Dr Guy Dr Guy

How Liberals Lie, Part 2

▼

How Liberals Lie, Part 2

There are lies, damn lies and the Liberal version

from JoeUser Forums

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.

politics
7,957 views 40 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's times like this seeing you lefties still trashing vietnam vets that make me so sad to think I put my life on the line


with all due respect for your service, if you were to follow the link i provided and read kerry's testimony again (i'm presuming you've read it in the past since otherwise you wouldnt be able to qualify it as to its truthfulness or lack thereof) as if you were reading it for the first time--in other words, with an objective and open mind--i believe you'd see the intention (if not the ultimate result) was to condemn the pentagon and the administration rather than the men and women who were not served well nor properly by the command.

for instance:

We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.

The Marines say they never leave even their dead, These men have 1eft all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.


ADMINISTRATION'S ATTEMPT TO DISOWN VETERANS
Finally, this administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifice we made for this country. In their blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam. We do not need their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of limbs are witnesses enough for others and for ourselves.

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped 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 the fear that have driven this country these last 10 years and more, and so when, in 30 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 the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
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


nothing here says 'i'...only the collective 'we' because he is NOT speaking solely for himself. the senate understood that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you properly said in the beginning



And since I was in the navy like him. I think I would be qualified to say what the area of operations for riverine craft are!


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




In case "you" don't see it, all those we's would include him also, now wouldn't it?
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
In case "you" don't see it, all those we's would include him also, now wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. For example a politician, speaking on behalf of his constituency (much as Kerry was speaking on behalf of his supporters) might use the word 'we' without any connotation of including himself. For example a Detroit politician might use we when describing workers in the auto industry despite never having worked in such a place himself.

It's a manner of speech, an affectation if you will and it's fairly common. There's no concrete proof that he meant to mislead by using it, only that as the current representative of the soldiers he felt entitled to use it. Is that really so difficult to accept? That Kerry might have said or done something without intending to deceive?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
he was a member of a group acting as their spokesperson...recounting the things the group had discussed. i'm sure you can find the film in which those vets were discussing the very things kerry mentioned and see it for yourself.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
And since I was in the navy like him. I think I would be qualified to say what the area of operations for riverine craft are!


if you served in the same area during the same time, then i'd agree you might be qualified to say what happened there and then. if you didn't, then i don't

if kerry hadn't served on the exact same type of craft you were assigned and he offered an opinion about what you'd done or seen, you'd be so outraged you'd likely wind up as a big hot pool of goo.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

nothing here says 'i'...only the collective 'we' because he is NOT speaking solely for himself. the senate understood that.

We is a cowards way of saying I.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

you're surely not suggesting that two years of selling newspapers at pendleton while you were a kid somehow enables you to know what kerry and the vvaw saw in combat.

No, I am saying that my view is as valid.  Verstehen sie?

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

You "still" don't get it do you? The lying little shit was on a GOD DAMN BOAT! How in the hell could he have witnessed anything that "supposedly" happen inland?

He could not have, but that escapes his appologists.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

no you *don't* get it...and i doubt you ever will. he was speaking collectively and describing an actual event that was filmed so portions of it can be seen today. you can see and hear for yourself participants describing what they experienced at various combat areas. he was reporting what was said and there is an audiovisual record.

No, he was not.  The simple truth is he WAS describing what he did not see.  And at the time, he had no film.  You see the truth of the matter is, he lied and he was caught in it.  LATER facts could be used to bear him out, but AT THE TIME of his testimony, he was plain and simple a bald face liar.

Prove me wrong.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

with all due respect for your service, if you were to follow the link i provided and read kerry's testimony again (i'm presuming you've read it in the past since otherwise you wouldnt be able to qualify it as to its truthfulness or lack thereof) as if you were reading it for the first time--in other words, with an objective and open mind--i believe you'd see the intention (if not the ultimate result) was to condemn the pentagon and the administration rather than the men and women who were not served well nor properly by the command.

With all due respect, the truth is he called 2.5 million GIs war Criminals.  That can not be excused or explained away, no matter how much you want to.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Kerry? A liberal? LMAO!
Yeah right!

Bye Dabe.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

In case "you" don't see it, all those we's would include him also, now wouldn't it?

Actually, it was his cowards way of saying I.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's a manner of speech, an affectation if you will and it's fairly common. There's no concrete proof that he meant to mislead by using it, only that as the current representative of the soldiers he felt entitled to use it. Is that really so difficult to accept? That Kerry might have said or done something without intending to deceive?

Have you been elected yet?  You are a natural!

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

he was a member of a group acting as their spokesperson...recounting the things the group had discussed. i'm sure you can find the film in which those vets were discussing the very things kerry mentioned and see it for yourself.

Funny, it does not seem to exist as most of them said they were either coerced or taken out of context.

Funny.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

if kerry hadn't served on the exact same type of craft you were assigned and he offered an opinion about what you'd done or seen, you'd be so outraged you'd likely wind up as a big hot pool of goo.

Yet you would trash the SBVs.  For that very reason.  Sorry, you lost this one a long time ago.  After you can justify the SVBs ads and allegations and facts, then try this one again.