Click the logo to donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Posted on 08/16/2004 10:18:30 AM PDT by sweetiepiezer
I have a question?
While watching the Kerry-O'Neil debate on the Dick Cavett show yesterday, Kerry stated he had a letter there that they sent to Senator Stennis, requesting to ask that the Senate Armed Services Committee immediately convene public hearings to examine the testimony presented by these veterans, meaning the Vietnam Veterans Against the war.
Kerry's quote from the Cavett show.
"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.
But we're not trying to find war criminals. That's not our purpose. It never has been. I have a letter here which I could read to you which we wrote to Washington D.C. in an effort to try and solve the problem of these war crimes, and we sent it to Senator Stennis, and we said, "On behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, we're writing to ask that the Senate Armed Services Committee immediately convene public hearings to examine the testimony presented by these veterans." May I go on?"
The whole transript is here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186437/posts
Why couldn't the Swifties send a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee to examine the testimony of the Swift Boat Veterans. This way the Swifites would be under oath and the whole country could see the testimony. Our whole future is in jeopordy.
This is borrowed from a fellow freper, sorry forgot your name, it speaks volumes.
"How dare anyone question John Kerry about his service! How dare they ask to see his military records to once and for all answer the nasty critics of his obvious heroism! How dare they ask him to explain how he could have been sent to Cambodia illegally by, presumably, then president-elect Nixon in December of 1968 as he has stated on numerous occasions over the past 30 years when even his shipmates deny it ever happened! How dare anyone ignore the contents of the critics' charges (detailed in the "Unfit For Command" book that you allude to but obviously didn't read) while questioning their motives and funding! How dare anyone believe that a man who would lie about his war-time exploits might just lie about his future intentions and agenda! How dare we resist the urge to just hand over the Presidency to Sen. Kerry without so much as a passing glance at the truth of his claim of valor and courage that he insists qualify him to be commander-in-chief!"
Something has to be done and we have to find out what can be done to get these truths out there and fast. Any ideas?????????????
I believe O'Neill was told that they didn't have room for any additional witnesses.
Question to you combat vets about the term "interdiction fire":
I always thought interdiction fire was done by a weapons system capable of indirect fire, ie. artillery, aircraft, etc., the idea being to deny the enemy the ability to move men & supplies through a given area. If I am right, just how is this done with the weapons that Lt. Kerry had available to him on his Swift Boat? His heaviest weapon was a twin .50 (which is a direct fire weapon) or possible a grenade launcher (rather short range for interdiction fire). Just wondering what he might have meant since Sen. Kerry considered that activity a "war crime" until fairly recently.
Exactly
Exactly. And Bush shouldn't even touch the topic unless asked a direct question in, say, a press conference. Then he should say he does not have any knowledge of where the truth lies, and each voter must make his/her own mind up on it.
Click the logo to donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
A Free Fire zone was Indian Territory, such as War Zone C and D for example. This BS about Free fire zones galls my kybes, if it was enemy controlled, as defined by the RVN Provence Chief and US LNO it was free fire if not you had to ask permission to return fire.
#11 Well said indeed.
HA! HA! HA ...that's good! :-)
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.