Bill Clinton vs "9/11 Inside Jobber"

[Ginnie]

Yes. But you have a macabre way of putting things...

EDIT: Are you a lawyer?
You can spin an idea positively or negatively pretty good to make your points. ;D

[Jason]

I'm a banker/realtor. My spin skills come from my English Lit degree, which required the ability to write papers on authors like Proust and pretend I was talking about something important. And yes, sometimes I am merely looking for an argument, though not that often.

[Ginnie]

which required the ability to write papers on authors like Proust and pretend I was talking about something important

I must admit I've never read him. Am I missing something?

[Jason]

ginniegatrit said:

which required the ability to write papers on authors like Proust and pretend I was talking about something important

I must admit I've never read him. Am I missing something?

No.

[wdmundt]

Both of them received early discharges to pursue political careers.

Kerry went to war. Bush avoided war. There is a huge difference here. The whole point of bringing up Kerry's anti-war position is to deflect attention from the fact that George W. Bush avoided the war and did not complete his obligation to the Guard.

So supporting the troops = not criticizing the troops?

Forgive me for saying so, but if that's all it takes it doesn't seem like a very substantial form of support. Why, by that logic right now I'm supporting all sorts of causes I don't even know about simply because I'm not criticizing them.

How did conservatives support Bill Clinton when he took action in Kosovo? Here's how:

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." -Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." -Sean Hannity, Fox News

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." -Karen Hughes, speaking for presidential candidate George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."-Tony Snow, Fox News

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)


"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"-Sean Hannity, Fox News


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Ha ha ha.

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." -Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do.”-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

(from Crooks and Liars)

So I guess all these guys weren't supporting the troops, huh? They certainly were not supporting the President of the United States during a time of war. But I guess it is only right to support the president when he is a conservative.

[Jason]

wdmundt said:

Both of them received early discharges to pursue political careers.

Kerry went to war. Bush avoided war. There is a huge difference here. The whole point of bringing up Kerry's anti-war position is to deflect attention from the fact that George W. Bush avoided the war and did not complete his obligation to the Guard.

That's not my reason for bringing it up.
My reason for bringing it up, when I do, is to illustrate in part why I am sincerely grateful that Mr. Kerry will never get any nearer to the Presidency than he is now.

How did conservatives support Bill Clinton when he took action in Kosovo? Here's how:

You are correct - by publically questioning and criticizing the mission the conservatives in question were undermining the morale of the troops and were wrong to do so.
I find Senator Lugar's comment particularly egregious with the idea that President Clinton would be the only person hurt by a lost war. What a stupid, thoughtless thing to say.

[gillianren]

Wait, I've been thinking about this. Jason, are you really saying that it's more supportive of the troops to leave them in a dangerous position for no valid reason than it is to protest the war you think is morally wrong and maybe get them sent home?

[Jason]

No, it's supportive of the troops to be willing to accept their sacrifices with the goal of accomplishing their mission rather than pull them out prematurely and waste all their effort to this point.

We aren't leaving them in Iraq for an invalid reason, and I don't think the war is morally wrong.

[gillianren]

You miss my point. I do. A lot of other people do. Therefore, we would rather have the soldiers home than dying needlessly. And yet to say so isn't supportive of them?

[lenbrazil]

jason said:

lenbrazil said:

Yes he spoke them but didn’t focus on them and they were true. He said that
“…we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It was not an investigation - it was a media event, they were not all "very highly decorated veterans" (I'm not sure if they were all honorably discharged either, but I have no data either way at hand at the moment), if they occurred there is no evidence that they weren't isolated incidents without the full awareness of the officers at all levels of command.

So that statement was nearly entirely false.

“we had an investigation” / “It was not an investigation - it was a media event”

It depends on how you define ‘investigation’ he never said it consisted of anything more that collecting the testimony of “honorably discharged… veterans”, over a hundred testified. Obviously they didn't have the authority or resouces for a more in depth investigation. He made a slight mistake with the numbers IIRC there were over 100 veterans (It says 109 in Wikipedia) and 40 something civilian witnesses (I saw 44 cited)for a total of over 150.

“at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia” / “they were not all "very highly decorated veterans" (I'm not sure if they were all honorably discharged either, but I have no data either way at hand at the moment)”

He never said all or even most of them were “very highly decorated”, you admit you have no evidence they weren’t all honorably discharged, I imagine Kerry/WSI detractors would have love to have found some who weren’t. Supposedly they all had to show their discharge papers and other military documents.

“not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command” / “if they occurred there is no evidence that they weren't isolated incidents without the full awareness of the officers at all levels of command.”

Perhaps that was a bit of hyperbole but several of them testified that officers as high as majors (see below) were involved, perhaps some of higher rank but I’ve only read a small part of the testimony. It could also be argued (see below) that some of the Pentagon’s policies encouraged such incidents. There were over a hundred veteran witnesses some of who said they saw or even participated in more than one atrocity and they only came from 8 divisions (and 1 brigade), most only served one or two tours in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. Even if half or a quarter of what they said was true and we assume those divisions were especially troublesome how many incidents could be extrapolated to all American soldiers through out the war?

As with “investigation” it depends on how you define “isolated incident”. This was not long after the Mai Lai massacre story and court marshal and the army said that was an “isolated incident” so isolated incidents could have been understood to mean a handful of incidents certainly a number much smaller that the “Winter Soldiers” testified to.

“So that statement was nearly entirely false.”

That could more accurately be said about your statement.

He never claimed to have witnesses such incidents himself*,

Never said he did. In fact I said the opposite - that I blame him for spreading sensationalist rumors that he had no personal knowledge of.

Whether they were “sensationalist rumors” or not is very much up for debate. It’s not uncommon for journalists and witnesses to recount what others have told them. The NY Times, Washington Times and Fox News all report what people have said without confirming its veracity, unlike the WSI the sources are often anonymous.

he never claimed the incidents were verified nor did he blame the grunts who had confessed to committing them.

Which is a problem, isn't it, since he was testifying before Congress. It would make much more sense to verify your facts before making them public.

See above, we’re going in circles

He merely reported what the “winter soldiers” had said. Did you look at the Village Voice article I linked? A historian quoting military documents cited incidents that correspond to every atrocity Kerry cited. Perhaps he exaggerated the extent to which they happened but no one has shown he did, there is no evidence he didn’t believe what he was saying or said so for political gain.

The historian in question is pro-Kerry and fails to show that the incidents were commonplace and/or fully known to "all levels of command". Many of the perpetrators listed were punished for them - the historian seems to feel these punishments were lax, but admits that they occurred.

As can reasonably assumed only a small percentage of incidents would have been reported let alone prosecuted. Several incidents involved officers. The punishments were very lax; if the soldiers had committed similar offenses in the US they would have gotten much harsher punishment. This might indicate les that total disapproval of such tactics by the DoD.

EDIT: Also, the author makes no attempt to tie these examples to specific testimony by any of the "Winter Soldiers". Therefore while similar incidents can be shown to have occurred the specific (at least as specific as they got) allegations of the Winter Soldiers repeated by Kerry remain unproven.

No one claimed the incidents he documented were the specific incidents from the WSI. I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate any of them made up anything though it’s quite possible some of them did. We normally start with the presumption that people are telling the truth especially when hundreds of people give similar accounts and often directly confirm each other.

As I said earlier, atrocities occur in every war. The idea that the US Soldiers of the Vietnam war had a greater propensity to committing atrocities or were encouraged by their officers to do so is false.

I wouldn’t be surprised if US soldiers who severed in Vietnam “had a greater propensity to committing atrocities” for a several reasons

1) The average age was lower than in other conflicts. The average age of those killed there was 22 in WW2 it was 26. www.vietnam-war.info/myths/
2) It was basically a civil war often they were fighting un-uniformed guerrillas or sympathizers in the villages. It was difficult/impossible to tell innocent civilian from enemy combatant.
3) The Vietnamese were racially different from almost all US soldiers. Several WSI and Dellums Committee witnesses recall being encouraged to think of ‘Gooks’ (i.e Vietnamese) as subhuman.
4) They often fought along side the SVA who had quite a reputation for “committing atrocities”
5) Many of them were there against their will i.e. they were drafted or had become disillusioned.
6) They war didn’t have clear objectives and never made any progress.

As noted previously several officers were implicated in atrocities as to whether they were encouraged or condoned by higher levels of command I’m not sure. It could be argued that “free fire zones”, measuring progress in body counts, attempts to cover up such incidents Mai Lai, Tiger Brigade) , lax punishment of those convicted and the Phoenix Program are all indicative of such encouragement. The JCS at the time were the people who wanted to implement “Operation Northwoods”

Though he did tell ‘Meet the Press’ he’d committed similar atrocities

Yes. And isn't someone who admitted to committing wartime atrocities someone we want as president?

In this case compared to Bush yes, he was a young inexperienced officer who did what he was trained/told to do take “part in shootings in free fire zones…the burning of villages” etc and later came clean about it. I'll flip you question around, 'isn't someone who admitted to using his family's pull to dodge the draft someone we want as president?'

This isn't backpedaling. The investigation by the Naval Investigative Service was performed after the Winter Soldiers media event, not before. Kerry spread the falsehoods of the media event before the real investigation was completed.

I never said or indicated it was performed before the WSI, I don’t think it was performed at all. You haven’t shown “Kerry spread …falsehoods” or that such an investigation took place.

Except for the uncorroborated claims of a single author with known political bias who claimed to have seen or been told about it there is no evidence such a report existed or investigation carried out. No one else claims to have seen and the DoD says they have no evidence it ever existed.

The Village Voice link you posted earlier talks about the investigation:
"Moreover, according to official records, CID investigators attempted to contact 41 people who testified at the Detroit session, which occurred between January 31 and February 2, 1971. Five couldn't be located, according to records. Of the remaining 36, 31 submitted to interviews—hardly the "few" asserted by SBVT."
So the author of the Village Voice article claims he saw records relating to the investigation, unless he was the "author with known political bias" you were referring to earlier.

Turse was referring to an Army investigation. It substantiated rather than contradicted the WSI. It confirmed that at least 93% of the people it wanted to speak to were real Vietnam vets. Over 86% of those the Army contacted submitted to interviews, giving false statements would have been a federal crime. It isn’t clear what the witnesses said or if CID investigated any further or made a report. I will try to contact Turse. Beyond the claims of an author with an agenda who can’t remember if he saw or was only told about the NIS (Navy) report there is no evidence they issued one or carried out an investigation.

Your claim that:

“When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview those who had allegedly witnessed atrocities most refused to cooperate, even with assurance that they would not be questioned about atrocities they committed personally. Those who did cooperate never provided any details of actual crimes. Some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real vets. The Army investigation met with the same problems - the "witnesses" would not provide any substantiating factual information.”

is unsubstantiated, probably false regarding the supposed Navy investigation and mostly if not completely false regarding the CID investigation.

…no effort was made to verify that they served in Vietnam or were in a position to have witnessed the events they were speaking of.

Can you document this? I’m not familiar with military documentation I assume it can be determined where a soldier served especially if it gave their units and dates of service. I assume they were asked for photo ID. Except for:

- an organizer who falsely claimed to have been an officer who IIRC didn’t testify and
- a minor witness who over 30 years later claimed he was coerced by Kerry but was contradicted by at least 2 other participants

I know of no evidence that anything they said was shown to be false or cast in doubt.

…the vets had no reason to lie and implicate their buddies and themselves in war crimes,

Yes they did. Claiming that Vietnam soldiers were horrible baby killers in that anti-war setting was a way to gain public acceptance and acclaim.

What “anti-war setting” small town America 1971? They chose to go to Detroit, other vets were vocally pro-war. Pretty flimsy motive for implicating their buddies and in some cases themselves. The fact that the vast majority of the vets contacted by the army submitted to questioning by them is a strong indication they were telling the truth. So is the fact that other investigations such as the Rep. Dellums committee during which the witnesses were presumably under oath and the National Veterans’ Inquiry have reported similar incidents*. You’re clutching at straws. Your rationalization for discrediting witnesses is almost “truther” like, ‘He can’t be believed because he works for the government/”MSM”/ a government contractor (etc)”

* www.sirnosir.com/archives_and_resources/library/investigations/cover.html
homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/vietnam-nviuswcv-19701201.html

they gave very specific information

They did not give specific information. No solid dates, names of perpetrators, or anything that would ever hold up in a court martial.

Did you actually read any of it? From the 1st page of testimony:

“MODERATOR. Mr. Delay, on your testimony on the 24th of December 1969, twenty-five people were killed. Could you elaborate on this subject?

DELAY. Yeah. Christmas Eve shortly before midnight, a group of Marines from India Company had set up an ambush in Arizona territory and they killed twenty-five people. To my knowledge, it was never determined whether they were civilians or were, in fact, the enemy, but in examining the bodies they discovered one weapon. It was a 9-millimeter pistol. The next day, on Christmas Day, the battalion commander sent an order all about the battalion area, Hill 37, requesting any enemy weapons that were in the hands of individual Marines. A friend of mine from Delaware, ------ ------, had bought an AK47 from another Marine when he came in the country. I was ordered to take this weapon down to the command bunker and give it to Major ------, the executive officer of Third Battalion, 1st Marines. When I gave this to him he gave it to another Marine and told him to go smear some mud on it. There were several other weapons acquired in this manner and they were all sent in to regimental headquarters as being captured Christmas Eve with those bodies to make the group of people appear to be a heavily armed enemy force.”

www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_04_1Marine.html (I count this as the “the 1st page of testimony” because on the previous page the merely introduced themselves (name, rank, unit etc) and summed up what they saw in a sentence or two)

Presumably the original contains the names of the major and his “friend…from Delaware” it would not have been hard to ID them anyway especially the major. So in this case you got everything you wanted and more: two incidents, exact date, approximate time, location, and two names.

But in most cases they didn’t give names and dates, I don’t think their intention was to implicate those who had committed offenses but rather to show how the war was dehumanizing. But they gave information specific enough for the competent authorities to further investigate if interested. They described specifically what happened. It’ also possible they didn’t remember the exact dates. It’s also possible (probable) the Army vets gave more specific info to the CID.

The examples given by the Village Voice article are not from the Winter Soldiers event - they are from U.S. Military records.

Yes, see above.

numerous witness accounts which corroborate each other especially by those with no incentive to lie are normally presumed to be true this is an assumption made by detectives, historians, journalists and other types of investigators.

These "witnesses" did not corroborate specific events and had incentives to lie.

Incorrect on both counts see above on more than one occasion different soldiers from the same unit confirmed each others accounts.

Do you think the friends (the Globe said 2 friends one a WW2 vet gave him medals) who gave him the medals felt it was “a stunt” rather than “a real protest”

Irrelevent to the issue at hand.

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder, you haven’t produced any evidence he tried to fool anyone or that his fellow protesters would have objected.

Perhaps he did but you have no basis for what seems to be your presumption that he testified before the Senate and protested against the war only to get elected. You haven’t shown his testimony lead to his election 11 years later.

He requested early discharge in order to run for office. His testimony came after he was granted that discharge. Therefore he was in the midst of planning his political career when he testified. QED.

Yes he probably was “planning his political career” at that time, I assume he brushed his teeth that morning too and you have no evidence his testimony was planned to further his political career or helped get him elected over a decade later. Even if you assume he hoped it would help get him elected you have no evidence he would have testified any differently otherwise or that he didn’t believe what he was saying.

Previously you said his media appearances started after his testimony, that wasn’t accurate either

I don't think I said "John Kerry never appeared on TV before his testimony". I merely cited several examples of his appearing on high-profile shows as a result of his testimony.

You said: “It was the start of Kerry's political career. It lead to appearances on the Dick Cavett show and NBC's Meet the Press the next year. He tried to use that fame to build into a run for congress in 1972 but was defeated.”

1) It wasn’t the start of his “political career” because a) he’d already run for congress and b) his career didn’t really start till 1982.
2) It didn’t “lead to appearances on…NBC's Meet the Press the next year” because he appeared on that program before he was even called to testify.
3) There is no evidence “it lead to appearances on the Dick Cavett show”, he’d already been on Meet the Press and was the leader of the VVAW.
4) You’ve presented no evidence “he tried to use that fame to build into” his “run for congress in 1972”

…on at least one occasion he was interviewed on national TV before he spoke to the Senate on April 22, 1971. He appeared on “Meet the Press” on April 18*. In his testimony he said “I received notification yesterday you would hear me”** thus he was only scheduled to appear on April 21.

Obviously Meet the Press was aware of what he was going to testify. His appearance there was a direct result of his testimony, even though it occurred first.

So you think the producers were psychic? They had him on the show three days before HE knew he was going to testify.

He also said he’d “held a press conference here in Washington, D.C., some weeks ago with General Shoup, with General Hester…a bilateral amputee” and the wives and mothers of POW’s abnd soldiers who were killed**. It seems like his media appearances led to his testimony not the other way round.

Chicken and egg argument. Some of his media appearances led to his testimony, others were a result of his testimony. Either way his testimony was a cornerstone of his public image and thus his political career, which was my original point.

You’ve produced no evidence the latter appearances or “his public image” were due to/based on his testimony.

[lenbrazil]

In a previous threat you cited Bush being admitted as a pilot indicated he was very intelligent he only scored in the 25 % the minimum passing grade and was rejected for admission by the University of Texas School of Law not very impressive for some one who’d just graduated from Yale. Perhaps he’s “smarter than you average bear” but only slightly.

Graduating from Yale in the first place requires a considerable amount of intelligence. Becomming even a mediocre pilot of supersonic jet interceptors, or being accepted to law school on low grades, still requires above-average intelligence. The point stands.

Like I said he’s probably smarter than average but not much. Despite having one of the best educations money could buy including graduating from Yale (possibly/probably as a ‘legacy’) he was rejected by UT Law and only got in the 25% of the pilot’s exam, what percentage of the other test takers do you think had an education anything close to his?

Whether the war is winnable is the million-dollar question, even an increasing number of Republicans think not, as Kerry put it “How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?”

Than an increasing number of Republicans are mistaken. General Petreus' report showed that real progress is being made in Iraq, and the death tolls have all shrunk since the Surge reached full strength and began using its new tactics.

Questions have been raised about the reliability of those numbers which were complied by people subordinate to Petraeus himself and their value in measuring progress.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401929.html?sub=AR&sid=ST2007092402036

Admittedly many mistakes have been made, but mistakes are made in every war.

In this case as in Vietnam the principal mistakes were getting involved in the first place and refusing to see that winning our objectives isn’t (wasn’t) possible.

Should other soldiers and numerous Iraqi civilians have to die in order not to “insults [the] contributions and undermines the value of the sacrifices …made” by the troops who already served and died there?

Many more soldiers and civilians may have to die before Iraq becomes stable, yes, and many more civilians would die if we left before the job was done and Iraq descended into full civil war. Better to have more deaths and a stable Iraq then save some U.S. soldiers and watch millions more deaths and the formation of a new terrorist safe haven.

Which one of us is right is hard to say objectively. If it weren’t for the insistence of Bush and his advisors we would be in this mess in the first place.

If I’m not mistaken most of the troops in Iraq want out.

In many cases you are mistaken.

In many cases I’ve shown you to be mistaken. I don’t remember you pointing out subtantive errors in points I’ve made on this thread but everyone makes mistakes. I've made several on this forum. In this case however I’m not mistaken.

Many troops have reinlisted knowing full well they would be going back to Iraq. Many troops probably do want out as well, but complaining about one's assignment is a military tradition.

“An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.”

zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Many troops probably do want out as well, but complaining about one's assignment is a military tradition.

Yeah especially when they have a good chance of getting killed or injured in war that might not be winnable whose exact goals are unclear

It is “an extremely honorable profession” but evidence indicates that a large percentage of the volunteers are people who entered the military because they had few other job prospects.

Let's see this evidence then.

You haven’t documented any of your claims (except for Kerry's discharge) while I’ve document virtually all my major claims and you’re asking me for evidence? Please. When you’ve provided evidence to back your claims get back to me, till then I’ll look when I can find the time. I’ll make a deal with you if I can’t produce any evidence in 2 weeks I’ll withdraw the claim.

[Jason]

gillianren said:

You miss my point. I do. A lot of other people do. Therefore, we would rather have the soldiers home than dying needlessly. And yet to say so isn't supportive of them?

Wanting soldiers not to die needlessly is a worthwhile goal, so the question becomes whether it really is needlessly.
No one in today's U.S. military was drafted. They all joined up with the understanding that they might be called on to make the ultimate sacrifice (or at least they should have had that understanding). Real progress is finally being made in Iraq. Quitting now would mean disrespecting the deaths of all those who died trying to accomplish the end that is now, at last, coming into sight.

[Jason]

You know, I'm tired of arguing about Kerry. The guy didn't know whether what he was talking about actually happened or not, it insulted other veterans, it's effect was to build his political career, and he will never be President because he angered too many of his fellow veterans.
That's the story right there.
Whether the Winter Soldiers really were telling the truth or not (and I still believe most of them were not) is immaterial to the question of whether Kerry presented a bunch of sensationalist (yes I'm using that word again) stories that he hadn't personally witnessed.
It was presented to fulfill a political agenda and it backfired on him severely, albeit thirty years later. End of story.

EDIT: Yes I know this looks like I'm giving up when confronted. Tough.

[Jason]

A few more points in passing.

lenbrazil said:

It depends on how you define ‘investigation’

Yes it does. By my definition Winter Soldiers was not an investigation, and attempting to influence Congress and the American public with it was not my idea of responsible behavior.

Obviously they didn't have the authority or resouces for a more in depth investigation.

Which in my opinion means they should not have confronted Congress with what they had.

Even if half or a quarter of what they said was true and we assume those divisions were especially troublesome how many incidents could be extrapolated to all American soldiers through out the war?

How can we verify whether half or one-quarter of what they said was true? And how could we be sure our extrapolation of those incidents to the entire US force was accurate?

Whether they were “sensationalist rumors” or not is very much up for debate. It’s not uncommon for journalists and witnesses to recount what others have told them.

People aren't convicted on hearsay evidence alone in a court of law.

Several incidents involved officers. The punishments were very lax; if the soldiers had committed similar offenses in the US they would have gotten much harsher punishment. This might indicate les that total disapproval of such tactics by the DoD.

Or it may indicate that the DoD understood that peacetime laws in the US are not really applicable to a foreign warzone.

No one claimed the incidents he documented were the specific incidents from the WSI.

No, but

I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate any of them made up anything though it’s quite possible some of them did.

The fact that no one was charged as a result of the Winter Soldiers "testimony" and the investigations that followed it seems telling to me.

I wouldn’t be surprised if US soldiers who severed in Vietnam “had a greater propensity to committing atrocities” for a several reasons
1) The average age was lower than in other conflicts. The average age of those killed there was 22 in WW2 it was 26.

A possible reason.

2) It was basically a civil war often they were fighting un-uniformed guerrillas or sympathizers in the villages. It was difficult/impossible to tell innocent civilian from enemy combatant.

It is possible more civilians were killed, but killing civilians by mistake is not really what I would call an atrocity. Killing civilians on purpose would be.

3) The Vietnamese were racially different from almost all US soldiers. Several WSI and Dellums Committee witnesses recall being encouraged to think of ‘Gooks’ (i.e Vietnamese) as subhuman.

That doesn't vary much from past wars. Particularly in the Pacific Theater of WWII.

4) They often fought along side the SVA who had quite a reputation for “committing atrocities”

I find this one somewhat plausible.

5) Many of them were there against their will i.e. they were drafted or had become disillusioned.

Most of the combat forces in WWII and other wars fought by America were drafted as well.

6) They war didn’t have clear objectives and never made any progress.

I don't know that not having a clear objective for the entire war would particularly impress indivdual soldiers. Soldiers to my mind are usually mroe concerned with their own immediate objectives. And it's not true that no progress was made.

I'll flip you question around, 'isn't someone who admitted to using his family's pull to dodge the draft someone we want as president?'

I don't see why not. The draft was a bad idea to begin with. A necessary evil at best.
Kerry gets points in my book for having willingly gone into active service but not enough to counter his other drawbacks.

I never said or indicated it was performed before the WSI, I don’t think it was performed at all. You haven’t shown “Kerry spread …falsehoods” or that such an investigation took place.

I showed that the Village Voice mentioned the army investigation I mentioned earlier. True I haven't substantiated the Naval investigation yet, but I take it you accept that an Army investigation did occur?

Turse was referring to an Army investigation. It substantiated rather than contradicted the WSI.

If it had substantiated it then there would have been additional prosecutions.

Can you document this? I’m not familiar with military documentation I assume it can be determined where a soldier served especially if it gave their units and dates of service.

I believe it can be determined. The Winter Soldiers event organizers did not do that sort of research.

What “anti-war setting” small town America 1971? They chose to go to Detroit, other vets were vocally pro-war.

The Winter Soldiers event was an anti-war event, organized by anti-war people. I seriously doubt that any vet who appeared there didn't know what sort of testimony they were after.

You’re clutching at straws. Your rationalization for discrediting witnesses is almost “truther” like, ‘He can’t be believed because he works for the government/”MSM”/ a government contractor (etc)”

You said they had no incentive at all. I'm saying there was a very vocal anti-war movement who was willing to fête anyone who painted the war in a bad light, and those who appeared at the event receievd lots of encouragement to give the organizers what they wanted.

Did you actually read any of it?

I admit that I hadn't tracked down a transcript yet.
You presume that the original had more names, is that verifiable?
If the testimony of this person was considered accurate why was the unnamed major not prosecuted? We know that an Army investigation occurred. Why should we assume that no investigation by the Navy occurred rather than the other way around?

Why do they not give names and dates in most cases? Is it because they didn't want to implicate anyone (in which case why come forward at all?) or was it that the incidents didn't actually occurred, or occurred to a "friend of a friend"?

1) It wasn’t the start of his “political career” because a) he’d already run for congress and b) his career didn’t really start till 1982.

I guess technically he was trying to start a political career while still in the Navy.
Are you arguing that testifying before Congress didn't have any effect on Kerry's political career?

[Al Johnston]

jason said:

That doesn't vary much from past wars. Particularly in the Pacific Theater of WWII.

Which was not entirely free of atrocities and a "disregard" for the enemy not shown on other fronts. One of the books I have at home contains a picture of a young American woman trying to look happy at the "present" her Marine boyfriend has sent home for her: a Japanese skull. Low numbers of Japanese prisoners were not entirely due to the Imperial Army's legendary unwillingness to surrender: some American units simply didn't take prisoners, unless they were paid a bounty...