What part of "Against the War" do the Smearvets not understand?!

[Sparkly]

It all boils down to one thing. All this "he didn't earn his medals" stuff is nonsense they're fabricating because their real gripe doesn't do Kerry damage. What they're really mad about is what they were mad about 33 years ago: Kerry's testimony to the armed services committee.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War was against the WAR, not against other soldiers and veterans. They were protesting the fact that it continued beyond reason (except the reason that Nixon didn't want to be the first president to lose a war); they were protesting the administration, they were protesting the untenable situation the government had put them in in Vietnam; they were NOT out to blame soldiers for being "war criminals!!!"

There is NO way the Smearvets can claim atrocities didn't happen in Vietnam, and no way they can claim Kerry said ALL vets committed those crimes, no way they can claim Kerry and VVAW was out to smear other vets.

THEY are smearing other vets!

John O'Neill was obviously a big supporter of Nixon from the start and Kerry was the opposite. Kerry was receiving media attention and admiration; he had been decorated and reported as ranking unsurpassed among his peers; and a political career seemed inevitable. Tell me jealousy didn't have something to do with it!

Do they really not understand what Kerry was saying in 1971? What is their problem?!! :mad:

[wishlist]

1. Chris Matthews on Hardball brought out how baseless their case is

The guest on Hardball from the anti-Kerry vets never served with Kerry and was an ignoramus who could only spout baseless third hand speculation that didn't stand up under questioning. It was clear that his main problem was Kerry's testimony to Congress.

These RWingers who are still trying to maintain the delusion that there were no atrocities in Vietnam also want everyone to believe that the Abu Ghraib incidents were just goofy pranks by a few.

[bobbieinok]

2. there are a lot of people who believe there were no atrocities in VN

and only a few 'bad apples' are involved in 'abuse'

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. a few 'bad apples'

Yes... exactly... nothing flows uphill.... never has... never will.

"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."
William Blum

[Sparkly]

4. I still don't understand them.

There have been enough people who've discussed what happened that it seems impossible for them not to believe atrocities occurred. The use of "free fire zones" alone is something John O'Neill himself admitted to (on that Dick Cavett show).

If they believe it's only a "few bad apples," is their problem that Kerry said it was widespread? He still didn't say they personally, or *all,* soldiers beheaded people and such.

Something else is motivating these people -- politics, money, jealousy?