Republican Revisionist BS

Republicans have posted in this group that Kerry basically testified
before Congress that everyone that served in Vietnam was a child
murderer and war criminal. Thats not supported by the facts. What he
does testify to is the result of The Winter Soldier Investigation, a
three day investigation into war crimes. This investigation was
conducted in response to the Richard Calley conviction, and the growing
concern of the average American citizen to these allegations. Kerry's
testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was at the urging of
Republican senator, Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon. He states esentially the
same things that Kerry does, and yet remains revered by Republicans and
is never taken to task for his statements. Sen Hatfield retained his
senate seat for 30 years, from 1967-1997. I have attached Sen Hatfields
opening comments to the Committee, and the full text of Kerry's
comments. The real interesting details are in the minutes of the Winter
Soldier Investigation, where over 150 veterans made presentations, from
every service, from many different perspectives, for the world to see
and hear. Its in these minutes where all the atrocities are detailed.
Kerry didn't make these charges. He merely summarizes to the
subcommittee what was presented at the Investigation. I have the entire
Winter Soldier Investigation report if you are interested (it was
placed into the congressional record, without objection, by Hatfield).

Need for Investigation
Hon. Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon
In the Senate of the United States
Monday, April 5, 1971
MR. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the moral sensitivity of the Nation has
been aroused by the conviction of Lt. William Calley. More clearly than
before, this incident has focused the fundamental moral questions that
our Nation must confront regarding our conduct in Indochina.

The Department of Defense said in its recent statement relating to the
Calley conviction:

The Department of the Army has had a moral and legal obligation to adopt
a continuing policy of investigating fully all substantive allegations
or violations of the laws of war involving American personnel.
Every allegation of misconduct on the battlefield--regardless of the
rank or position of the person purportedly responsible--must be
thoroughly explored.

There has recently been brought to my attention testimony relating to
the policy and conduct of American forces in Indochina which has grave
and very serious implications.

The testimony is given by honorably discharged veterans who had served
in Vietnam, and was conducted by Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Three
days of testimony were conducted in Detroit, Mich. on January 31,
February 1, and 2 of this year. This group, which represents 11,000
veterans, plans to send several thousand to Washington the week of April
19 to petition Congress for full congressional hearings.

I, of course, have no way of ascertaining the veracity of all the
testimony given, and I am not in agreement with certain of the
statements and judgments made by those who testified.

However, I believe that the allegations made by these Americans, who
served their country in Vietnam, are so serious and so grave that they
demand the full study by the appropriate committees of Congress as well
as by the executive branch.

The testimony and allegations raised by the experience of these veterans
includes charges regarding: the torture and murder of suspects and
prisoners of war captured by Americans and South Vietnamese forces; the
wanton killing of innocent, unarmed civilians; the brutalization and
rape of Vietnamese women in the villages; military policies which
enabled indiscriminate bombing and the random firing of artillery into
villages which resulted in the burning to death of women, children and
old people; the widespread defoliation of lands of forests; the use of
various types of gases; the mutilation of enemy bodies, and others.

A recurrent theme running throughout the testimony is that of
institutionalized racist attitudes of the military in their training of
the men who are sent to Vietnam--training which has indoctrinated them
to think of all Vietnamese as "gooks" and subhuman.

Further, the thrust of the allegations made in the 3-day testimony is
that such actions were the consequence of reasonable and known policy
adopted by our military commanders and that the knowledge of incidents
resulting from these policies was widely shared.

Several of the allegations made in this testimony would place the United
States in violation of the Geneva Convention and other international
agreements relating to the conduct of war which have been ratified by
our Government.

Therefore, the necessity for investigating fully these alleged actions,
and all evidence that bears on our actions in Indochina and the
international agreements we have ratified cannot be overstated.

Therefore, first I ask unanimous consent that the testimony presented by
over 100 honorably discharged veterans in Detroit be placed in the
Congressional Record.

I realize that the testimony is very lengthy, but its full force and
content must be made available so that it can be read and judged on its
own merits.

Second, I will transmit this testimony to the Department of Defense and
the Department of State and urge, in accord with its stated policy, that
the evidence and allegations it contains be fully investigated.

Third, I urge the appropriate committees of the Congress to conduct
hearings on the policies governing the use of military force in
Indochina and their relation to international agreements our country has
ratified.

Fourth, I recommend consideration be given to forming a special
commission that would investigate in full these matters and would
provide a forum to assess the moral consequences of our involvement in
Indochina to us as a Nation and a people.

We as a Nation must find the proper way to honestly confront the moral
consequences of our actions, and to corporately turn ourselves from the
thinking and the policy that has degraded our moral posture and to
recognize that out of contrition an self-examination can come a genuine
rebirth of the ideas we hold as a people.

The testimony that follows and the steps I have advocated are presented
with this hope.

I ask unanimous consent to have the testimony printed in the Extensions
of Remarks.



Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate
Committee of Foreign Relations
April 23, 1971
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that
several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150
honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified
to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated
incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to
describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the
room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in
Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a
sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears,
cut off heads, taped 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 Ghengis Khan,
shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally
ravaged the countryside 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.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term
Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he
spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at
Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we
have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we
could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went
on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not
the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that
we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South
Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United
States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American
life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the
preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us
the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which
we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had
for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence
whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had
enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the
fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism
and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without
helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages
and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the
war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of
America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of
survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a
particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice
paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how
monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime.
We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was
kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of
casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search
and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we
listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet
Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw
America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai
and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out
chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves,
and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of
orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the
glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we
were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using
weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against
those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using
were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged
up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after
losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill
for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the
most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we
couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how
many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were
Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many
others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while
American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance
of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her
hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United
States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already
knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to
die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the
first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man
to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the
last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that
the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It
is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to
communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is
rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of
weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions
and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we
are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva
Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction
fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of
prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is
what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of
Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an
Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the
cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one
day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these
people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped.
And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to
end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the
leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where
are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are
they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are
the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more
serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their
wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men
have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of
public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations
bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that
service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories
of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this
denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to
undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige
of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and
fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And
more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street
without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we
will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy
obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where
soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:06:19 GMT, RocketMan
wrote:

>
>Republicans have posted in this group that Kerry basically testified
>before Congress that everyone that served in Vietnam was a child
>murderer and war criminal. Thats not supported by the facts. What he
>does testify to is the result of The Winter Soldier Investigation, a
>three day investigation into war crimes. This investigation was
>conducted in response to the Richard Calley conviction

Winter Soldier lies were retold by Kerry to Congress.
Check these "winter soldier's " out get back to us and tell us what
you conclude from what they had to say. Let us know if what they had
to say should have been repeated before Congress.
Al Hubbard
Elton Mazione
Eddie Swetz
Kenneth VanLasser

see just how Kerry's little speech was so candid, look up Adam
Walinsky

Then try reading up on Mark Lane

> and the growing
>concern of the average American citizen to these allegations. Kerry's
>testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was at the urging of
>Republican senator, Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon. He states esentially the
>same things that Kerry does, and yet remains revered by Republicans and
>is never taken to task for his statements. Sen Hatfield retained his
>senate seat for 30 years, from 1967-1997. I have attached Sen Hatfields
>opening comments to the Committee, and the full text of Kerry's
>comments. The real interesting details are in the minutes of the Winter
>Soldier Investigation, where over 150 veterans made presentations,

Were they vets?


>from
>every service, from many different perspectives, for the world to see
>and hear. Its in these minutes where all the atrocities are detailed.
>Kerry didn't make these charges. He merely summarizes to the
>subcommittee what was presented at the Investigation. I have the entire
>Winter Soldier Investigation report if you are interested (it was
>placed into the congressional record, without objection, by Hatfield).


As you started your post we've already posted it again, and again and
again. Most of us know it by heart.

But do read up on
Dewey Canyon II
read up on VVAW

enlighten yourself, not everyone in here is a Republican, so get a
grip.

Ken

"RocketMan" wrote in message
news:Xns949EC25A2C74C0000TRM0000@68.1.17.6...
>
> Republicans have posted in this group that Kerry basically testified
> before Congress that everyone that served in Vietnam was a child
> murderer and war criminal. Thats not supported by the facts. What he
> does testify to is the result of The Winter Soldier Investigation, a
> three day investigation into war crimes. This investigation was
> conducted in response to the Richard Calley conviction, and the growing
> concern of the average American citizen to these allegations. Kerry's
> testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was at the urging of
> Republican senator, Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon.
What is supported by the facts is that Kerry testified before the Congress
to events that he now claims he had no knowledge of. By doing so - Kerry
allowed the unsubstantiated allegations (many of which were later found to
be false) to be placed in the record. In doing so, he besmirched the
reputation of all those who served and continued to serve in Vietnam.

What is also supported by the facts is that the WSI "hearings" took place
on January 31and the following two days of February 1 and 2, 1971.
Whoever the Richard Calley whose conviction you claim precipitated the WSI
hearings most certainly could not have been William Calley, the My Lai
murderer - for he was not convicted until two months later, on March 29,
1971.

If all Kerry did was to summarize testimony (later determined to consist of
major falsehoods and fabrications) without first attempting to determine the
veracity of the testimony or the Vietnam Veteran status of the witnesses.
He is a fool.

Of particular note is that Kerry's executive director of VVAW - Al
Hubbard, had previously claimed to be an Air Force pilot who was wounded in
Vietnam. It was later determined that Hubbard was never a pilot, never an
officer, never wounded and never assigned to Vietnam. Either Kerry was a
blithering idiot who regurgitated the lies of phony Vets, and failed to
divine that his partner in VVAW was a phony too - or knew full well that
the "testimony" was false, and that his executive director, Hubbard was a
fraud.


Either way - he is not worthy of defence in this case.

--
Nigel Brooks

Ken wrote in
> Winter Soldier lies were retold by Kerry to Congress.

His testimony was at the urging of Mark Hatfield, who had the winters
soldiers testimony entered into the congressional record, without
objection. Dont revise history to suit your own agenda.

> Check these "winter soldier's " out get back to us and tell us what
> you conclude from what they had to say. Let us know if what they had
> to say should have been repeated before Congress.
> Al Hubbard
> Elton Mazione
> Eddie Swetz
> Kenneth VanLasser

OK. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct. That
still leaves over 140 vets testifying. Are you calling them all liars?
Does Lt Callei ring any bells?

> see just how Kerry's little speech was so candid, look up Adam
> Walinsky
>
> Then try reading up on Mark Lane
>
>> and the growing
>>concern of the average American citizen to these allegations. Kerry's
>>testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was at the urging
of
>>Republican senator, Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon. He states esentially
the
>>same things that Kerry does, and yet remains revered by Republicans
and
>>is never taken to task for his statements. Sen Hatfield retained his
>>senate seat for 30 years, from 1967-1997. I have attached Sen
Hatfields
>>opening comments to the Committee, and the full text of Kerry's
>>comments. The real interesting details are in the minutes of the
Winter
>>Soldier Investigation, where over 150 veterans made presentations,
>
> Were they vets?
>
>
>>from
>>every service, from many different perspectives, for the world to see
>>and hear. Its in these minutes where all the atrocities are detailed.
>>Kerry didn't make these charges. He merely summarizes to the
>>subcommittee what was presented at the Investigation. I have the
entire
>>Winter Soldier Investigation report if you are interested (it was
>>placed into the congressional record, without objection, by
Hatfield).
>
>
> As you started your post we've already posted it again, and again and
> again. Most of us know it by heart.
>
> But do read up on
> Dewey Canyon II
> read up on VVAW
>
> enlighten yourself, not everyone in here is a Republican, so get a
> grip.
>
> Ken

Aside from the Civil War, the Vietnam war polarized the nation like no
war before. The hippy, long hair, anti war phenomenon changed American
culture forever. Like it or not, bad shit happened over there. I know
it, you know it. Shit, man. We were killing girls at Kent State, for
just being against the war. Is it a stretch for you to accept the fact
that US troops may have committed atrocities in Nam? I've heard too many
first hand accounts from those friends of mine who were fortunate enough
to make it back home.

"Nigel Brooks" wrote in
news:c1u0s8$1mr8pa$1@ID-74999.news.uni-berlin.de:

>
> "RocketMan" wrote in message
> news:Xns949EC25A2C74C0000TRM0000@68.1.17.6...
>>
>> Republicans have posted in this group that Kerry basically testified
>> before Congress that everyone that served in Vietnam was a child
>> murderer and war criminal. Thats not supported by the facts. What he
>> does testify to is the result of The Winter Soldier Investigation, a
>> three day investigation into war crimes. This investigation was
>> conducted in response to the Richard Calley conviction, and the
>> growing concern of the average American citizen to these allegations.
>> Kerry's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was at
>> the urging of Republican senator, Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon.
> What is supported by the facts is that Kerry testified before the
> Congress to events that he now claims he had no knowledge of. By
> doing so - Kerry allowed the unsubstantiated allegations (many of
> which were later found to be false) to be placed in the record. In
> doing so, he besmirched the reputation of all those who served and
> continued to serve in Vietnam.

How so? Read his testimony.

>
> What is also supported by the facts is that the WSI "hearings" took
> place on January 31and the following two days of February 1 and 2,
> 1971. Whoever the Richard Calley whose conviction you claim
> precipitated the WSI hearings most certainly could not have been
> William Calley, the My Lai murderer - for he was not convicted until
> two months later, on March 29, 1971.

Bad choice of words on my part. Word of the massacre hit the US press in
November, 1969. The public followed the court martial with great
interest. Americans were asking lots of questions, such as how rampant
is this behavior, etc. I should have said "This investigation was
conducted in response charges brought against Richard Calley regarding
the My Lai massacre, and Kerry's testimony to congress was provided
after the conviction of Lt Calley. Hell, we killed innocent unarmed
girls at Kent State, and its not much of a stretch for me to see how
something like My Lai happens.

> If all Kerry did was to summarize testimony (later determined to
> consist of major falsehoods and fabrications) without first attempting
> to determine the veracity of the testimony or the Vietnam Veteran
> status of the witnesses. He is a fool.

Why is he a fool. In questioning the motives of Congress? In asking
where our leadership is?

>
> Of particular note is that Kerry's executive director of VVAW - Al
> Hubbard, had previously claimed to be an Air Force pilot who was
> wounded in Vietnam. It was later determined that Hubbard was never a
> pilot, never an officer, never wounded and never assigned to Vietnam.
> Either Kerry was a blithering idiot who regurgitated the lies of phony
> Vets, and failed to divine that his partner in VVAW was a phony too -
> or knew full well that the "testimony" was false, and that his
> executive director, Hubbard was a fraud.

There were many frauds. That doesnt mean the atrocities werent taking
place. I've heard many first hand stories, and I tend to believe them.

If you heard "first hand" atrocity stories they were told to you by
bullshit artists. Unless of course they were told to you "first hand" by
former prison inmates who had a guilty conscience. Hell. I just thought of
something. You wouldn't, by chance, be a female would you? Perhaps a
homosexual male? Ask !Jones, he used the atrocity line to get laid. Said it
worked every time with those hippy chicks. Got so he felt guilty using it
though because they were so easy to fuck and weren't even a challenge.

--

Don Thompson

"The only stupid questions are those that should have been asked, but
weren't, or those that have been asked and answered over and over, but the
answers not listened to." Peter Rowe


"RocketMan" wrote in message
news:Xns949ECC51AED100000TRM0000@68.1.17.6...
> "Nigel Brooks" wrote in
> news:c1u0s8$1mr8pa$1@ID-74999.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >
> > "RocketMan" wrote in message
> > news:Xns949EC25A2C74C0000TRM0000@68.1.17.6...
> >>
> >> Republicans have posted in this group that Kerry basically testified
> >> before Congress that everyone that served in Vietnam was a child
> >> murderer and war criminal. Thats not supported by the facts. What he
> >> does testify to is the result of The Winter Soldier Investigation, a
> >> three day investigation into war crimes. This investigation was
> >> conducted in response to the Richard Calley conviction, and the
> >> growing concern of the average American citizen to these allegations.
> >> Kerry's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was at
> >> the urging of Republican senator, Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon.
> > What is supported by the facts is that Kerry testified before the
> > Congress to events that he now claims he had no knowledge of. By
> > doing so - Kerry allowed the unsubstantiated allegations (many of
> > which were later found to be false) to be placed in the record. In
> > doing so, he besmirched the reputation of all those who served and
> > continued to serve in Vietnam.
>
> How so? Read his testimony.
>
> >
> > What is also supported by the facts is that the WSI "hearings" took
> > place on January 31and the following two days of February 1 and 2,
> > 1971. Whoever the Richard Calley whose conviction you claim
> > precipitated the WSI hearings most certainly could not have been
> > William Calley, the My Lai murderer - for he was not convicted until
> > two months later, on March 29, 1971.
>
> Bad choice of words on my part. Word of the massacre hit the US press in
> November, 1969. The public followed the court martial with great
> interest. Americans were asking lots of questions, such as how rampant
> is this behavior, etc. I should have said "This investigation was
> conducted in response charges brought against Richard Calley regarding
> the My Lai massacre, and Kerry's testimony to congress was provided
> after the conviction of Lt Calley. Hell, we killed innocent unarmed
> girls at Kent State, and its not much of a stretch for me to see how
> something like My Lai happens.
>
> > If all Kerry did was to summarize testimony (later determined to
> > consist of major falsehoods and fabrications) without first attempting
> > to determine the veracity of the testimony or the Vietnam Veteran
> > status of the witnesses. He is a fool.
>
> Why is he a fool. In questioning the motives of Congress? In asking
> where our leadership is?
>
> >
> > Of particular note is that Kerry's executive director of VVAW - Al
> > Hubbard, had previously claimed to be an Air Force pilot who was
> > wounded in Vietnam. It was later determined that Hubbard was never a
> > pilot, never an officer, never wounded and never assigned to Vietnam.
> > Either Kerry was a blithering idiot who regurgitated the lies of phony
> > Vets, and failed to divine that his partner in VVAW was a phony too -
> > or knew full well that the "testimony" was false, and that his
> > executive director, Hubbard was a fraud.
>
> There were many frauds. That doesnt mean the atrocities werent taking
> place. I've heard many first hand stories, and I tend to believe them.

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:47:19 GMT, RocketMan
wrote:

>Ken wrote in
>> Winter Soldier lies were retold by Kerry to Congress.
>
>His testimony was at the urging of Mark Hatfield, who had the winters
>soldiers testimony entered into the congressional record, without
>objection. Dont revise history to suit your own agenda.
>

History speaks for itself,
you seem to come here with the "agenda". do your homework before you
try laying your half baked Bull Shit in here.


>> Check these "winter soldier's " out get back to us and tell us what
>> you conclude from what they had to say. Let us know if what they had
>> to say should have been repeated before Congress.
>> Al Hubbard
>> Elton Mazione
>> Eddie Swetz
>> Kenneth VanLasser
>
>OK. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct. That
>still leaves over 140 vets testifying. Are you calling them all liars?
>Does Lt Callei ring any bells?

Yes, I served in the same Division on my 3rd tour, but not with the
Lt.
Problem with the other 140 is nobody would let them be interviewed,
nor would their lawyer let anyone talk to them, after some/most were
found to be phonies.

Oh, BTW let's throw one " Skinning" Joe Bangert in this for your
research, he still works for Kerry.
>
>> see just how Kerry's little speech was so candid, look up Adam
>> Walinsky
>>
>> Then try reading up on Mark Lane
>>
>>> and the growing
>>>concern of the average American citizen to these allegations. Kerry's
>>>testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was at the urging
>of
>>>Republican senator, Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon. He states esentially
>the
>>>same things that Kerry does, and yet remains revered by Republicans
>and
>>>is never taken to task for his statements. Sen Hatfield retained his
>>>senate seat for 30 years, from 1967-1997. I have attached Sen
>Hatfields
>>>opening comments to the Committee, and the full text of Kerry's
>>>comments. The real interesting details are in the minutes of the
>Winter
>>>Soldier Investigation, where over 150 veterans made presentations,
>>
>> Were they vets?
>>
>>
>>>from
>>>every service, from many different perspectives, for the world to see
>>>and hear. Its in these minutes where all the atrocities are detailed.
>>>Kerry didn't make these charges. He merely summarizes to the
>>>subcommittee what was presented at the Investigation. I have the
>entire
>>>Winter Soldier Investigation report if you are interested (it was
>>>placed into the congressional record, without objection, by
>Hatfield).
>>
>>
>> As you started your post we've already posted it again, and again and
>> again. Most of us know it by heart.
>>
>> But do read up on
>> Dewey Canyon II
>> read up on VVAW
>>
>> enlighten yourself, not everyone in here is a Republican, so get a
>> grip.
>>
>> Ken
>
>Aside from the Civil War, the Vietnam war polarized the nation like no
>war before. The hippy, long hair, anti war phenomenon changed American
>culture forever. Like it or not, bad shit happened over there. I know
>it, you know it. Shit, man. We were killing girls at Kent State, for
>just being against the war. Is it a stretch for you to accept the fact
>that US troops may have committed atrocities in Nam? I've heard too many
>first hand accounts from those friends of mine who were fortunate enough
>to make it back home.


So let me guess, you've never were in Viet Nam, you were never in the
Military, you've based this all on someones "war" stories, Shit you
are an ass.
Just what's this "WE" shit "were killing girls at Kent State, a dumb
ass to boot.

Read ass hole:

I am a Vietnam veteran and retired Marine. I served as a rifle company
commander in Vietnam in 1966, 1967 and 1968, and I know I can speak
for the majority of the Marines with whom I served.

Most of these guys are now in their 50s and well integrated into all
walks
of society. Most also spent complete 13-month tours in Vietnam unless
they
came home on stretchers or in caskets. And many did.

Presidential candidate John Kerry's service in Vietnam is not the
issue. It
is his anti-war activities after he came home that, to this day,
sticks in
the craw of most Vietnam vets - at least the ones I know. While
exercising
the free speech that so many Americans have fought and died for, he
was at
worst duped or just terribly insensitive; at best, he was bashing his
fellow
servicemen while many were still dying in the rice paddies of Vietnam.

At Kerry's request, he was released from active duty early and then
joined
the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Testifying before the Senate
Foreign
Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry claimed he had been told
by
returning servicemen that they had "raped, cut off ears, cut off
heads,
taped 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 a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and
dogs for
fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of
South
Vietnam. . . . "

Later it turned out that many of the so-called Vietnam veterans who
had
provided Kerry this information had not even served in Vietnam while
others
had not even served in the military at all. Certainly there were
atrocities
committed in Vietnam and every other war, but most of the guilty were
tried
and punished.

So Kerry, in exercising his free speech, shot a dagger through the
heart of
every Vietnam veteran, and that is what we, after all these years, are
still
mad as hell about. It is not his military service that is in question;
it is
his terrible judgment.

Recently, I heard a Democrat say, ". . . (P)ersonally, I don't much
like
Kerry, but I don't doubt what he did in Vietnam. . . ." He obviously
was
referring to Kerry's honorable and heroic service. I, too, do not
doubt what
Kerry did while in Vietnam. But can we separate John Kerry the war
hero from
John Kerry the Vietnam Veterans Against the War protester? In other
words,
can we mention one without mentioning the other? Well, let's look at
it this
way. If we had a hero in our local fire department who left that
service and
became an arsonist, would we refer to this person as a hero or an
arsonist
or both?

Benedict Arnold was first a hero, then a traitor. How do we remember
him
now?

John Kerry, who made a dramatic public splash with his anti-war stand,
now
wraps himself in his Vietnam veteran status.

At each Kerry personal appearance there are several men wearing ball
caps
with some sort of military logos. Who are these men? One interviewed
on TV a
few nights ago identified himself as a former member of the Vietnam
Veterans
Against the War and a pal of Kerry. These are the guys whom Kerry
likes to
call his "Band of Brothers."

He is dreaming if he thinks the majority of Vietnam veterans will
support
him for president.

Some will and many won't. Here's one who won't.

John Regal lives in Canyon. He retired from the Marine Corps with the
rank
of lieutenant colonel.



You come into a Viet Nam Veteran's Group, to berate, belittle and
deframe us with this horseshit that you little or nothing about, well
screw you.

Here look these up too.

You dinky-dau, so di-di-mau, you numba ten thou,
du-mi-ami

Ken

"Don T" wrote in
news:Riw0c.15650$aT1.2507@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:

> If you heard "first hand" atrocity stories they were told to you by
> bullshit artists. Unless of course they were told to you "first hand"
> by former prison inmates who had a guilty conscience. Hell. I just
> thought of something. You wouldn't, by chance, be a female would you?
> Perhaps a homosexual male? Ask !Jones, he used the atrocity line to
> get laid. Said it worked every time with those hippy chicks. Got so he
> felt guilty using it though because they were so easy to fuck and
> weren't even a challenge.
>

Take a little shrapnal in the head there don? I never met a real man named
don in my life. All dons are fags. Tell your wife the next ones for free.

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 01:48:09 GMT, RocketMan
wrote:

Hey, Pocket Rocket, things a little boring in Norfolk, VA tonight
had to come here to stir shit.
I got a great Idea, you run on down to one of the nice Military Bars
outside the base a tell these stories about how 'we're' a bunch of
murdering asshole, then write back, tell us how that worked out.


Ken

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 01:48:09 GMT, RocketMan
wrote:

>"Don T" wrote in
>news:Riw0c.15650$aT1.2507@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:
>
>> If you heard "first hand" atrocity stories they were told to you by
>> bullshit artists. Unless of course they were told to you "first hand"
>> by former prison inmates who had a guilty conscience. Hell. I just
>> thought of something. You wouldn't, by chance, be a female would you?
>> Perhaps a homosexual male? Ask !Jones, he used the atrocity line to
>> get laid. Said it worked every time with those hippy chicks. Got so he
>> felt guilty using it though because they were so easy to fuck and
>> weren't even a challenge.
>>
>
>Take a little shrapnal in the head there don? I never met a real man named
>don in my life. All dons are fags. Tell your wife the next ones for free.

Yup, Don, this one's not only female, but also a lesbian.
---
Alan