How Liberals Lie, Part 2

There are lies, damn lies and the Liberal version

Published on August 1, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

In an interview with Judy Woodruff of CNN in 2004, Kerry was asked about his accusations against American Troops during the Vietnam war. Here is his answer:

No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you
read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership. I said
to the Senate, where is the leadership of our country? And it's the
leaders who are responsible, not the soldiers. I never said that. I've
always fought for the soldiers.

The problem with the 70s and 80s liberals is that the MSM is not the only source of information now. A quick googling of the senate record turns up what he actually said:

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, not isolated incidents but
crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of
officers at all levels of command. . . . They relived the absolute
horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off
ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned on the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the 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.

Maybe I missed it, but I did not read in there anywhere, where he said the leaders ordered it or the leaders did it. Sorry Kerry, you just plain lied.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Aug 01, 2005

Hey Hanoi John! Next time you want to make a fool of yourself, dont do it on an official record! Idgit.

kingbee

on Aug 01, 2005

Maybe I missed it, but I did not read in there anywhere, where he said the leaders ordered it or the leaders did it. Sorry Kerry, you just plain lied

nope...sorry doc, you just ignored it or purposely left it out cuz it woulda kicked the supports right outta your assertions.

shortly after the portion you quoted, he identified who was really responsible:

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 U.S. 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," with quotation marks around that. 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 or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so 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 high for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of 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 881's and Fire Base 6's 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- (Applause)

The Chairman: I hope you won't interrupt. He is making a very significant statement. Let him proceed.

Mr. Kerry: 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 dies 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 dies in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations

later in his testimony (when asked about calley), kerry said:

My feeling, Senator, on Lieutenant Calley is what he did quite obviously was a horrible, horrible, horrible thing and I have no bone to pick with the fact that he was prosecuted. But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere.

I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies with the men who encourage body counts. I think it lies in large part with this country, which allows a young child before he reaches the age of 14 to see 12,500 deaths on television, which glorifies the John Wayne syndrome, which puts out fighting man comic books on the stands, which allows us in training to do calisthenics to four counts, on the fourth count of which we stand up and shout "kill" in unison, which has posters in barracks in this country with a crucified Vietnamese, blood on him, and underneath it says "kill the gook," and I think that clearly the responsibility for all of this is what has produced this horrible aberration.

Now, I think if you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same time try all those other people who have responsibility, and any aversion that we may have to the verdict as veterans is not to say that Calley should be freed, not to say that he is innocent, but to say that you can't just take him alone, and that would be my response to that.

and further:

The fact that 18 other people indicted for the very same crime were freed and the fact among those were general and colonels. I mean this simply is not justice. That is all. It is just not justice

drmiler

on Aug 01, 2005

Maybe I missed it, but I did not read in there anywhere, where he said the leaders ordered it or the leaders did it. Sorry Kerry, you just plain lied

nope...sorry doc, you just ignored it or purposely left it out cuz it woulda kicked the supports right outta your assertions.

Wrong o kb! NO WHERE does it say that anyone in particular was responsible for:

They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off

ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human

genitals and turned on the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,

randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of

Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks

cactoblasta

on Aug 02, 2005

Yes, but drmiler he laid the blame at the foot of the generals,not at the foot of the soldiers - as he explains in the statements kingbee posted. The truth or otherwise of the statements is not what dr guy was talking about - he said that Kerry was a liar for claiming he blamed upper management for the tyranny, not that Kerry was a liar full-stop.

kingbee

on Aug 02, 2005

Yes, but drmiler he laid the blame at the foot of the generals,not at the foot of the soldiers

exactly.

Dr Guy

on Aug 03, 2005

nope...sorry doc, you just ignored it or purposely left it out cuz it woulda kicked the supports right outta your assertions.

Sorry kb, but you are wrong. He may have added (as you point out), but he did state it was the 2.5 million GIs doing it, not that they were being ordered to do it. The proof is in the fact that he back tracked so fast on his assertion after others came out with the actual transcript.

Why backtrack if you are right?

Dr Guy

on Aug 03, 2005

There was My Lai, but if I remember, Calley was tried and convicted for that. Hardly a conspiracy of coverup except in the eyes of Hanoi Jane and John and maybe Michael moron.

Dr Guy

on Aug 03, 2005

Yes, but drmiler he laid the blame at the foot of the generals,not at the foot of the soldiers -

No, what he did was convict the soldiers of the atrocities andthen tried to indict the comanders. However, I did not take his quote out of context. It was as stated in the congressional record. He lied. Period.

drmiler

on Aug 03, 2005

So the statement stands! Kerry lied! And in any case NO ONE gave approval for ANY of the crimes he mentioned! And they did not happen either! And before you start running your mouth please show proof that this happened on an ongoing basis! Not isolated incidents!

There was My Lai, but if I remember, Calley was tried and convicted for that. Hardly a conspiracy of cover up except in the eyes of Hanoi Jane and John and maybe Michael moron.

Your right about My Lai! That was surely a cluster f***! But again, it was NOT something that happened on an ongoing basis! Which is exactly what Kerry was trying to say.

Dr Guy

on Aug 03, 2005

Which is exactly what Kerry was trying to say.

Some day these spineless mealy mouth journalist will start asking the tough questions and playing back their previous quotes to them.

Someday we will all be dead too.

kingbee

on Aug 03, 2005

He may have added (as you point out), but he did state it was the 2.5 million GIs doing it, not that they were being ordered to do it.

where is it exactly you've found kerry discussing 2.5 million gis? what he is saying in the portion of his testimony you've quoted is that 150 veterans who met in detroit in 1970 testified to having witnessed or participated themselves in actions that range from technical violations of the geneva convention to outright criminal offenses.

furthermore, if you read his testimony in its entirety, it is quite clear the reason he provided that information to the senate was to provide them with a much more real view of the situation than they were being provided by the brass and the administration. his reason for doing so was NOT to condemn the troops in combat but to help the senators see just how poorly the war was being prosecuted by the command.

The proof is in the fact that he back tracked so fast on his assertion after others came out with the actual transcript

to the best of my knowledge, kerry has never recanted or qualified his testimony. when did this supposedly happen?

here are two links to the ENTIRE transcript of his testimony. you might want to read it before you summarize it. pdf format (all 40 pages) here Link

html format here (be sure to read both parts): http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony

Dr Guy

on Aug 04, 2005

furthermore, if you read his testimony in its entirety, it is quite clear the reason he provided that information to the senate was to provide them with a much more real view of the situation than they were being provided by the brass and the administration. his reason for doing so was NOT to condemn the troops in combat but to help the senators see just how poorly the war was being prosecuted by the command.

So the ends justify the means. He lied for what? For a lie? The more you try to spin his lying testimony, the more you just corkscrew yourself into a hole.

Now, you may want to explain how his lie informed congress since a lie has exactly the opposite effect. I am sure you can spin that one as well.

kingbee

on Aug 04, 2005

what exactly is the lie you keep raving on about? are you saying 150 veterans didn't gather in detroit in the winter of 1970 and discuss things theyd seen in vietnam?

cuz i can assure you that happened.

Dr Guy

on Aug 04, 2005

what exactly is the lie you keep raving on about? are you saying 150 veterans didn't gather in detroit in the winter of 1970 and discuss things theyd seen in vietnam?

Thnat he had personally witnessed. That should be obvious as none of what he said was widespread, and he was not in country long enough to observe anything but his own duplicity.

I guess 250 swift boat vets are liars just because he says so? Yea, the whole world is wrong because he says he is right.

drmiler

on Aug 04, 2005

what exactly is the lie you keep raving on about? are you saying 150 veterans didn't gather in detroit in the winter of 1970 and discuss things theyd seen in vietnam?

That he personaly witnessed anything. For christ's sake the idiot was in the navy, not involved in shore ops. For him to have seen it would mean either it went on constantly (bull) or he spent more time on land around vietnamese than he did on the boat (also bull). And not only him but the 150 also.

not isolated incidents but
crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of
officers at all levels of command. . . .

Such utter crap!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!