Hide Comments
In an attempt to smear John Kerry, a decorated combat vet, Greyhawk and Boyle engage in some sloppy scholarship.
The concept or notion of the 'last man' to die in a battle is not new. In fact, historian Shelby Foote writes about the dread of being the 'last man to die' in the US Civil War felt by both sides of that conflict. The soldier and poet Wilfred Owen wrote of the 'last man' in WWI. TS Eliot wrote on the same subject WRT WWI. An aside: in this war, we believe we know who the last man killed in WWI was: PVT George Price of Canada. The WWI Memorial makes reference to the 'last man.'
The idea of the last man to be killed is also referenced in WWII, the Korean War and VN. Rod Frazer writes of not wanting to be the last man to die in Korea. In VN, we recognize LCOL Wm Nolbe as the last American to die.
Win or lose, the notion of the last man to die in a given war has weighed upon the minds of those who fight those wars; probably as long as there have been wars.
Posted by Jadegold at November 20, 2006 01:36 PM
I feel slimed all over again and am fighting the urge to clean the computer with disinfectant.
Thanks to your correspondant for sharing.
Posted by Eagle1 at November 20, 2006 01:38 PM
Or to your "correspondent" for that matter.
JG: A lot of "decorated combat vets" feel differently than Mr. Kerry about things and many of them feel smeared by his allegations made before the Senate and in other places. When some of them spoke out about Mr. Kerry's war record, both while in service and afterwards, their credibility was placed in question. Do Mr. Kerry's awards give him a free pass from all criticism or questioning about those activities and comments but deny the right of others with similar awards to speak out?
And, while it is interesting that there is historical precedent for the "last man" it is also interesting that the idea was used in Vietnamese psy ops well before Mr. Kerry's famous recitation.
Posted by Eagle1 at November 20, 2006 02:10 PM
Do Mr. Kerry's awards give him a free pass from all criticism or questioning about those activities and comments but deny the right of others with similar awards to speak out?
Of course not. But does it give Sen. Kerry's critics license to lie? No.
The fact is Sen Kerry is a highly decorated vet; his service was attacked by those who either never served with him or changed their stories about his service.
And, while it is interesting that there is historical precedent for the "last man" it is also interesting that the idea was used in Vietnamese psy ops well before Mr. Kerry's famous recitation.
It's not a novel theme; we used the same against the NVA.
Posted by Jadegold at November 20, 2006 03:02 PM
The fact is Sen Kerry is a highly decorated vet; his service was attacked by those who either never served with him or changed their stories about his service.
And by men (with whom I have served) who did serve with him and have not changed their stories.
Posted by Eagle1 at November 20, 2006 03:42 PM
Whatever the historical antecedants for "the last man to die," that fact that NV propaganda and liberal, Democratic primary talking points were identical is at least suggestive.
Much like today, in fact. Shouldn't the fact that former Oppostion politicians and our sworn enemies make the same arguments, root for the same outcomes, cheer the same results, cause these loyal Americans of the Opposition to at least stop and think? (I know, the pro-war folks are supposed to be the non-thinking autonomatons.)
I have another thought. Kerry echoing NV propaganda? Might the original writer of the Manchurian Candidate had a certain junior Senator from Massachusetts in mind?
Posted by dadmanly at November 20, 2006 03:57 PM
It's suggestive if you're not honest; a cursory review shows the 'last man to die' in wars goes back at least to the Civil War. I strongly suspect it may predate that conflict by many centuries.
It is also a fact that we used the same 'last man to die' in our psyop leaflets and broadcasts in Vietnam. Perhaps, Dadmanly is suggesting the entire US Government are commie dupes as well.
Might the original writer of the Manchurian Candidate had a certain junior Senator from Massachusetts in mind?
Time is apparently no burden to the deluded as Dadmanly suggests Richard Condon, who wrote "The Manchurian Candidate" in 1959, had John Kerry in mind. When Kerry was 16 or 17.
Posted by Jadegold at November 20, 2006 04:06 PM
I might find Kerry's formula just a coincidence, if not for the fact that Kerry also advocated, verbatim and explicitly, the VC/NVA "plan" to end the Veitnam War, Madame Binh's "Nine Points" which included basically a surrender and disarmed evacuation of U.S. troops under our enemy's supervision.
The point is not so much the specific source of his rhetoric, as its total congruence with the ememy's, and his admitted reperated in-person collaborations with that enemy while the war continued. 2 + 2 still = 2.
Posted by John Boyle at November 20, 2006 05:40 PM
Of course that was 2+2=4
I was trying to make a joke about Bush's intelligence . . . obvious to anyone . . .
But . . .
you know . . .
Posted by John Boyle at November 20, 2006 05:58 PM
if not for the fact that Kerry also advocated, verbatim and explicitly, the VC/NVA "plan" to end the Veitnam War, Madame Binh's "Nine Points" which included basically a surrender and disarmed evacuation of U.S. troops under our enemy's supervision.
That's the loony right view and has no basis in reality. In fact, there is Senate testimony where Kerry tells of visit to Paris and the course of action he advocates.
Posted by Jadegold at November 20, 2006 06:30 PM
Jadegold;
You haven't been paying attention. Next you will be telling us that Kerry and Murtha have released their service records for scrutiny.
Get with the program. If there was a test on this subject you would not pass.
Posted by vet66 at November 20, 2006 08:08 PM
JG
This photo http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Daily_World_1.jpg of Kerry is from the (Communist) Daily World, page 3, July 24, 1971, three months after his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The “Vietnamese patriots” the photo caption refer to are the Viet Cong and their “Provisional Revolutionary Government.” The seven point plan they refer to had various incarnations, some with 8 points and some later with 9. It is this plan that Kerry is speaking for at the pictured event. Among these points is the provision for the evacuation of American troops from South Vietnam under “safe passage” granted by the communist forces, which is diplomat-speak for exactly what I said, disarmed American troops escorted by armed communist troops.
The course of action Kerry advocated in his Senate testimony, and everywhere else, is the same course of action the VC outline in their “points.” He specifically brags about having obtained his understanding of these “points” first hand, from the source, in Paris.
“I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points . . .”
Of course he did not talk to the other two delegations in Paris, the United States and the Republic of Vietnam (South).
You are not entitled to your own facts, and using insulting names and characterizations for people about whom you know nothing does not add anything to the discussion, nor does it win you any credibility.
Posted by John Boyle at November 20, 2006 08:25 PM
Vet66: My only concern about Murtha was his relationship with Ann Eppard who was Jack Abramoff before Jack Abramoff.
Posted by Jadegold at November 20, 2006 08:27 PM
Good job of selectively editing the Kerry testimony in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Kerry confronted the leaders who had so eagerly sent him to war, and who had quickly abandoned the war when the going got politically tough to support. Men like Donald Rumsfield should take notice.
Posted by William at November 20, 2006 08:33 PM
Did John Kerry use this very propaganda tract when preparing his testimony for the Senate? Not likely. Does he make the same points it does? Absolutely. Was his Senate testimony far more effective than this little slip of paper? Undoubtedly. Were American soldiers struck by the similarities? Obviously.
Those who find themselves comfortable with echoing the enemy's rhetoric in time of war should pause and reflect on that during that swift boat ride from the Mekong to the Tigris to denial.
Posted by Greyhawk at November 20, 2006 09:25 PM
William: It's GreyHawk's MO to cherry-pick and selectively edit.
Are there vets who hate Kerry? Sure. Just as there are vets who agreed with him. The Vietnam War was and is a divisive point in history for this country.
But note the those who agree with Kerry don't have to resort to lying.
Posted by Jadegold at November 20, 2006 10:13 PM
John Boyle: Sorry, I missed your comment.
Frankly, a picture tells me nothing. Kerry says he did meet with Binh and the other groups. Did he advocate as you claim for Binh's plan? No.
In point of fact, this was a claim made by John O'Neill of Swiftboat Liars fame when he and Kerry debated. O'Neill claimed that Kerry supported the Binh plan and Kerry refuted it.
Posted by Jadegold at November 20, 2006 10:21 PM
Selective quotes: I stated up front these were sound bites, and provided a link to Kerry's complete testimony.
I also included a picture of Kerry getting a medal (it appears right at the moment he mentions taping wires to human genitals), and another of him wearing it proudly (transitions at the moment he says "turn up the power"). Guess you can't please everybody all the time...
"Swift Boat liars" - can you give us a specific and meaningful example?
Posted by Greyhawk at November 20, 2006 10:58 PM
"Swift Boat liars" - can you give us a specific and meaningful example?
I'll give you one; the Swiftboat Liars maintained Kerry lied to get one of his Bronze Stars. Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star when he saved the life of Jim Rassmann after the Special Forces officer was blown off Kerry's boat by a mine explosion.
The Swiftboat Liars maintained Kerry fled the scene and only returned to pick up Rassman after hostile fire from the shore had stopped.
This account is refuted by Rassman as well as Kerry's crew. One of the Swiftboat Liars claims Kerry's boat never came under fire, citing his own boat's proximity to Kerry's. Yet, that same Swiftboat Liar won the Bronze Star for the same action and the citation reads he was under enemy fire.
Posted by Jadegold at November 20, 2006 11:29 PM
You've offered differing accounts, that's step one - now prove who is lying.
Posted by Greyhawk at November 20, 2006 11:50 PM
GreyHawk: Surely, you're not this thick. Are you?
Let's see; the guy who was rescued claims he and Kerry were under fire. Kerry's crew claims they were under fire. Other boats in the area claim they were under fire.
Yet, you have this one Swiftboat Liar, Larry Thurlow, claiming they were not. Yet, Thurlow's own Bronze Star citation--for the very same action--reads that they were under fire.
Posted by Jadegold at November 21, 2006 12:00 AM
JG
"In point of fact, this was a claim made by John O'Neill of Swiftboat Liars fame when he and Kerry debated. O'Neill claimed that Kerry supported the Binh plan and Kerry refuted it."
Denying he said what he said is not a refutation. We've had very recent examples of Kerry trying to pull this same thing. Apparently documented facts don't mean anything to you, but any ploy Kerry uses to dig out from under his own folly carries weight because he says it does.
Figures.
Posted by John Boyle at November 21, 2006 01:11 AM
William:
"Good job of selectively editing the Kerry testimony in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Kerry confronted the leaders who had so eagerly sent him to war, and who had quickly abandoned the war when the going got politically tough to support. Men like Donald Rumsfield should take notice."
It was not my editing, but a direct cut and paste from the Boston Globe's account of the story: see http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/25/kerry_spoke_of_meeting_negotiators_on_vietnam/?page=1
And, BTW, it was the Senate Foreign Relations Committe, not Armed Services.
And, no one had abandoned the war by the time Kerry spoke to the Senators in April of 1971.
That was only accomplished, finally, by the Democratic mid-term election victory in 1974 - long after 98% of American troops were home and the South Vietnamese needed only our logistical support to survive. Even that was too much for those in that Congress who had followed Kerry's advice. The worst betrayal of an ally in American history. Bar none.
So far.
Is it even worth discussing this with people who do not know what they are talking about?
Posted by John Boyle at November 21, 2006 01:26 AM
JG
"In point of fact, this was a claim made by John O'Neill of Swiftboat Liars fame when he and Kerry debated. O'Neill claimed that Kerry supported the Binh plan and Kerry refuted it."
Interesting . . . very interesting.
I just reviewed the entire transcript of the O'Neill-Kerry debate on Cavett, June 30, 1971, the only debate the two ever had, and there is no mention whatsoever of Kerry's Paris visits, or Madame Binh's 7 (8 or 9)points.
Do you have a citation for your claim?
Posted by John Boyle at November 21, 2006 01:42 AM
"That was only accomplished, finally, by the Democratic mid-term election victory in 1974 - long after 98% of American troops were home and the South Vietnamese needed only our logistical support to survive. Even that was too much for those in that Congress who had followed Kerry's advice. The worst betrayal of an ally in American history. Bar none."-John Boyle
On 10 March 1975, the General Dung launched Campaign 275, a limited offensive into the Central Highlands supported by tanks and heavy artillery. The target was Ban Me Thuot, in Darlac Province. If the town could be taken, the provincial capital at Pleiku and the route to the coast would be exposed for a planned campaign in 1976. The ARVN proved no match for the onslaught and its forces collapsed on 11 March. Once again, Hanoi was surprised by the speed of their success. Van now urged the Politburo to allow him to seize Pleiku immediately and then turn his attention to Kontum. There would be two months of good campaigning weather until the onset of the monsoon, so why not take advantage of the situation?
John, the North thought they could lay the ground work for an offensive that could take Saigon by 1977. Saigon fell in 4 months! Logistical support was all they needed?
Well if that's true, and that lesson applies to Iraq. Let's pull out 98% and give the Bagdad government logistical support.
Sounds like a winning strategy.
Posted by DonkeyKong at November 21, 2006 03:27 AM
Why remain stuck in the past? After all, JK knows the troops are too dumb to understand such complex ideas anyway. Isn't that right donkeyd-ck, jade, etc.?
Posted by LJD at November 21, 2006 12:05 PM
DK
"Well if that's true, and that lesson applies to Iraq. Let's pull out 98% and give the Bagdad government logistical support."
Of course, that is the plan for Iraq. The dispute is over how long it will take before that end state is self-sustainable, and what to do in the meantime; or, on the Dem side, to just repeat 1975 in Vietnam.
The Democrats want to do what they did in 74-75 to the South Vietnamese, which is leave Iraq with nothing. It's too expensive and that country will never make it anyway, they say. As George McGovern was recently quoted as saying of his real position on Vietnam: "We didn't want to win."
It's a wonder the ARVN lasted even four months against a massive artillery and tank assault enabled by the Soviets and the Chinese. At the end, the ARVN infantry did not even have any bullets left for their rifles. Is it any wonder our position in the world evaporated and our Army nearly imploded from morale collapse?
But that's also what McGovern and his ilk really wanted. Then, and now.
Posted by John Boyle at November 21, 2006 01:53 PM
Do you have a citation for your claim?
Yup. If you look at your transcripts of the 6/30/71 Dick Cavett show, you find the following:
MR. KERRY: I'd like to come back to that again. I keep making the point – many people have made it, Clark Clifford, former secretary of defense, has made it. The newspapers have all made this point, that the prisoners of war, the question will be settled. It's not a question of negotiations. They have said it will be settled.
Now, if we were to set a date for withdrawal from Southeast Asia, we can – the Vietnamese, first of all, have said it will be settled prior to the arrival of that date, but we can set a time limit on that. If the prisoners of war aren't back prior to the arrival of that date, then I think we would have – for the first time in all of our history in Vietnam we would have a legitimate reason for taking some kind of reaction to it.
Let's remember what the charge made by head Swiftboat Liar John O'Neill was:
On The Dick Cavett Show and elsewhere, John Kerry's position was that we should accept the Madame [Nguyen Thi] Binh [then-foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam and a top negotiator at the peace talks] seven-point proposal which called for unilateral withdrawal, setting a date after which at some future time, we'd negotiate the return of the POWs. So we would set a date, we would withdraw, and then we would begin to discuss how to bring them home. That would have never worked. Our position was you had to have a deal where the POWs came home. The POWs know that. This is like trying to claim -- that's why they're all with us, because he would have let them rot in jails.
Posted by Jadegold at November 21, 2006 03:50 PM
This is rich. Claiming a man who received his talking points from our "honorable enemy", espouses those points repeatedly on TV and in the press to retreat from VietNam and leave them to their fate at the hands of thugs who subsequently murdered over 400,000 of them, is a man who has America's or Iraqi's best interests at heart is too far down the rabbit hole for me.
Your defense of Senator Kerry shows that you would prefer the same outcome be achieved in Iraq as was achieved in VietNam. Victory for the enemies of civilization. Prison camps for those opposed to a tyrannical world view. Death for infidels and apostates. War on the west.
You are known by the company you keep DK, Jade. I'm not fooled by anything you cite as definitive proof of honorable intentions when the result was a disaster. VietNam today is not a bastion of love and prosperity comparable to South VietNam even during the war. Your arguments that Mr. Kerry wasn't trying to implement the specific terms of the enemy, yet supported those exact terms when it came to action ring hollow of honor and void of any valor won through combat action, however heroic or supposedly heroic.
So forcing the Iraqis to live under such a system just because you want John Kerry elected President just seems like throwing the baby under the bus so you won't have to care for it.
Rattle on, empty barrels. Senator Kerry has lost whatever respect he had from the majority of the American people. And you along with him.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at November 21, 2006 04:38 PM
DK/Jade,
It is also telling that one of the major points of the post is the loss of the last soldier in VietNam and you Dhimmitwits couldn't muster a single good thing to say about the man. There has been a last man in every war. That is how they end. With the last Man killed.
Poor SP4 Fields died while trying to save another Man's life. You twits wouldn't recognize true heroism, devoid of any desire to shirk one's duty in Vietnam, and with a willingness to serve your country faithfully and honorably, if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at November 21, 2006 04:44 PM
The sun's nowhere near over the yardarm and Subsunk is pickling his liver.
Once again, Subsunk creates his own gin and juice-fueled revisionist history. We never went into Vietnam to save democracy or to free an enslaved people; we went in--on the basis of lies--because we believed in the Cold War tripe called the 'domino theory.' According to this theory, we had to stop the commies on the 17th parallel or they'd be storming the beaches of Santa Barbara within a year.
So, we refused to sanction a democratic election because Ho Chi Minh would have won and instead threw our support behind a corrupt regime that had next to no support by the citizens.
Long story short: we sacrificed 58,000 of our finest and lost. And the commies never did storm our beaches.
Subsunk, with all the courage mustered by the psychotropic meds and large volumes of alcohol, likes to talk about 'honor.' In doing so, he uses the name of a fallen soldier as if he knew how SP4 Fields felt about the war. At best, that's dishonest, even for a booze-addled fool. At worst...
Posted by Jadegold at November 21, 2006 05:30 PM
JG
Thank you for making my point for me.
As I said, O'Neill made no reference to Madam Binh's points in the Cavett debate. Your citation is from another source.
How I missed Kerry's almost incoherent statement on Cavett as pertaining to The VC's points I think can be appreciated. But thank you for providing this evidence, in his own confused words, of his advocacy of the enemy's position, just as John O'Neill (elsewhere) accurately pointed out.
Further evidence is found here, a news item in the New York Times, concerning the very same event Kerry attended, pictured in the Communist Daily World, as referred to above.
New York Times
July 23, 1971, pg 2
[Headline]Anti-War Veteran Accused of Exploiting P.O.W. Issue
“At the opening of the news conference, Mr. Kerry called on President Nixon to publicly set a date for withdrawal of all American troops from Vietnam . . .”
“But the latest Vietcong peace offer in Paris . . . is being ignored by Mr. Nixon, Mr. Kerry charged.”
The NYT is available on line via most larger puiblic libraries. Look it up. There's even a nicer picture of your boy, although, as the headline indicates, I don't think you'll care for the substance of the report.
I also don't think I care for the lack of substance in your last posting, or the puerile abusiveness of it. So don't expect the courtesy of any further replies from me to your unsupported and increasingly ignorant ramblings.
Posted by John Boyle at November 21, 2006 06:29 PM
You're free to run away, John. The fact is you bought into the Swiftboat Liar's charge that Kerry was advocating a policy he did not. I provided a cite where Kerry is on record as supporting a policy quite different that the one you attribute to him.
BTW, I have the NY Times article you cite and you opted to selectively truncate the quote: “But the latest Vietcong peace offer in Paris . . . is being ignored by Mr. Nixon, Mr. Kerry charged.”
The full quote in the article is “ At the opening of the news conference, Mr. Kerry called on President Nixon top publicaly set a date for withdrawl of all American troops from Vietnam so that prisoners of war could come home.
He said Mr. Nixon earlier refused to set a withdrawl because of North Vietnam's refusal to guarantee the return of American prisoners. But the latest Vietcong peace offer in Paris which promises the release of prisoners as American troops are withdrawn, is being ignored by Mr. Nixon, Mr. Kerry charged.”
Sorry, JB, but your credibility just plunged beneath the Mendoza line.
Posted by Jadegold at November 21, 2006 07:04 PM
Although all points of view here inexplicably keep adding additional examples of Kerry's collaboration with the enemy, I add yet another one.
I'm sure it is just coincidence that Kerry advocated these VC/NVA "points" before the Senate Committee in April, 1971, and even in the same phraseology, before they were formally published by the enemy in June of 1971.
"I would, therefore, submit that the most expedient means of getting out of South Vietnam would be for the President of the United States to declare a cease-fire, to stop this blind commitment to a dictatorial regime, the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime, accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this Government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese."
- John F. Kerry, 4/22/71
Democratic Republic of Vietnam [the Hanoi communist regime, ed.] Peace Proposal, June 26, 1971
1. The withdrawal of all the forces of the United States and those of the other foreign countries in the U.S. camp for South Vietnam and the other Indochinese countries must be achieved in 1971.
3. In South Vietnam, the United States ceases supporting Thieu.Ky.Khiem to allow the formation in Saigon of a new administration standing for peace, independence, neutrality, and democracy. The PRGRSV will engage in talks with the said administration with a view to settling the internal affairs of South Vietnam and achieving national concord.
6. The problems existing between the Indochinese countries will be settled by the Indochinese parties on the basis of mutual respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for noninterference on internal affairs. For its part, the DRV is prepared to participate in the settlement of these problems.
7. All the parties will observe a cease.fire after the conclusion of agreements of the aforementioned problems.
Source: Paris Vietnam News Agency [VNA] in French to VNA Hanoi, January 31, 1972.
Translation by Robert K. Brigham and Le Phuong Anh
Posted by John Boyle at November 21, 2006 09:16 PM
Once again, John Botle elects to selectively omit that which militates against his views. This is profoundly dishonest but what can we expect?
Here is the 9 point proposal in whole:
1. The withdrawal of all the forces of the United States and those of the other foreign countries in the U.S. camp for South Vietnam and the other Indochinese countries must be achieved in 1971.
2. The release of all the military men and civilians captured in the war will be carried out at the same time and will be completed at the same moment as the withdrawal of troops mentioned in Point 1.
3. In South Vietnam, the United States ceases supporting Thieu.Ky.Khiem to allow the formation in Saigon of a new administration standing for peace, independence, neutrality, and democracy. The PRGRSV will engage in talks with the said administration with a view to settling the internal affairs of South Vietnam and achieving national concord.
4. The U.S. Government must assume the entire responsibility for the damage caused by the United States to the entire Vietnamese people. The DRV Government and the PRGRSV request from the U.S. Government reparations for damage caused by the United States in the two zones of Vietnam.
5. The United States must respect the 1954 Geneva Agreements in Vietnam and Indochina and those of 1962 on Laos. It must cease its aggression against and intervention in the Indochinese countries to let the Indochinese people settle their own affairs.
6. The problems existing between the Indochinese countries will be settled by the Indochinese parties on the basis of mutual respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for noninterference on internal affairs. For its part, the DRV is prepared to participate in the settlement of these problems.
7. All the parties will observe a cease.fire after the conclusion of agreements of the aforementioned problems.
8. An international supervision will be set.up.
9. An international guarantee will be indispensable for the realization of the basic national rights of the Indochinese people, for the neutrality of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and for the establishment of a lasting peace in this region.
These nine points make up a whole.
Source: Paris Vietnam News Agency [VNA] in French to VNA Hanoi, January 31, 1972.
Translation by Robert K. Brigham and Le Phuong Anh.
It's also important to note Kissinger and Le Duc Tho had been negotiating in secret since 1969, a fact that hadn't been made public until the summer of 1971. It's also important to note the Nixon administration agreed with the framework of the peace proposal above--with certain caveats. In fact, Nixon signed a draft version of the peace accord in late 1971. One caveat was the timing of the release of POWs. Another caveat was the position of NVA troops during US withdrawl.
BTW, John Boyle, you might wish to read a Washington Post article from 12 Jul 1971 "POW Families Group Urges Nixon to Accept Hanoi Plan"
I suppose it's one thing to smear John Kerry for political purposes--are you prepared to smear the families of US POWs as well?
Posted by Jadegold at November 21, 2006 11:10 PM
Your entire argument was that Kerry never advocated the enemy position. Now that it is demonstrated that he did, by you in fact, you change your argument to justifying that advocacy. You even attempt to argue that the position of the VC/NVA, published for propaganda purposes, and used by Kerry in that way, was the peace settlement finally agreed to by the United States.
That Kerry also exploited POW families is not disputed by anyone. In fact, it was POW family members who shouted that accusation at him at the press conference under discussion here, as headlined in the NYT article cited.
What the facts are, and how you choose to characterize them, turn out to be two different things. I leave it to others to say what that defines. . . other than a complete waste of time.
Posted by John Boyle at November 22, 2006 01:11 AM
No need to waste your breath Mr. Boyle. Jade is beyond hearing or recognizing the Truth. The rest of us believe your points and feel you have made a much better case than anything Jade can muster. So well doe, but we are whistling past the graveyard when we try to address Jade on this subject. He/she thinks he knows so much more than the average vet, but numerous vets here who lived through VietNam continually point out how warped and skewed his explanations are, so we sometimes have to ignore him.
This is one of those times I'm afraid, since his logic is addled and his case is an absolute falsehood. But we think you have done good work rebutting him anyway.
Carry on, sir.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at November 22, 2006 04:59 AM
Your entire argument was that Kerry never advocated the enemy position. Now that it is demonstrated that he did, by you in fact, you change your argument to justifying that advocacy
I changed nothing, JB. I merely pointed out the Nixon/Kissinger negotiations with North Vietnam were virtually identical. So much so Nixon actually signed a draft version of the plan you say represents advocacy of the enemy's position.
The fact remains the Swiftboat Liars, from which you crib your evidence, maintained Kerry had advocated the enemy position and was prepared to abandon the POWs "to rot." I've demonstrated this wasn't true as Kerry always made the return of the POWs a prerequisite to any withdrawl.
And then you have the gall to smear POW families for no other reason than sheer ignorance and bile.
You apparently know no shame.
Subsunk is imbibing again. I don't profess to know more than the average vet. But I will cop to knowing far more than Subby.
Posted by Jadegold at November 22, 2006 01:24 PM
"The fact remains the Swiftboat Liars, from which you crib your evidence, maintained Kerry had advocated the enemy position and was prepared to abandon the POWs "to rot." I've demonstrated this wasn't true as Kerry always made the return of the POWs a prerequisite to any withdrawl."
"And then you have the gall to smear POW families for no other reason than sheer ignorance and bile."
"You apparently know no shame."
"Subsunk is imbibing again. I don't profess to know more than the average vet. But I will cop to knowing far more than Subby."
Posted by Jadegold at November 22, 2006 01:24 PM
Right. John Kerry was mainly concerned for the POWs and had no intention of letting Hanoi get away with keeping.
So how do you explain this from the Village Voice?
Or This from the Boston Globe?
An excerpt below shows how Senator Kerry defended his conclusions, in the face of supposedly wild-eyed and (understandably) crazed POW-MIA families who knew their loved ones were prisoners and for the life of them couldn't figure out how they could have disappeared magically if they weren't actually, you know, returned to their loved ones after the surrender:
--"Kerry suspected the Nixon and Ford administrations, in their haste to cut American losses, had left some captured soldiers behind, but he was dubious about the existence of secret camps. Nevertheless, he doggedly investigated even the wilder theories, and made a dozen forays to Southeast Asia to ask the Vietnamese for better cooperation. Ultimately, he crafted a report stating that while there may have been POWs unaccounted for and possibly left behind, no proof existed that Americans were still being held."
Sounds like the commonly cited liberal talking points that there were never WMD in Iraq except for the 500 chemical shells found since March 17, 2003, the 5000 dead Kurdish bodies in Halabja, the IEDs which contained cyclosarin and sarin shells which DID make our soldiers sick, and the mountains of evidence in the Duelfer Report to the contrary. There never were POWs outside North VietNam or inside North VietNam because there is no proof they existed? Except their photos, their birth certificates, their mothers and fathers and family grew up with them.
But they aren't home, are they? They were alive. They were in Laos and North VietNam, and they were never returned were they?
Where was Sen Kerry's actual concern when he had the chance to stand up to the North VietNamese to demand their return and an accounting? He lied and said the problem didn't exist. And that is the "honorable service" rendered by Sen Kerry to the troops he said he was so concerned about.
Keep drinking Kool Aid and writing Jade. You have a long way to go to catch up to me and my drunkeness. And I think I will put my patriotism and my knowledge up against yours any day.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at November 22, 2006 03:42 PM
JG
"Frankly, a picture [of Kerry in the Communist Daily World] tells me nothing. Kerry says he did meet with Binh and the other groups. Did he advocate as you claim for Binh's plan? No."
Obviously you have abandoned this, your basic position; your only real point. Although it seems by your later comments you have forgotten what your point was.
You have provided documentation, as I have, of Kerry's statements in front of the Foreign Relations Committee, and in a 1971 D.C. press conference, where he did exactly that; advocate for Madame Binh's plan. And these are only the instances that can be documented by a quick search.
What anyone else did or did not do or say in connection with these VC/NVA propaganda efforts is irrelevant. This discussion is not about anyone but Kerry, although I'm sure you'd very much like to change the subject to one you might have some hope of defending.
And, of course, having studied your Cicero, you have to retreat to attacking your opponents in the most patheticlly juvenile manner, since your argument has no merit.
You should tell your boss that if he expects to sustain another bid to be CIC, he'll have to hire someone with a little bit more on the ball than you.
Posted by John Boyle at November 22, 2006 05:24 PM
Hide Comments |
Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(40) | (
Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
