what the people saw. I do wish that John Kerry would have been allowed to speak about this. I would be interested to hear what he has to say.
The content is not too far off what I have studied.
Jane apologized for her actions, I think it about time for John to do the same.
October 23, 2004 - 10:28 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Comment to Sandy re: Walter Cronkite - I fault these MSM guys but they did not appear before congress telling of atrocities.
They did their part by yellow journalism and I don’t condone their actions, but it is a different thing.
Kerry is a nominee for President, not a newsman.
October 23, 2004 - 10:41 PM on October 23rd, 2004
44: I agree, Peejz; I finally finished the entire documentary, and I think it was a very chilling, powerful, thought-provoking account of the men and their families. It chills me to the bone what these poor men, who went to war believing in and willing to die for their country, would go through, how much more suffering, should such a back-stabber be elected president.
October 23, 2004 - 10:43 PM on October 23rd, 2004
FWIW, Peejz, I don’t think Kerry needs to say a thing. His multiple lawsuit attempts in the face of all this speak volumes.
I suppose I should at least give Kerry credit for not taking the “I did not inhale”-approach.
October 23, 2004 - 11:20 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Kathy, it’s good men like your husband that skerry dishonors and the left seems to think kerry is the hero for speaking out against the war. Don’t forget they think— kerry trashing fellow soldiers good— Good honorable men like your husband bad.
It’s men like your husband that make me a proud American and it’s a shame that scum like kerry dishonor them.
October 23, 2004 - 11:49 PM on October 23rd, 2004
Kerry is a nominee for President, not a newsman.
very true, the left likes to say “well what about (insert random person here)?”, and i’m always “well who is running for president?”, you can bring up soem other sentaor or newsman that did something, and while that is bad, and should be addressed later..right now the guy running for president is the important one to go after before it’s too late.
October 24, 2004 - 07:46 AM on October 24th, 2004
My brother is in the military. He is Special Forces and has been in the military for 16 years. He is stationed somewhere in either Iraq or Afghanistan we are not entirely sure the exact location. He hates the thought of another democrat getting into office. The defense budget was seriously slashed under Clinton.
I hated the thought of Kerry before but now I am filled with unspeakable anger!! This man can’t be elected President!! This man totally scares me even more now!!!
October 24, 2004 - 08:26 AM on October 24th, 2004
AG- The question I would ask Kerry is, Would you do anything differently now? It showed him as an opportunist, which is what I believe he is. But he would do everything differenly in Iraq, so I would like to see what he would say about this.
Shannon- You captured the essence of fighting a war. We did go after Hitler and Moussalini, but at the same time, attempted to cripple their power. John Kerry knows this, but is willing to say what it takes to get elected.
Michelle- I would like to extend a thank-you to you and your entire family, for giving your brother the support he needs to fight for the freedom of people, not only in this country, but abroad. I will keep him in my thoughts and prayers, and please give us updates on how your family is coping.
You should print a copy of you post Michelle, and many years from now, when you are both old and gray, give it to him.
As for the question on Walter and others that reported? Well we had 3 choices back then for our news. And not every station came in like it does now. We were forced to watch what they showed us. They showed us what they chose to air. Much like Dan Rather at CBS does now.
John Kerry does not get to pick and chose what gets reported about his Vietnam record. He put it out there knowing full well what would come up. He banked on more anti war supporters quieting the other side.
October 24, 2004 - 09:28 AM on October 24th, 2004
You’re exactly right peejz, HE put his 4 month military carrier in the center of his campaign not us.
How many Vietnam soldiers took an 8mm camera with them? He’s such an opportunist.
I’ll tell you what angers me the most is HE MEET WITH THE ENEMY, While still in the service to this country. Why isn’t there any accountability for his actions? His picture hangs in their war museum!! Good GOD people WAKE UP!!!!!!!
October 24, 2004 - 10:47 AM on October 24th, 2004
Kerry is a coward and a traitor, there are no two ways about it. He was dishonorably discharged, but the Carter administration gave amnesty to deserters and traitors, so that fact is conveniently covered up and he won’t release those records. The truth is emerging as the final days to the election approaches. I look at everyone who is talking against the war just the exact same as I look at Vietnam Vets Against the War: They’re allied with the enemy and they’re traitors. NEVER IN MY LIFETIME has a presidential campaign tried to get a candidate elected by insulting America’s best allies, at the same time as putting our sons’ lives on the line. That’s exactly what Sen. John Kerry has been doing for months now…and it’s straight out of the VVAW playbook. The tactics they’re using on MTV trying to scare the kids about Bush secretly planning a draft is ridiculous but the polls indicate that those kids don’t know much about that subject, so they’re able to make points. I’M NOT GOING TO FALL FOR KERRY’S SOCIALIST RHETORIC!
October 24, 2004 - 11:04 AM on October 24th, 2004
Well said Cao, The msm hammered Bush to release his records which he has, but kerry gets a pass on this subject with them. BIAS? The only logical conclusion is kerry has something he doesn’t want exposed. He’s going to get away with it because the big three(ABC,NBC,CBS)are in his back pocket.
The man is PHONY, CORRUPT, IMMORAL, TREASONOUS,FAKE,CONDESCENDING,ARROGANT and a LIER!
October 24, 2004 - 11:05 AM on October 24th, 2004
Cao - “Kerry’s socialist republic”: ridiculous. Others - I said that most Vietnam vets served honorably, and that atcrocities that were committed (of which there were vast amounts)were systemic, mostly through aerial bombing, aerial deploying of mines, and free-fire zones. None of you have actually addressed my arguments about how dishonest this movie is. And snowy egret, if you call me a brown shirt one more time…
October 24, 2004 - 11:19 AM on October 24th, 2004
Correction, Cao - “rhetoric”, not “republic”. Still ridiculous. “America’s best allies” - I’m sure the Polish, the Martiniquans, the Ukrainians, and the Bulgarians will be flattered. This documentary is grossly unfair, and your collective support shows your collective colours.
October 24, 2004 - 11:31 AM on October 24th, 2004
Sandy, I don’t know your age, but I was in high school in the early 70′S. I remember John Kerry very well. An anti war hero whose Senatorial career only validated this status. Now he’s running for president as a war hero? We sent our boys (it was not a volunteer army) over there and when they came back, they were jeered as baby killers and spit on. The way we (as a country)treated them was disgusting. Kerry had a huge hand in this, and still considers himself a war hero. The same war he branded everyone else a war criminal? My take, if John F Kerry gets soundly defeated all will be well in the world of Karma.
Am I the only one that finds irony in the fact that most who called our Viet Nam Vets, baby killers, have no problem with abortion. Its a crazy world we live in.
October 24, 2004 - 12:13 PM on October 24th, 2004
Wilky,
I agree completely about the abortion comment - it seems that he has a double standard. What are we to believe about Kerry - he seems to say what he thinks others want to hear. This is a scary thought when he might be the one who will lead us against terrorism. Will he listen to the French or the UN?????????
Sandy, you need to sit up and smell the flowers. Methinks you have a “stinkweed” in the midst!
Kathy
who is a proud Bush supporter!
October 24, 2004 - 12:17 PM on October 24th, 2004
I’m not happy that Kerry is running on his war record, for reasons different from yours, Wilky. But you are the latest poster to miss my point. Kerry’s testimony was against the military and political establishment that allowed Vietnam to happen. Not individual soldiers. This film actually edits Kerry’s speech in places to emphasise aspects that seem to validate your point. While I was not really aware of much at the time, I have strong opinions about Vietnam, and I believe that the period from 1962-1968, when the press and population, by and large, accepted the war as an inevitability that their government had an unchallenged right to wage, was a far more morally corrupt era than 1968-1973. This film is an attempt to re-forge the memory of Vietnam from the ‘62-68 lens. I’m not sure what history you have all read about Vietnam, but Kerry’s accusations about the horrors of the free-fire zones were prescient, and for the most part have stood the test of history.
As far as your abortion comment, I’m not sure - I’ve never called a Vietnam Vet a baby killer. I’ve called Henry Kissinger a murderer, but that’s in far more lucid territory.
October 24, 2004 - 01:19 PM on October 24th, 2004
If the film validates my point, thats fine, except I didn’t, nor do I plan on watching it. I know Kerry by watching him the past 30 years. There is not much about him I find admirable. An example. Within the past year, Tim Russert asked him about an exchange he had with John O’Neil on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971 where O’Neil said that a rapid withdrawl would result in wide scale killing, Kerry said that ’sure there would be 5000 or so political assainations but he didn’t feel there would be wide scale killing’ (after he has been to Paris). After the clip his immediate response was “Tim, would you look at that hair”. Of course we all know about the boat people and the killing fieds of Cambodia. He missed by a few million people. John O’Neil also refuted Kerry’s idea of free fire zones, saying that just because they were there, there was no reason to fire indiscriminately. In fact he said that they went to great lengths to make sure that the only returned fire at the enemy.
And can I assume that you were against Clintion in Bosnia and Kosovo since that was only aerial bombing on our part.
October 24, 2004 - 01:33 PM on October 24th, 2004
American bombing in Cambodia during the six months after the Paris Peace killed 300,000 civilians. How’s that for large-scale killing?
October 24, 2004 - 02:49 PM on October 24th, 2004
Has nothing to do with Bosnia or Kosovo
October 24, 2004 - 03:37 PM on October 24th, 2004
Kerry’s testimony was against the military and political establishment that allowed Vietnam to happen. Not individual soldiers
but the way he went about it did brand the soliders as baby killers and evil men and he kerry didn’t care enough to try and clear their name.
what i love is how kerry admits to committing war crimes, but when you ask a kerry supporter about it they say “he never did that, your a lier!”, heck how many tiems has sean hannity asked that only to have some one say hannity is lying..even with the confession on tape?!
October 24, 2004 - 04:33 PM on October 24th, 2004
Wilky,
I was for strong intervention in Bosnia, including the deployment of American ground troops. Comparing Clinton’s half-assed bombing in Bosnia that came way too late (after the death of 400,000 people) to Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia is ridiculous. History has shown that the American pullout of Vietnam resulted in a lower loss of life than continued war. The one possible exception to that rule was in Cambodia, except if we consider that without Congress the bombing would have continued perhaps for years.
WallyWest80, you again mischaracterise Kerry’s comments. Noone here has responded to the fact that this shameful film EDITS Kerry’s speech to Congress. I don’t think that the term “war criminal” is being used in a way that I would use it - individual soldiers in Vietnam were in a tough situation that politicians and generals could only dream of - even those who were WW2 veterans (as in Vietnam the distinction between combatant and non-combatant was very blurry). It was the politicians, Republican and Democrat, who created the free-fire zones, Ok’d civilian targets for bombing, and covered up atrocities committed by US troops who were the war criminals. Not the soldiers, for the most part. How many G’Damn times do I have to type that? I’m glad you all know courageous Vietnam vets - but we are talking about the movie and Kerry’s accusations. The discussion has flown way off the mark from it’s topic - the opportunistic, scurrilous, simple-minded, and poisoned piece of “journalism” posted on this site.
October 24, 2004 - 04:59 PM on October 24th, 2004
I don’t see the film as a lie at all. This is a short film based on the recollection of some American P.O.W.’s. Do you recall watching the news during the Vietnam war? Do you remember seeing the N.V’s beating our soldiers in streets as they were parading them in front of the camera? (Hanoi Hilton no less) Do you remember seeing our P.O.W.’s being put on the evening news stating that they were criminals and deserved to be punished? Do you think the soldiers that were forced to watch his testimony and were tortured because of it, really care that John Kerry feels the victim now?
October 24, 2004 - 05:07 PM on October 24th, 2004
I have went far our of my way to understand kerry, i even watched his whole interview on the dick cavit show where he said he committed war crimes, O’Neil really took him to town in that one.
October 24, 2004 - 05:18 PM on October 24th, 2004
Peejz,
The North Vietnamese certainly tortured American prisoners, and began to do it 9 years before John Kerry’s testimony. I don’t see your point. The systematic liquidation of certain civilian areas of South Vietnam and Cambodia (Project Phoenix) during the 1960’s was also official American policy. Kerry was not lying about that, or the free-fire zone. You are not arguing - you are doing what this film is doing - parading emotions about torture in the place of deductive reasoning. Why does John McCain have nothing but good things to say about Kerry’s actions in 1968-72?
WallyWest80 - I hope you have given Kerry a chance. You can start by actually looking into the allegations this movie makes.
October 24, 2004 - 05:55 PM on October 24th, 2004
‘History has shown that the American pullout of Vietnam resulted in a lower loss of life than continued war’
Come on Sandy, first, we must be ignoring the aftermath or only considering American live. Second, we were just on the verge of winning the war when we pulled out. The tet offensive was a military victory but a PR loss.
For all we know, if we stayed, South Viet Nam could be as free and prosperous as South Korea.
October 24, 2004 - 05:56 PM on October 24th, 2004
Sandy- John McCain has said that he admires his service to country. He does not publicly acknowledge his feelings on the issue of the testimony.
What is the point you are trying to make and so desperately want someone to agree with? You are right, I am not arguing. I am not arguing as there is nothing to argue about.
The movie was an eyewhitness account given by American P.O.W.’s during the time in which John Kerry gave testimony to the Congress. The people speak of the reprucussions of that testimony.
I question your age and understanding of the content of this subject matter.
Why did John Kerry testify and then go on the Cavett show to tell of things he saw and did, only to recant the story 30 years later?
You are preaching to the choir if you think you have said one thing of relevence to change many of our positions on the issues.
October 24, 2004 - 06:05 PM on October 24th, 2004
Sandy, I’m confused. In post#64 you said ” covered up atrocities committed by US troops who were the war criminals, not the soldiers. For the most part.” Tell me the difference between US troops and soldiers.
October 24, 2004 - 07:30 PM on October 24th, 2004
Peejz,
The point I’ve made far too much here is that the movie is bunk. It is not journalism.
Geo,
Sorry you are confused. I am, as was Kerry, criticising generals and politicians, who are responsible for their troops’ actions and the military framework in which they conduct combat operations.
Wilky,
Now you are making things up. The US was no closer to “winning” that war in 1973 as it was in 1963. The Communists had sustained grievous losses in Tet and after, true, but the nature of the North Vietnamese war was such that it would not have ended on America’s terms without the complete destruction of NV society.
You guys will have the last words, s’pose. All the best.
October 24, 2004 - 07:44 PM on October 24th, 2004
How is it bunk? Because you don’t believe it? How silly. You really have no clear knowledge of the Vietnam war, nor military operations. You have an opinion of what it should be and make that your definition.
October 24, 2004 - 08:10 PM on October 24th, 2004
Sandy,
What is the difference between what happened in Bosnia and the millions of Iraq’s that were tortured and buried in mass graves over the decades of Saddam Hussein’s reign? I think the only difference is that you support one President and villify another.
My brother has seen the terrible effects of Saddam’s treatment of his people. He has seen firsthand the jails filled with you children. There for no other reason than their parents refused to allow them to join Saddam’s army.
My step father was a Green Beret in Vietnam. Unfortunately he passed away 4 years ago. I am not old enough to remember most of what went on during that time. The only thing I know is what I have been told. Seeing John Kerry saying what he said is more than enough to turn my stomach and pray that he doesn’t get elected.
I agree that if he is so against the child killing then how can he be for abortion? Makes no sense to me!!
It is hard having a family member in Special Forces. We get fewer calls than other family members. Letters are few and far between. This is what we know though. My brother wouldn’t be happy do anything else with his life. He loves his country and his career. He is married with 4 children. They have been married for 18 years. The kids miss their dad but they also think of him as their hero. They know that he is away fighting for his country. They also hear alot of what the people say. Sometimes they don’t understand why people are so upset because their dad is fighting for their freedom. We try to tell them that it is not their dad, it is the war in general. They are still confused. All in all it is hard but worth the sacrafices that we make.
October 24, 2004 - 08:26 PM on October 24th, 2004
Sandy, I agree that some politicians deserve criticising. Mainly Johnson and McNamara by micro managing the war from the oval office. But I seriously doubt it was policy to commit atrocities.
October 24, 2004 - 08:31 PM on October 24th, 2004
Michelle, your brother is a GREAT AMERICAN!
October 24, 2004 - 09:19 PM on October 24th, 2004
Geo- If they were to be faulted for anything, it was for watching a poll number rather than the task at hand. Allowing the people to remain free in this country that were guilty of treason.
Where is Tom Hayden again? Isn’t it time for him to visit Sadam?
October 25, 2004 - 06:05 AM on October 25th, 2004
I LOVE that this documentary is FREE…nobody is getting FAT off the PROFITS..i.e. Michael Moore!
p.s. that other Sandy hasn’t been me :cool::cool:
October 25, 2004 - 08:35 AM on October 25th, 2004
77. Great to hear that, Sandy! I was beginning to think I was going to have to take your hammer away from you.
ADMINS: Is there something that can be done about this? The first Sandy does have claim to the handle on this site. I was honestly thinking she either fell and hit her head, or she fell asleep next to a pod.
October 25, 2004 - 09:22 AM on October 25th, 2004
sasha- that wasn’t even the other Sandy…The sandy we know and love would have
A.- spoken her mind as only she can do
B.- pointed out the error of the ways of this Sandy.
C.- written in her southern way that we all love! Where the hell is she? Oh that’t right, stationed on a base half way around the world:!:
October 25, 2004 - 10:03 AM on October 25th, 2004
Then again, peejz, what do I know? I’m a big liberal…:shock:
October 25, 2004 - 10:19 AM on October 25th, 2004
77: Real Sandy (
; as Peejz mentioned, I do hope that can be fixed up), great minds think alike!!! That’s exactly what occurred to me when this free download surfaced!
These guys aren’t trying to make a buck off of an embittered public, a la Michael Moore. They’re merely concerned Vets who have suffered terrible atrocities and are genuinely concerned over not only the smearing of their legacy, but the notion that the very man responsible could quite easily become the Commander-in-Chief, and they simply want the truth to be told, regardless of profit.
They’re not seeking a tangible reward. They just want their story told. That was what became quite clear to me by the end of the presentation, and that is what I believe will hit home for those who watch.
October 25, 2004 - 10:39 AM on October 25th, 2004
I could not agree more AG! I watched it and realized that I owed them my time and at the very least, I could and should listen to what they had to say.
Sasha- liberal or not, you add a good perspective to many discussions and I enjoy reading what you have to say.:smile:
October 25, 2004 - 11:17 AM on October 25th, 2004
Thanks, peejz. That was just going back to Jeffrey’s confusion last week.
I should’ve put a /sarcasm at the end of that comment instead of
October 25, 2004 - 11:40 AM on October 25th, 2004
I must admit sasha- I really pay no attention to the onsies and twosies that post here. Nor do I give much to those that post and fail to try to see the others point of view. In re-reading some of the posts I found myself chuckling at the fact that I was accused of not “arguing”. I don’t come here to argue…I come here to discuss and learn.
I knew what you meant though:cool:
October 25, 2004 - 04:11 PM on October 25th, 2004
I think it’s sad when a man (Kerry) was in Nam for four months. Then comes back to the states and starts bad mouthing the American Government and our G.I.’s. I was never in the armed forces, but I have family members and friends that were and in WWII & Nam, Korea & Desert Storm. I know one thing for sure if it was not for those brave people that fought I and many other would not be free today. People need to think about that everytime the want to bash the war or a GI.
Thanks for allowing me to share my two cents!!