Posted on 08/11/2004 4:20:01 PM PDT by Temple Owl
I remember that too. He had a Christmas show. I saw while I was in Cambodia.
only in his mind
Because he is the only real Democrat who has even colorable claim to any military distinction. Weasely Clark thrilled them, except that he really wasn't one of them. A suspicious passel of quickie medals got him on the fast track, but he wouldn't have been a real Democratic leader if he had merely come home and kept his medals out of politics. His claim to Democratic pantheon status lies in the fact that he essentially cancelled the medals of all other veterans when he threw symbols of military valor over the WH fence. And IMHO it is that, more than any particiulars of the claiming/awarding of the medals themselves, which would naturally stick in the craw of a vet.To top it off he chose a piece of fluff who has made a fortune from ambulance chasing as the VP.To me it doesn't matter whether Kerry ever publicly burned a flag; the flag itself is partly a symbol of military virtue - a symbol of our unity and willingness to defend each other. To pitch a medal or ribbon, his own or another's, over the WH fence was to seperate himself from the principle of national unity just as surely as burning a flag would have. If not more so. John Kerry stands for hyperpartisan divisiveness, and that is all the Democratic Party now stands for so he is their perfect candidate.
That VP choice stands for what you can expect from John Kerry, which is the same as what we got from x42 - a Peter Principle administration. There hasn't been a decent Democratic SecDef since the Truman era, and IMHO no self-respecting Republican would even take the job working under Kerry.Kerry's own credentials are so thin that he can't afford to associate with people with solid credentials or they'll outshine him. By contrast Bush like Reagan won't hire anyone who needs the job.
Let's tear his "confession" down - line by line. You will be greatly disappointed.
I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that ......
1 ... I took part in shootings in free-fire zones.
Not a crime nor against any known rule of warefare to remove civilians from harms way and only leave the enemy to contend with.
2 ... I conducted harassment and interdiction fire.
see #1 above, harrassment means just that, you know about were the enemy should be so you drop artillery or bombs here and there at irregular time periods to "un-motivate" the enemy so they leave or give up - very humane!
Interdiction fire - when you're pretty sure where the enemy is and where they are headed - so you fire artillery or bombs to stop them. Gee! Really? So?
3 ... I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.
he had a 45-cal pistol, rifles were available (they even fire automatically if you wanted to waste bullets) Yes there were .50 cal guns that were designed on the boats to fire on other craft and fortified shore positions - yes people were there, otherwise why bother shooting?
I believe the Geneva accords said you were only supposed to kill neatly
4 ... I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.
Also see #1 when an area was cleared of civilians and they had been relocated to a safe area - at times the abandoned villages were destroyed to keep they enemy from using them as shelter or cover. NOT illegal even when they were burned as a result of fighting the NVA or VC
Sorry john - you confessed to nothing above except for shooting a wounded man in the back - nobody said you did (nor would they have) but you. That ould be called MURDEr - against the Geneva Convention
this story is not going away either. what villages were burned? did he make any of the appropriate reports why or why not
he is beginning to understand what a nightmare this truly is. unforunately he doesn't make it to 11/02
To say nothing of the UCMJ.
“Senator Kerry, as Commander In Chief of the armed forces would you still support the prosecution of US Army Pfc. Lynndie England for acts of abuse when you yourself admit to far more serious war crimes? Furthermore what effect do you think this would have on overall morale in the services?”
OUCH !!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was funny enough to be a new tag line somehow!!
Thanks for the ping.
And Kerry was only there four months. This wasn't burn out --sounds like irrational exuberance,
Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go -- becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months.
I wonder how many Swiftboat guys did serve during the war. If Kerry was, in fact, the only one to only serve 4 months, that would be a good talking point.
Imagine this headline: JF'n only of 2,000 or XXXX Swiftboats not to complete tour. That might have an impact.
I'm beginning to think that JF'n is Teflon Man II.
I can't understand why the Democrats nominated a man who has confessed to committing war crimes and in addition is creepy, confused, wobbling, unable to make decisions, and has no concept on how most American's live.
What don't you understand? Except for the war crimes part, those are the basic qualifications that dimocratic politicians must possess to successfuly run for office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.