Kerry admits to commiting "atrocities".

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cactus

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2003
Messages
418
Location
Spanaway, WA
In a December 1971 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press", just released by NBC, John Kerry was asked about the claims he made in his testimony before Congress regarding American troops commiting atrocities in Viet Nam. Not only did Kerry say that he saw other Americans commit atrocities, but he said that HE had also commited atrocities that were in violation of the Geneva Convention. Some of the atrocities he admitted to were indescriminate firing in "free fire zones" and burning of villages.

Yet now, Senator John Kerry says he's "proud" of his service in Viet Nam?
 
I just did a quick search about this and the only thing I could find was some webpage accusing NBC of not releasing the tape from their archives. Is there a link or some other proof that reinforces this at all?

Also, (during my little search) I read that when Kerry led some vets in a protest in which they threw their medals over a fence in front of the capitol, Kerry actually threw away someone else's medals and still has his hanging in his office. Is that true?

I don't like to just bash Kerry for the sake of bashing him, but his service is a large selling point for the dems in his campaigm, so this stuff is relevant in my opinion.
 
(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):


MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or
another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide
and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do
you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in
Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?


KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only
weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the
burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of
this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a
matter of written established policy by the government of the United States
from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men
who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed
off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law,
the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.


(End audiotape)
Click to expand...

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/3221.html

I was mistaken of the date. It was April of 1971, not Dec. 1971.
 
Not only did Kerry say that he saw other Americans commit atrocities, but he said that HE had also commited atrocities that were in violation of the Geneva Convention. Some of the atrocities he admitted to were indescriminate firing in "free fire zones" and burning of villages.
Click to expand...

The point you miss is that he was stating that what he did was an atrocity in his opinion looking back on it. He didn't say it violated the rules of engagement in effect at the time. Whether it violated the geneva convention? I don't know, I doubt if he does either. It's clear what he was saying is that he has a guilty conscience for doing things he believed were wrong, and there are millions who agree with that sentiment.

It was standard procedure to burn the buildings that were suspected of housing VC or VC sympathizers. He did not say he burned people, just "villages". It was the US way to terrorize the locals and make them understand if they helped VC, we would retaliate. Of course, the VC were doing the same thing from the other direction. personally, I think that sucks but that's just my opinion. I understand why they did it.

I don't know exactly what he means by indiscriminate firing, I assume it means firing without a clear target in areas where civilians were. I also don't agree with doing that, but it was SOP for the time. he thinks it was wrong, and he is entitled to his opinion.
 
So, is Kerry more like Aunt Jemimah, or Eggo?

Plain, or blueberry? What syrup would he go best with?

Will he divorce his current wife once he's been found out to be cheating on her with Mrs. Butterworth?
 
The point you miss is that he was stating that what he did was an atrocity in his opinion looking back on it. He didn't say it violated the rules of engagement in effect at the time. Whether it violated the geneva convention? I don't know, I doubt if he does either. It's clear what he was saying is that he has a guilty conscience for doing things he believed were wrong, and there are millions who agree with that sentiment
Click to expand...
I guess I didn't see the significance of his statement to mean that he should be tried for war crimes, but that he admitted that he himself has a guilty conscience for some of his actions in the war. Up until this point I had only read and listened to him saying that he had witnessed his fellow soldiers doing such things, but now he admits to doing it himself.

The dems are using Kerry's military service as a strong "plus" for Kerry's campaign, and are also condemming Bush's service during the Vietnam War. I don't want to get into whether Bush's service record is questionable here, but the point is that Kerry's distinguished service is viewed as a strong point by the dems. I guess I don't have a direct quote, so I'll have to take Cactus' word that Kerry has said that he is "proud" of his service in Vietnam.

How can you be "proud" of your service if you have this"guilty conscience for doing things he believed were wrong"? I suppose it is possible to "overall proud" despite having some bad moments mixed in, but it seems that Kerry was pretty adamant about the horrible stuff that went on there.

Once again, I'm not a real big fan of Bush. I am most definitely conservative, but I would have been open to voting for some sort conservative Democrat. (Zell Miller would have been nice) A lot of people are saying "anybody but Bush," so why the heck did the dems pick somebody that seems so contradictory? He has a crazy voting record, and his stance on Vietnam is controversial. It seems all the dems had to do was to pick somebody with known integrity (like me :D ) that the republicans couldn't pick apart so easily, and they would run away with the election! But now, I'm going for "anybody but Kerry!"
 
How can you be "proud" of your service if you have this"guilty conscience for doing things he believed were wrong"? .
Click to expand...

SIMPLE: You can be proud you stepped up and did a dangerous job which your country said was necessary as opposed to others who ran to canada or evaded combat via political influence.

You can be sorry later for what you did because after getting out of combat and seeing the whole picture, you realize you were lied to by your government about what was "right" and "necessary". You would be genuinely surprised how many verterans are in that boat.

Time does not stand still and it's easy to take quotes and actions of a person at various points in the journey of his life and prove he has "changed position" along the way. Some of us call it personal growth and becoming more aware. Ronald Reagan once quipped: "Everybody is entitled to be a fool at some time... I was once a Democrat".

I am fully aware the repubs are desparate to disparage Kerry's war record because Bush doesn't have one, but the truth is that Kerry served honorably and courageously for his combat term. He may have come out a little screwy for a while, but I have news for you: MANY vets had the same thing and he should be cut some slack for that. Kerry earned the right to criticize that war through his service and he can consider what he did as wrong if that is how he sees it. That doesn't alter the fact that he served as ordered, where ordered, and was decorated for it. With all due respects, Bush's desparation to smear Kerry's ACTUAL record of service makes him look pathetic and desparate. Period.
 
Are you sure this wasn't the former Senator from the mid-west, also by the name of Kerry, who was a CMH winner and Navy SEAL and admitted a few years ago to shooting non-combatants?
 
A lot of people are saying "anybody but Bush," so why the heck did the dems pick somebody that seems so contradictory?
Click to expand...

I think when Dean imploded, too many of the ABB people jumped on the Kerry bandwagon because he was a "Washington insider" and therefore "electable".

I think there will probably be a lot of buyer's remorse as the campaign drags on, but it won't change many votes, as what they are really doing is voting against Bush, not for Kerry.
 
That doesn't alter the fact that he served as ordered, where ordered, and was decorated for it.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing with you there. My point is concerning his (and the democratic party's overall) political campaign tactics. In the relatively small amount that I've followed Kerry's campaign, he and his democratic backers have used his service as major point. That's nothing new, I would do it, too.
Time does not stand still and it's easy to take quotes and actions of a person at various points in the journey of his life and prove he has "changed position" along the way. Some of us call it personal growth and becoming more aware.
Click to expand...
OK, that's a good point, too. I sure hope that I haven't reached the height of my personal growth at this early point in my life. Kerry has grown as a person since Vietnam, and he has become more aware. Perhaps you're right, we should cut Kerry some slack with his perceived "changed position."

Is it fair, though, to say that, but then to go bash on Bush for his service (or lack thereof) during the Vietnam War? Is Kerry's character allowed to grow, but Bush's is not? I must clarify that I am not accusing an one or specific person here, but we have all heard the scutiny and insults aimed at Bush and his service record. But that was a long time ago, right?

Of course, Bush had some choice comments recorded when he didn't know his mic was on, and then the Republicans cry foul when Kerry does something similar, so it's not like the dems are alone. I still think that we should try to get as much of these double standards out of this whole mess as we can, though. I don't know what to think, I'm getting sick of this race already...
 
If he thinks that
shootings in free fire
zones...harassment and interdiction fire...50 calibre
machine guns...search and destroy missions
Click to expand...
are all violations of the laws of war, should he really be the Commander-in-Chief?
 
This verbiage doesn't offend me as much as some other conduct. Again, I lived through the civilian side of this at college.

Some of my dorm mates flunked out their freshman year. I caught up with them in my junior year as they returned. This was also the time, a few years past Tet, when lots of suburban fathers (who were WWII vets themselves) were trying to find a safe place to 'stash' their sons.

We try to make all military action noble in hind-sight. This was a case of "Ve were just followink orders." As the true nature of this war (and THIS war only) came unwrapped, it was a tragic waste of servicemen to lose their lives.

What upsets me is using that era's service as a mantle of honor, investing it with the proud service of soldiers today. Mindlessly blowing the crap out of non-combatants is not noble EVER, and plenty of soldiers, the real ones in my book, questioned the motives. It sickens me to hear that men claim they would make good Presidents because of their questionable character as 19 year old soldiers.

Remember why they said Washington was great? The slogan of his time was "First in war, first in peace." I'd be tickled to death if a real statesman appeared and simply knew the difference and did not include it in his attack ads.
 
I am fully aware the repubs are desparate to disparage Kerry's war record because Bush doesn't have one, but the truth is that Kerry served honorably and courageously for his combat term. He may have come out a little screwy for a while, but I have news for you: MANY vets had the same thing and he should be cut some slack for that. Kerry earned the right to criticize that war through his service and he can consider what he did as wrong if that is how he sees it. That doesn't alter the fact that he served as ordered, where ordered, and was decorated for it. With all due respects, Bush's desparation to smear Kerry's ACTUAL record of service makes him look pathetic and desparate. Period.
Click to expand...

It's not Republicans disparaging Kerry's war service, it's Kerry himself! The only mention of Kerry's service by President Bush has been praise!

but the truth is that Kerry served honorably and courageously for his combat term
Click to expand...

That's not what John Kerry himself said in April of 1971! Kerry said that he commited what HE considers to be war crimes. Your attempt to justify this by insinuating that he was just following orders is obscene. The "Nuremburg Defense" didn't work after WW2 and it won't cut it now.

Liberals are having to sinking to new lows. Not only is it OK to lie in court if it's done by a liberal, it's now OK to commit self confessed war crimes if your a liberal!:rolleyes: As long as you vote right on abortion though, right?
 
Last edited:
John Kerry is saying is that he was morally wrong

".....I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down...."

attributed to John Kerry


I'm sure what John Kerry is saying is that he was morally wrong in doing these things, rather then criminal as he suggests.


Respectfully,

jdkelly
 
When did the Republicans ever disparage Kerry's war record? You sound like him. When the Republicans questioned his VOTING record, the first thing out of his mouth is, "I was in Viet Nam!"
 
I'm sure what John Kerry is saying is that he was morally wrong in doing these things, rather then criminal as he suggests.
Click to expand...

An answer worthy of John Kerry himself!:D Kind of like his defense of his vote against funding for our troops in Iraq: "I voted for the 87 million before I voted against it".:what:

In his 1971 interview, the botoxed Boston Brahman said that the men who ordered him to carry out these "atrocities" were "war criminals". If he carried out these orders, knowing they were illegal, he is as much of a war criminal as those giving the orders. I am certain that Sen. Kerry was instructed in OCS that he is obligated to disobey an illegal order, not carry it out!

Either Kerry witnessed and commited "war crimes" or he did not. He is either a lier or a war criminal! My feelings are, as in his claim to have met with foreign leaders who support him, is that he is the former. Either way, these are not qualifications to be President of the United States.
 
In his 1971 interview, the botoxed Boston Brahman said that the men who ordered him to carry out these "atrocities" were "war criminals". If he carried out these orders, knowing they were illegal, he is as much of a war criminal as those giving the orders. I am certain that Sen. Kerry was instructed in OCS that he is obligated to disobey an illegal order, not carry it out!
Click to expand...



Cactus,

My point exactly! Another example of Kerry being on both sides of an issue.:)


Respectfully,


jdkelly
 
It's too bad every issue didn't have three sides. THAT would be fun to watch Kerry manipulate!:D

Of course the Kerry camp did it again today. While Kerry continues to blame President Bush for not allowing the UN to lead the Iraqi fight, his aides blasted VP Cheney because "Cheney supported not getting Saddam after the first Gulf War".

Gee! Wasn't it the UN that prevented us from getting Saddam the first time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Kerry Coerced Vet To Lie?
Replies
1
Views
422
ACP230
A
C
  • Locked
The Slander That Made John Kerry A Star
Replies
22
Views
1K
HBK
H
T
  • Locked
Kerry admits being "War Criminal"
Replies
15
Views
611
greyhound
G
P
  • Locked
Hanoi Jane is at it again...
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Phyphor
P
C
  • Locked
Kerry 'loose cannon,' says ex-commander
Replies
6
Views
469
Antlurz
A
Back
Top