Kerry demands equal time on Sinclair broadcast

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 17 2004, 02:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 17 2004, 02:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Wow. Thats the kind of stuff that would put me against Kerry.

Can you link to a source where Kerry admits he (personally) committed atrocities?

It's one thing to have 'been there' when they happened, and another completely to have 'pulled the trigger'.

If this is true, why haven't the Republicans been all over this? Seems like this would be a KO knockout... and an easy one if it's true.

Just find the transcript to his testimony.

I've seen it on TV a dozen times.

He also said it on the Dick Cavett show. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, I suppose I could look for it.

But I didn't make the claim, you did.

So find it, and post it.

Please.

:P

[CaramonLS]

http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

here is the transcript, I am 1/4th of the way through, nothing yet, it is a very long read.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Actually, I'm not sure that it's in the Senate testimony.

It is in the Cavett show transcript...which is here.

Cavett Show

[Displaced Flames fan]

I apologize if it's not in the Senate testimony...I was replaying the soundbyte in my head...and for some reason I was seeing him in front of the Senate.

Same time frame, different situation.

That's not to say he didn't say it in front of the Senate, but I haven't seen the whole hearing or read the entire transcript.

[CaramonLS]

"MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty."

This is what you are refering to, correct?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 17 2004, 02:54 AM
"MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty."

This is what you are refering to, correct?

Yes, that's it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Doesn't that pretty much sum up the Vietnam war?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 17 2004, 03:03 AM
Doesn't that pretty much sum up the Vietnam war?

How so?

I'd like to answer, but I'm not 100% sure you mean what I think you do.

[FlamesAddiction]

The Vietnam war is full of incidents where either purposely or inadvertantly, non-combatants were targeted and killed.

[CaramonLS]

Yeah dis... its a little weak as far as being damning of Kerry.

Crap like that was committed all over the Nam war... And it would just be classified as Collatoral damage now a days.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 17 2004, 03:06 AM
The Vietnam war is full of incidents where either purposely or inadvertantly, non-combatants were targeted and killed.

Yeah, I agree.

By Kerry's own definition he committed attrocities in doing the things he mentioned.

And I break the law every day when I drive 67 MPH on the way to work.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 17 2004, 03:08 AM
Yeah dis... its a little weak as far as being damning of Kerry.

Crap like that was committed all over the Nam war... And it would just be classified as Collatoral damage now a days.

I didn't say it was damning.

I said he admitted to attrocities, by his own definition.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 17 2004, 12:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 17 2004, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Oct 17 2004, 03:08 AM
Yeah dis... its a little weak as far as being damning of Kerry.

Crap like that was committed all over the Nam war... And it would just be classified as Collatoral damage now a days.

I didn't say it was damning.

I said he admitted to attrocities, by his own definition. [/b][/quote]
Dis,
Here's where you buy into a line of crap, garnish it and eat it.

What did he do, specifially? If there's an "atrocity", what is it? Throwing around words like this does nothing to clarify what was done, or not done, in a war zone.

In the same vein, I could call Bush a whore humping snow snorting alcoholic if we're going to go back in time, and how he committed atrocities against American law with these activities.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 17 2004, 03:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 17 2004, 03:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Oct 17 2004, 03:08 AM
Yeah dis... its a little weak as far as being damning of Kerry.

Crap like that was committed all over the Nam war... And it would just be classified as Collatoral damage now a days.

I didn't say it was damning.

I said he admitted to attrocities, by his own definition. [/b][/quote]
Ok so what do you see as its relevence?

I mean in your opinion would you use this as reason for voting against him? (I know you wont vote for him for other reasons).

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro+Oct 17 2004, 03:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheCommodoreAfro @ Oct 17 2004, 03:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I didn't say it was damning.

I said he admitted to attrocities, by his own definition.

Dis,
Here's where you buy into a line of crap, garnish it and eat it.

What did he do, specifially? If there's an "atrocity", what is it? Throwing around words like this does nothing to clarify what was done, or not done, in a war zone.

In the same vein, I could call Bush a whore humping snow snorting alcoholic if we're going to go back in time, and how he committed atrocities against American law with these activities. [/b][/quote]
I have no clue what you are talking about.

None. Has nothing to do with anything I have said in this thread.


:huhsign:

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 17 2004, 03:15 AM

Ok so what do you see as its relevence?

I mean in your opinion would you use this as reason for voting against him? (I know you wont vote for him for other reasons).

The relevance is this....

Flames Addiction said people were confusing John Kerry and former Senator Bob Kerrey who committed attrocities in Vietnam.

Fact is, John Kerry admitted to attrocities of his own in Vietnam. This is what the poster that Flames Addiction was referring to was basing it on. He was basically called a liar.

Personally, it has no relevance whatsover as a voting issue. The Swifties claim that Kerry shot a teenage Viet Cong in the back (assuming truth) wouldn't have any relevance to me either. It's war. If somebody is shooting an RPG at you, teenager or not....you kill him.

I have no problem with John Kerry's service record.

[sjwalter]

He served, and regardless of what his record is he was there. Its what he did when he came back blaming those he served with of commiting those atrocities, yet he himself did the same thing.

Does this make him the same as those he accused or am i missing something?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 17 2004, 02:54 AM
"MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty."

This is what you are refering to, correct?

And this is the stuff that is going on in Iraq. Times haven't changed much. The military still has not yet figured out how to win the hearts and minds.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 03:36 AM
He served, and regardless of what his record is he was there. Its what he did when he came back blaming those he served with of commiting those atrocities, yet he himself did the same thing.

Does this make him the same as those he accused or am i missing something?

Sorry I've heard some of the sh*t that has happened in Vietnam and NOTHING comes close to what Kerry has described as himself doing.

You are missing something because to the best of my knowledge Kerry Never raped, Kerry never mowed down farmers with m60s.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 03:36 AM
He served, and regardless of what his record is he was there. Its what he did when he came back blaming those he served with of commiting those atrocities, yet he himself did the same thing.

Does this make him the same as those he accused or am i missing something?

It sounds to me like Kerry went home and tried make public the atrocities of the war to try and reconcile the guilt.