Col. George "Bud" Day is a military hero. In fact, he is the most highly decorated veteran alive today with some 70 medals including the Congressional Medal of Honor. I have referenced him before as a member of the Iowa Air National Guard (Weekend warrior to you Kerry folks) and his citation reads the following.....




Not bad for a "weekend warrior". I believe he was also Senator McCain's "roommate" at the Hanoi Hilton, but I 'd have to check into that.

In any case, the fine people of Iowa (my fiancee's home state) certainly see him as a man of honor, they re-named the airport in Sioux City for him. And, he spoke back to them and told them what he thinks about John Kerry.....



The full text about the comments is at the link included. Col. Day has also appeared on one of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth television ads.

He also appears in the documentary Stolen Honor produced by a Pulitzer Prize and Peabody award winning journalist, Carlton Sherwood. Sherwood is also a former Marine from the Nam days.....



For those who are unafraid of the truth about John Kerry and Vietnam, the complete video of Stolen Honor is available here, online, free of charge. For those who are afraid to watch the video, I can only point to the recent DNC ad "Eagle" and ask who is the ostrich.....

So, the questions for debate are.......











Will Col Day's comments swing his home state of Iowa to the Bush Column?

Will the documentary Stolen Honor sway voters' opinions of John Kerry?

Will Col Day's comments swing his home state of Iowa to the Bush Column?

It depends about how fast Iowa can get the ink printed. If such a statement appears on the front page of every Iowa paper AND appears in every local news broadcast AND everyone loves him as you have say, then he may have a swing.

I see no information in Iowa coming out about Col. George "Bud" Day or his claims towards Kerry.

I think what is more interesting is will Kerry retort? Kerry has been head strong about responding to every piece of dirt flung his way, will he challenge Day?

FACT: Iowa has 7 Electoral Votes and currently (based on RCPs polls) shows Bush at 48.7 and Kerry at 45.3 with Bush at a lead of 3.4.

As of right now, I think most Americans are committed to their vote, they have yet to tell the polls this message. Those who are undecided will probably not vote, and those that are firm will not change because of a documentary or a speech. If this speech or documentary came out with the swift boat ads, I think we would see a different gap.

Before I get to the questions for debate Aquilla, I have to ask do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Kerry is a traitor or are you simply basing this off the word of one veteran? Heck you may consider Kerry a traitor for whatever reason, but does that mean we should give excessive weight to that opinion and start a topic like "Kerry termed a traitor, will this effect California's vote?" This guy could have walked on water in Vietnam, that does not make him uniquely qualified to determine whether or not Kerry is a traitor. In fact SBVfT presented numerous vets that held this opinion, it doesn't appear to have effected many folks in the final analysis.

I know you feel strongly about this, but you have provided zero evidence to support the premise of this thread, that Kerry is a traitor. In fact, the questions for debate don't even allow for that to be discussed, you just make the assumption that people will buy into that and answer your questions.

Furthermore, if Kerry was actually a traitor, don't you think he would have been brought up on charges or something by now? I mean seriously. There is no merit to these claims and if we are to take them seriously, it'd be nice to see a little more presented as evidence than the thoughts of some veteran who probably has never even met Kerry.

Will Col Day's comments swing his home state of Iowa to the Bush Column?
I highly doubt this will have any effect whatsoever in Iowa. This is just more background noise on the old SBVFT thing and no one is really going to give it any attention. That whole controversy is water under the bridge for most people. I highly doubt the voting population of Iowa have so much respect for this guy that they'd collectively say "gee, perhaps we should reconsider because ol' Col. Day says so".

SBVFT hasn't gone away since it was the hot button issue in August and September and yet Kerry hasn't been touched by that whole thing during the month of the debates. To assume that one voice speaking out right now, with zero smoking gun evidence to back his position is going to make a whit of difference is just folly in my opinion.

Will the documentary Stolen Honor sway voters' opinions of John Kerry?
I have to say I seriously doubt it. This documentary just doesn't have the bang, timing or buzz that Fahrenheit 9/11 did and so far it hasn't been the least bit successful. If you have facts to prove otherwise, please feel free to provide them though.

The most critical elements here are the timing and the buzz. The fact that this documentary is coming out days before the election makes it completely ineffective, because most people have probably made up their minds now and won't be changing them unless something significant happens. Many people have already voted in early voting programs or by absentee ballot. If this movie had come to light back in September it may have mattered, but right now... nope won't make a difference.

The movie also doesn't have nearly the same level of buzz that fahrenheit 9/11 did. In fact it had negative publicity because rather than being blocked by stations and movie houses Sinclair Broadcasting decided to shove it forcefully down the throats of voters and they had severe backlash as a result of that. Not the kind of buzz that you want to get people to see your movie. The movie was and is perceived as something people are "forced" to see rather than something they were "prevented" from seeing and that makes all the difference.

Fortunately for us the military service issues surrounding both candidates hasn’t been a real topic since the conventions (at least in my ignored state). I can’t imagine any undecided voters using this as a ‘deal maker’ for either candidate at this stage of the game, this is old ground.

But I also fully understand mid-western values and their sentiments towards their heroes, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it affected a few voters. I also know there are many who opposed the Vietnam war and understand that Kerry didn’t “pledge his allegiance to North Vietnam”, and with all due respect to Colonel Day they may take exception to his claim.

Col. Day "termed" Kerry a traitor, CJ. THAT is a FACT, I cited it. That is what this thread is all about. Now, if you want to discuss whether Kerry was indeed a traitor, as Col. Day claimed, we could start a new thread about that and I'd be more than happy to participate in that. However, this thread is about Col. Day's comments in Sioux City, the Swift Vets and POWs ads and Stolen Honor.



I have provided abundant evidence that he has been termed a traitor by Col. Day. Furthermore, I have presented ironclad testimony to Col. Day's bravery and heroism in battle. As to whether people will "buy into" Col. Day's comments is exactly what I posed in the questions for debate in this thread.



That's really a question for another thread I think, perhaps in the "Is Kerry a traitor" thread that you or I can start. I do have some evidence that that may indeed the be case and I'd be more than happy to share my thoughts on why Kerry has never been brought up on charges.

Aquila WAS quoting Col. Day:



Are you saying Aquila must provide proof of Col. Days belief?



As a native Iowan (Imogene 1958 - 1968), with lots and lots of relatives in the Hawkeye State I must say that I do believe it will sway a few votes. What it may do is strengthen the Bush vote in Iowa. At the same time it could be a factor in keeping some Older Kerry supporters from the polls.

Col. Day is a Man of high regard in my home State, especially with Older voters and Veterans. His word will mean much to those that know of him. The answer is probably that Col. Day may in fact sway the State's Veteran's to vote for Bush, which in this tight race might just be enough to put Iowa in the "Red".

Yes, you did cite that is what he said. Col. Day said Kerry was a traitor, but does it mean anything? I think you have to make your case as to why his opinion is important and what facts it is based upon. I have answered the questions, I don't think it will make any difference because it is one guy's opinion. He may be respected but it is still his opinion.

I could say "Bush was the mastermind behind Abu Ghraib" and that would be fact, I just wrote it according to your logic. That doesn't however make it true, nor does it mean it is based on anything generally accepted as fact.

If you'd like to discuss why this guy's opinion should matter, I think that you have a burden of proof here to show everyone that his opinion is informed, relevant and based on facts. Otherwise it is an opinion not a fact.

When you read this article you clearly felt Col. Day's opinion here had some weight. Is that because you already support what his position is, or are there some facts out there that support it too?


I really don't think that is so easily divorced from this thread. If this guy is claiming Kerry is a traitor and you have asked us to determine if that will matter, it is only logical to ask whether his opinion is based on any facts or whether he is just blowing off steam? The answer there to a large degree should determine whether or not people should or will take it seriously. That is really the point I am trying to make.

I am perfectly willing to read whatever you put up, but I am not going to simply accept this guy's opinion of Kerry without some background. My answer won't change from "his opinion won't matter" if that is all there is to it.

Hopefully that clarifies my point. I didn't mean to suggest you made up the quote if that is what you believed.

Unafraid about the truth of Vietnam Aquilla, you mean the part about how our government casually wasted the lives of so many soldiers in a useless war?
Treated its own Vets like an afterthought when they returned? That doesn't outrage you more?
Unafraid of the truth?

I can probably make a video of Vets who are bitter about having been sent to war while rich kids like Bush stayed home and partied while others DIED
Whose Truth will be more valid Aquilla?

http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm
Ask these soldiers what they think about the whole deal


Will Col Day's comments swing his home state of Iowa to the Bush Column?

Will the documentary Stolen Honor sway voters' opinions of John Kerry?

No it won't affect voters because it is simply a peace of propaganda made by and supported by those who hate Kerry. Same as the ones created towards Bush it will only influence those who already dislike Kerry.
As for Colonel Day, I have no idea how the people of Iowa are going to vote. Even if the dislike Kerry they are intelligent enough to see that Bush is a more serious threat to the health and welfare of the United States than kerry could ever be.


Edited to remove inflammatory remarks

Will Col Day's comments swing his home state of Iowa to the Bush Column? It's hard to say. Bud hasn't exactly given Bush a shining endorsement. He was very active promoting McCain during the 2000 presidential primaries. In fact, he spent a lot of his own money and devoted much time towards that promotion (yes, you're right Aquilla, they were cell mates. He told me this at a party after an award ceremony...where he presented my husband with the award during the late '90s ). He has also been a very outspoken Veteran's advocate and critical of Bush's failure to keep his promise of reinstating their lifetime health benefits (yes, I realize that Clinton gave them away to begin with).

Will the documentary Stolen Honor sway voters' opinions of John Kerry? I don't know... it's a worse of two evils sort of argument. Bud has been critical of Bush in the past, so now a "Kerry is much worse though" might or might not sway those voters.

Will Col Day's comments swing his home state of Iowa to the Bush Column?

Did Col. Day recently graduate from the Ann Coulter School of Rhetoric? There is absolutely no case for Kerry being a "traitor". Using it in this way dilutes the word so much as to make it meaningless. If attaining traitorhood has such an easy litmus, then I can imagine achieving Satanhood must not be far off.

Wearing my rational hat, I believe that Iowans are fully capable of seeing through the histrionics and realize the intent behind his over-wrought hyperbole. Wearing my cynical hat, I believe this is just further evidence of entrenchment at the expense of rational dialog.

Will the documentary Stolen Honor sway voters' opinions of John Kerry?

I have no idea. But, from the title it seems like one of those bad adjective-noun films involving a reluctant hero saving the world (or at least a woman). Or perhaps, a porn film? Anyway, seems confusing to me.

This man's decorations and honors have no bearing on whether his opinion is worth any more than anyone else's. This is sort of like an argument from authority. It's inherently a logical trap - and it's one we seem to love as a culture. Our airwaves are full of 'experts.' Now, if the question is one of procedure (what is the protocol for being awarded the CMH?), then sure, I will trust a soldier's response over, say, a shoe salesman. But the question here is purely opinion in nature - and his has the weight of anyone else's.

It's interesting that you couch your opinion with a challenge -
I mention this because it certainly doesn't predispose anyone to take what you're saying very seriously. Did you watch F9/11 - or were you too afraid? Did you read Clarke's book - or were you too afraid of the truth? I mean, really, this is not the best way to approach a question, or a topic.

Interestingly, this man's numerous decorations are used as a basis for his expertise - while the Swifties were concurrently, albeit inadvertently, denigrating the system of decorations during the Vietnam War. John Kerry's decorations were made falsely, so they say - so what make's this guys worth anything? Mind you, I'm not saying that. Just that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Veterans 'unafraid of the truth' ought to be angered at the Swifties for attempting to negate the meaning of awards they received while serving in Vietnam - or were these decorations only given out erroneously to one man?

Really, Hobbes said it well regarding the 'war for oil' theory - unless you can come up with something real, get a new hobbyhorse. Kerry's testimony before Congress not only laid bare the truth about atrocities commited during the war - didn't even go far enough, as history shows us - but expressed feelings shared by thousands and thousands of Vietnam vets.


Will Col Day's comments swing his home state of Iowa to the Bush Column?

Really, let's hope the American people aren't that easily fooled. Of course, I've been wrong about that before... but I think no, in any case. The Swifties and their ilk have been thoroughly debunked, their lies laid bare. The people are ready to move on to something relevant and real.


Will the documentary Stolen Honor sway voters' opinions of John Kerry?

Again, it's doubtful. Maybe a couple of people will fall for it. And maybe Ann Coulter will be given a journalism award sometime, too!

Lots of things to respond to here, so little time tonight. So, I'll get back to the others tomorrow and instead respond to one post here tonight.



Col. Day was a POW, Quarkhead, and as such experienced firsthand the consequences of John Kerry's actions. I don't think he was selling shoes to the North Vietnamese.



Actually, yes I did see F911 as I stated in this threadf. I thought it was a crappy movie and said why in that thread. As far as Richard Clarke's book is concerned, no I haven't read it and I don't intend to. However I did defend Mr. Clarke within the context of my understanding of his situation here. So, no, Quarkhead, I am not a coward. Tell me though, Quarkhead, have you viewed Stolen Honor? What did you think about it?




John Kerry has made his war record a foundational basis for his campaign for President, he still to this day can't seem to stop reminding people of his 4 memorable months in country in Vietnam. It is perfectly logical to review his record and his claims, and there are problems with them. To this day he has still refused to sign a form to release all the records.



Thousands and Thousands????? I'd like to see documentation on that. The fact is that what Kerry presented before the US Senate was largely fabricated testimony from the discredited Winter Soldier Investigation. He lied about what happened in Vietnam, he called those who served there monsters and war criminals. He did other things as well, but I'll save those for another thread.

QUOTE

No, they haven't been "debunked". The Swifties and their "ilk" have raised some questions that have yet to be answered, including why Kerry won't turn over all his records. What does he have to hide? And yes, it is relevant if this person wants to become Commander in Chief. He stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back once, called them war criminals and monsters in order to advance his political career. What's to say he wouldn't do it again?

QUOTE

Fall for what? How was Sherwood's documentary inaccurate? Or, have you just not had the time to watch it?

Those asking for evidence :

John Kerry is traitor by his own admission. Before you say that im using to harsh of language, I am not. Legally he is a traitor.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 104—Aiding the enemy

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl104.htm



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



Will Col Day's comments swing his home state of Iowa to the Bush Column?
Yes. I believe if there are any undecided voter's his opinion may sway them.

Will the documentary Stolen Honor sway voters' opinions of John Kerry?
Yes. It did mine (im a hardcore Athiest and his answer to abortion really held weight with me). I was re-evaluating my vote after the second debate. This documentary solidified my vote for Bush again.


Really they have been "debunked"? I was not aware that witness testimonies where debunked by falsified documents with John Kerry's testimony of the events debunked them.

And yes, they where falsified with a false testimony from John Kerry to write them, and one of the documents was not even signed by the persons who's signature was on it.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html

Kerry's first purple heart has come into question because he did not recieve any enemy fire - via his own journal to aquire the award.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?...M20040820b.html

John Kerry had to backtrack his "Christmas in Cambodia" story that was "seared" in his memory.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm

Kerry also "shredded" documents pertaining to POW/MIA's in Vietnam to pave the way for normalizing relations in Vietnam.
http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/

They have ALL the evidence on their website before you brush it off.

Why would Kerry want normalized relations to Vietnam? Well ask his buddies. They do hang his picture up honoring him.

Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Photo is displayed in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the "War Crimes Museum") in Saigon.

Ask his cousin.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
7. Kerry's cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam.

True. In 1993, under the direction of CEO C. Stewart Forbes (a relative of Kerry on his mother's side), Boston-based real estate giant Colliers International brokered just such a deal between an Asian subsidiary, Colliers Jardine, and the Vietnamese government to develop the port of Vung Tau.

Ask Retired Gen. George S. Patton III about Kerry's betrayal.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry2.htm
4. Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist 'gave aid and comfort to the enemy.'

True. Patton uttered the remark in his capacity as a veterans' spokesman for Ray Shamie, Kerry's Republican opponent in the 1984 Massachusetts Senate race.

From the New York Times, Oct. 30, 1984:

The most heated moment of the campaign this year came when John McManus, a spokesman for the John Birch Society, and Maj. Gen. George S. Patton Jr., retired, the chairman of a Veterans for Shamie group, charged that Mr. Kerry was a Communist sympathizer guilty of "near-treasonous activity" in the Vietnam War.

From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1984:

Joining McManus, retired general George S. Patton, son of the famous World War II general and honorary chairman of Shamie's veterans' committee, called Kerry "soft on communism" and said that, by protesting the war, Kerry "gave aid and comfort to the enemy and probably caused some of my guys to get killed."

The case against Kerry's betrayal.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3778


John Kerry lied about atrocities in Vietnam and used it as a political tool. He coerced soldiers into telling lies and used fake soldiers to back up his story.

Steven Pitkin's story.

When John Kerry testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 that American troops in Vietnam were ravaging the country with widespread atrocities, it was based on a pack of lies. I know, because I told some of those lies after Kerry coached me on what to say.

I was wounded in 1969 and when well enough to walk and return to the US I was spit on, ridiculed and had feces thrown at my uniform. I was mad at my country for sending me to a war it was not committed to win and bitter at being vilified for serving my country.

After discharge from the Army I met a representative of “Vietnam Veterans Against the War.” He wore jungle fatigues, spoke like a Vietnam veteran and held out a hand of friendship, a kind of Vietnam era VFW. I joined, not knowing they were radicals.

After several VVAW meetings my recruiter said we were needed in a Detroit meeting called Winter Soldier to support members recounting bad experiences in Vietnam, and there would be a free concert.

I rode to Detroit with John Kerry and others in a freezing cold van. While Kerry was interested in atrocities, I hoped to meet pretty women.

In Detroit Kerry pressed me to testify but I told him I didn’t see any atrocities in Vietnam. They needed me for their purpose because I was one of the few present who had been in combat.

During a break, John Kerry and some moderators surrounded me. Kerry said, “I need you to say you saw war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam.” Others said “Come on man, the brothers need you!” and “Don’t you want to help save lives in Vietnam?” Someone whispered in my ear “It’s a long walk back to Baltimore.”

I reluctantly agreed to say something, and Kerry said “OK, we’re going to have a dialogue with you recorded before you go out there. I need you to talk about the beating of civilians and enemy personnel.”

Kerry coached me to “Specify indiscriminate artillery on villages, racism, brutality and rape.” He said he’d help me with specifics.

When the camera came on, Kerry asked “What brings you here to Detroit?” Was he kidding? I felt betrayed, I tried to evade by mumbling how hard that was to answer and I felt a strong desire to leave.

But I didn’t. Following Kerry’s prompting I told false stories, a rambling bunch of generalities sprinkled with references to racism, atrocities, and an organized underground in country, along with some half-truths to please the mob.

When it was over I went on with my life, rejoined the military, and buried VVAW as a dark memory. When I later discovered Kerry had been meeting with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in Paris and repeating their talking points in the US while our boys were still dying, I was sick at having helped him.

I have noted the backlash against veterans who speak out against Kerry now that he wants to be President. Many call it dirty politics. But it makes no difference to me whether Kerry is a Democrat or Republican; this is a matter of keeping faith with my country. Whatever you say about me, I now must tell the truth about Kerry and about myself.

Recently in Washington DC a group of Vietnam vets held a rally. At the last minute I was given a few moments to speak to the crowd of thousands. I nervously stepped up on the stage, gripped the podium with shaking hands and as I confessed to the crowd what I had done long ago I could see anger on their faces. But when I asked them to forgive me, I heard someone shout "You're already forgiven!" I saw aging veterans, wives and their adult children standing in the sun with tears on their faces. There were also smiles. From these people I felt closure, my dark conscience brightened. As I stepped off the stage, many lined up to shake my hand and hug me, and I was overwhelmed.

I failed those I owed the most loyalty long ago. That’s my fault, not John Kerry’s. But Kerry did use me, and he knowingly used lies to denounce a generation of fine American troops.

Kerry played on people’s fears to gain his own political advantage 33 years ago, no matter the danger to our troops. He’s doing the same thing again today.

This time it’s Iraq.



http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpa...040216201143824

"America in Vietnam", Guenter Lewy, Oxford University press, 1978, Chapter 9, Atrocities: Fiction and Fact, pgs. 316 - 322.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132405,00.html
Steven Pitkin in a video taken during the Winter Soldier investigation.



So I had to ask myself. Knowing this information, even though I REALLY want someone with Kerry's view on religion in the white house, can I vote for such a person in a time of war?


Edited to remove images.

Can we get this thread back on track? I see not question in this topic asking if these claims are fact or fiction.

The idea that Senator Kerry's actions post-Vietnam makes him a traitor is subjective and can't really be proven one way or the other. If you feel he is, then you feel he is and that's that. If you feel he is not, or that his post-war actions were heroic then you feel that way and that's that.

To me the entire question is irrelevant to the election. Can anyone here who is over the age of 50 honestly say they are the same person that they were 30 years ago?

However, this topic asks, will these claims, by a respected, decorated Veteran (as well as other sources) make a difference in the election? These claims being fact, false, or opinion are irrelevant to the question of this topic.

You can of course feel free to argue that since these claims are wrong (if you hold that opinion), then they will not effect the election, but this is not the place to debate the validity of the claims themselves. That would be for another topic.

Will they effect the election? Marginally at best. Anyone who felt the actions Senator Kerry took after coming home from Vietnam were wrong, felt that way a long time ago and nothing is going to change that. Several of my family members see it this way. Those that feel they were the correct course for him to take because he was so strongly against the war still see the actions as fact, just not wrong, so the comments will not effect them. Those like me who feel that what a man did 30+ years ago means nothing in an election will still feel that way. So, will the effect the vote? Not likely, they will simply give a sense validation those who feel the same as he does, and marginalize himin the eyes of those who hold the opposite opinion.

Same holds true for all the other ways people are trying to paint this picture.

Lets try to focus on the topic, since that is how we do things here on AD. Anyone who wants to take the time to discuss the truth or fiction of such claims are welcome to start a new thread. That is how things work here.

I will be very glad when the election, and following legal battles end so that we can get back to the sane AD I love so much.

Really? So you can tell me with a straight face, after the evidence given that he is legally not a traitor?

Some people will be persuaded to vote against Kerry, some others will be persuaded to vote for him. No single man's word will turn this election, let's be reasonable.



Haven't seen it. I'm not afraid, as you so bluntly implied, Aquilla. I have no intention of downloading a 42 minute infomercial. I have a bunch of other items on my November 2 ballot that need my attention. A 42 minute commercial is not high on my list of priorities at this point. Answer to this question is the same as above.




Funny, I thought he said war crimes were committed by himself and other soldiers. It's hard to stab someone in the back when you are standing side by side with them...

We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

- Democracy Now!

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.

- Free Republic

Kerry said that things happened in Vietnam that should not have. He never seperated himself from the experience or his fellow soldier. Some may take it that he did, but his use of the words 'we' and 'I' contradict that thought...

I see a man that questioned those in power over others rather than a man that was demeaning his fellow soldiers.

As of this writing, SLATE is counting Iowa as "iffy" for Bush. While Colonel Day has an impressive biography, I think Quarkhead elequently made the case of why military accomplishments is not necessarily a reason to deem a ex-soldier the definitive voice of authority.

Bruce Springsteen is in town tonight with Kerry and Arnold Schwarzenegger tomorrow with Bush. That's nice for the fans, but is that going to convince anyone how to cast their vote? Not. bloody. likely. I doubt at this late date star power matters all that much.

As regards "Stolen Honor" my concern now is about a stolen election rather than a 42-minute smear job.

Stolen Honor is the kind of show you might come across at 2 a.m. as a paid infomercial on a local-access channel and leave on for a few minutes out of sheer fascinated disgust. It's a sleazy little piece of work, a cunning act of libel-by-insinuation that introduces no facts that have not been public information for at least 30 years. The first 20 minutes consist of interviews with Vietnam POWs recounting their torture at the hands of the their Vietcong captors, with only one reference to John Kerry—a still photo of him testifying at the Winter Soldier hearings. Capitalizing on the moral revulsion provoked by these mental images of torture, the film spends the remainder of its 42 minutes trying to transmute that sense of outrage into a primal disgust with John Kerry himself. Its persuasive tactic is essentially one of brainwashing: By juxtaposing the occasional shot of Kerry's face (at the hearings, at an antiwar rally also attended by Jane Fonda) with the gruesome torture stories of surviving Vietnam POWs, the filmmaker hopes to leave the impression that Kerry is responsible for their suffering.

According to the film's fevered imagination, John Kerry must be one of the most powerful men alive. Not only did he single-handedly lengthen the war in Vietnam and cause the torture of POWs, but his "lurid fantasies of butchery" (a direct quote from the narrative voiceover) are apparently the primary reason for the postwar popularity of anti-Vietnam films like Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and Casualties of War. As the film's producer and narrator Carlton Sherwood solemnly intones near the film's end, "Nearly every book or motion picture produced about Vietnam since 1971 echoes the litany of atrocities John Kerry laid at the feet of those who served there." Right—because those things happened. If Kerry's testimony overlaps with popular cultural representations of Vietnam, it's not because Francis Ford Coppola sat down with the senator to storyboard his movie; rather, both Coppola's film and Kerry's testimony tapped into the anguish many Americans felt about our nation's participation in a bloody and pointless war.

Stolen Honor's rhetorical strategy goes something like this: John Kerry claimed that atrocities were committed by some of the 540,000 troops deployed in Vietnam. Therefore, John Kerry must have committed atrocities. The 12 POWs rounded up to tell their stories come off as unwitting pawns of the film's specious logic. These men take Kerry's assertion that war crimes occurred as a personal accusation. Yet strangely, the film also continues to assert that no war crimes ever took place at all. And the veterans' outraged denials that atrocities of any kind ever took place in Vietnam (except, one of the men concedes, as part of that one-off My Lai Massacre thing) only certify this film as a document of the lunatic fringe. Even supporters of Vietnam acknowledge that some war crimes took place during the course of the 10-year conflict.

http://www.slate.com/id/2108458

I ignored Stolen Honor when it appeared in its truncated form on my Sinclair station last Friday. Essentially, for the same reason I ignore Adam Sandler films, the NHL, Jackie Collins novels and reruns of "Will and Grace." It doesn't interest me. I would never say that anyone so inclined should not be able to indulge themselves to their heart's content. But it's like watching Triumph of the Will. If you know what you're watching is pure propaganda, you know what to expect from the jump.

Stolen Honor will only convince those who were already predisposed to vote against Kerry. Just as Fahrenheit 9/11's primary appeal is to those who knew there wasn't a snowball's chance Bush could win their vote.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

I really don't see how this could happen. I in fact expect Iowa to go to Kerry, if it has not already through early voting. This election choice is between Kerry, who was vocal about Vietnam, and Bush who was not vocal about anything back then.

In fact, the impression I'm sure the Iowa voters have about Bush is that he isn't a very good citizen, at least when it comes to Vietnam.



Only the gullible. Hey, these Vietnam vets have been hollering for thirty years about how everyone else lost that war. It's a psychological problem from what I can see. I've known plenty of Vietnam vets, and my brother is one. Just so happens that he was very vocal against that war when he came home in 1970. But then, he had just been divorced and was strung out on drugs -- plenty of problems there. It took a few years for him to straighten out, but it wasn't until the 1990s that he got war bragging rights of his own. Suddenly, he was a hero so it seems.

It continues to be a sore spot for the generations from the early 1960s to early 1970s. For those generations, the minds are made up, have been made up, and will never change. So no influence there. For the subsequent generations . . .

They don't give a hoot. It's more important to these voters what's going on now.

Here's my take on this whole issue...I don't have any problem with Kerry speaking out against atrocities he said he saw committed. In fact, I think it took some courage to do so. However, I do also think there were some ramifications of that action, which Kerry shouldn't mind addressing. So far, he has not. That does bother me, but then again, these are actions committed some 30 years ago, and are placed accordingly on my priority list.

As for the movie, I would have to agree with NT:



The only caveat I might add would be that conversations about the movie might influence some of the undecideds. But that is likely to go both ways, nullifying any real effect.

To quote Aquilla, "For those who are unafraid of the truth about John Kerry and Vietnam, the complete video of Stolen Honor is available here, online, free of charge. For those who are afraid to watch the video, I can only point to the recent DNC ad "Eagle" and ask who is the ostrich....."

I would add....for anyone "unafraid" of the truth about Bush, you can simply look at his record over the last 4 years, less jobs, more costs for health care, more Americans without Health Care, no WMD in Iraq, no Osama bin Laden, the largest terrorist attach ever on Americ soil--should we keep going or is that enough examples of the "truth?"

Let's see, this Col you bring up is a member of the Swit Boaters AND also had a role in Stolen Honor? I wonder which way he is voting???? Maybe to refute that we can call on Max Cleland...or even John McCain who has supported Kerry's military record.

This will have no impact--nobody is talking about the Swift Boaters anymore....that kind of stuff only matters leading up to the election. Once it gets closer and the debates take place, it has no significance at all. Will people in Iowa be affected by Bush's questionnable miliatry service? No. Will they be affected by these accusations from a COl that most people have never heard about before? No.

Come on, get it right.

But hey, sure, let's call up Senator McCain. You might not be pleased with the results.

You do realize we are not talking about John Kerry's military service, but what he did after he left Vietnam, right? John McCain himself has said that anything Kerry did after Vietnam is "fair game."

So, yes, let's call up Senator McCain.

Right, I am sure McCain would agree 100% that Kerry should be termed "the Benedict Arnold of 1971."

Maybe this will help claify McCain's stance on the Swift Boaters, of which your Col is a member. Link

Typical Kerry supporter.

We're talking about Kerry's actions AFTER his service in Vietnam.

We're not talking about his actions DURING his service in Vietnam.

How hard is that? Or are you of the mind that any criticism of Kerry's anti-war actions is an affront to his military service?

McCain himself has said he was subjected to Kerry's testimony being used against him and his fellow POWs whiile in the Hanoi Hilton. As to whether Kerry is a traitor or not, McCain has never said yay or nay to. But he has said that Kerry's anti-war record is "fair game" in the political cycle.

And your little link, says nothing of McCain and Kerry's anti-war record. All it speaks of is Kerry's service.

Keep in mind, George Washington praised Benedict Arnold's military career as well.

Col. Day was there, CJ. At the time Kerry testified before the US Senate on the now discredited Winter Soldier Investigation findings, Col. Day was sitting in a prison cell in North Vietnam. He knows what happened to him and his fellow POWs and that gives him standing to comment about the effect of Kerry's testimony.



Tell me about it, Christopher. Tell me all about how the vets were treated when they came home. Tell me how they were spit on and called "baby-killers" and the sacrifices of their friends and brothers in arms ridiculed by people like Jane Fonda and yes, John Kerry. Tell me all about it, Christopher. I lived it once, I can sure as hell handle hearing all about it again.




No, Col Day has not been a strong supporter of President Bush and it wouldn't surprise me in the least that he would have supported John McCain in 2000. I also don't recall him speaking out at all against Bill Clinton when he was running for office and we all know Clinton's record during Vietnam. So, the fact that Col. Day has made such a strong statement against Kerry really means something. He and most of the vets who are talking about it this time around are not your typical political activists. That they are doing it now is striking to me.

On a personal note, congratulations to your husband for his award. As I have stated here numerous times I've spent the majority of my professional career working with test pilots on a day to day basis and I know the kind of individual it takes to do what they do. They don't hand you the keys to an F-22 unless you're the absolute best of the best. I'm sure you're very proud of your husband, and you should be.

Aquilla, I simply find the way our government treated its soldiers to be worse. You guys should have never been sent there in the first place. I cannot do anything about the way the protesters acted towards the Vets. Find me anywhere where I have ever supported, condoned or furthered such actions.
I also grew up around those who shared your experiences and once again it is WHY SUCH DECISIONS AS IRAQ MAKE ME SO DAMN ANGRY.
While i would never enlist myself I have respect for those that do.
and I firmly believe that our government does NOT share that respect.
I firmly believe politicians will alway take advantage of the fact that guys like you and my brother and Overland Sailor and DTOM and countless others will actually give yourselves to our military and will go to places like Vietnam and Iraq because you believe that it is the right thing to do.
and what you inevitably get is Hamburger hill
Jesus on a Stick Aquilla, explain THAT to me!

Who can make a decision like that?

I think that our soldiers today are being treated much better than you guys were Aquilla, but I also think that it is a result of

1. because of how badly you guys were and have been treated.
2. There are cameras EVERYWHERE, and we the people of this country are WATCHING very closely.

Because we will never let that happen again.
I sure as hell won't.

I don't like kerry but I think he was honestly protesting the war. Is he a self absorbed ego driven fool with a John F Kennedy fetish
Yes

But can you argue you guys were NOT getting shafted by your own government?

I can say I understand you are bitter about your experience in and after Vietnam.
But i would be lying.
I am not you
I did not go through it.
I was barely even aware of being concious in 1970 Aquilla
To me the greater evil is not Kerry but that you got sent there in the first place.

did what Kerry say to congress hurt many Vets.
Yes I beleive it did.
was it used to inflict further pain on American held in prison camps
Yes i beleive it did.
But they were being tortured. anything that could be used to hurt you guys and break you guys would be used.
Should Kerry have said it different
Yes,maybe,no

Aquilla i think what ever would have finally stopped Vietnam should have been used.
i dont know when you were there Aquilla But I for one am glad you are now making DVDs in Cali and posing for pictures in a hawaiian shirt with your daughter.
and other guys are living out there lives as well.

I think Kerry was genuinely trying to help you guys.
He is just a dork and didn't do it well.
as for Fonda, F her.

As for the pain of the Vets of that war.
I can't fix it. Wish i could but I can't and i don't think it can ever be fixed.

I just plan on making sure politicians never get to do it to another generation

Ever.

and by any means necessary.