I suppose the next thing that will happen is that the Dems will attempt to shut the NYT down. Maybe use their last press run for FishWrappers.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 21, 2004 06:27 PM

No one will want to shut down the NYT for this review; here are the last 3 paragraphs of it, which I think sum it all up pretty well:

“The documentary shows Mr. Kerry’s 1971 Senate testimony, in which he famously reported that fellow soldiers had “cut off ears,” among other atrocities. But the filmmakers were not able to dig up more indicting material from homemade movies or news clips from the era. The picture from an antiwar demonstration, where Mr. Kerry stood a few rows behind Ms. Fonda, is blown up portentously, but there are no shots of them together. The only candid shot of Mr. Kerry gathering material for the Winter Soldier hearings shows him solicitously asking a veteran why he felt the need to speak.

Instead, the film shows lesser-known young, long-haired antiwar activists preparing witnesses to testify to war crimes. In the film these men seem to be prompting a fellow veteran to describe a massacre he did not witness. But one of the veterans, Kenneth J. Campbell, a decorated marine who is now a professor at the University of Delaware, recently sued the filmmakers, claiming the film was edited to take out clips in which Mr. Campbell made clear that only soldiers who witnessed the atrocities firsthand would be allowed to testify.

Those kinds of distortions are intended to hurt Mr. Kerry at the polls. Instead, they mainly distract viewers from the real subject of the film: the veterans’ unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect.”

Posted by: Jatsby at October 22, 2004 04:20 AM

Love that SPIN, Jatsby. Speaking from personal experience however, I’m going to have to call you on your support for Senator Kerry.

I’ll let you in on a little known FACT: HE LIED. The VVAW LIED. They made the bulk of their testimony up. It was a bunch of pipe dreams, Jatsby. Not only did they lie, they seriously considered assassinating Congressmen!

Now, I know the Educational System in this country has spent a lot of time revising that divisive period in our history, but I’m here to tell you that the one and only reason that the NYT is giving any truck to this film is because it is BAD NEWS. As you know, that is what the MSM in this country thrives on.

When Kerry stood up at the Democratic Convention and said “Reporting for Duty”, he picked a scab he should have left alone. Those of us that he and his fellow anti-war activists dishonored will not sit quietly by nor be ashamed for our behavior as honorable men doing nothing more than serving when asked to serve.

Justice will be done. Kerry continues to maintain that “he told the truth”. He did not. That he will be disproved is only a matter of time.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 22, 2004 07:37 AM

Cap said,

They made the bulk of their testimony up. It was a bunch of pipe dreams…

I’m curious Cap’n, what percentage of the testimonies were “made up”? You say the “bulk” were false. So 70% of the testimonines were false?

Assuming the falsification rate was about 70%, and that about 140 or so testifed, this means 98 were totally false. Is this correct?
Is there some documentation discrediting each of these 100 or so individual testimonies?

And what of the remaining 42 testimonies?

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at October 22, 2004 10:27 AM

EP: I can’t attest to percentages, but the fact is that following the testimony both the Navy and Army CID tried to get the VVAW to name names and open a formal investigation into the alleged activities. Care to guess how many assisted in the investigation? If you said “none” you’re a winner. Absolutely noone who “testified” about war crimes and attrocities was willing to work with the authorities to formally document, investigate, indict and prosecute the guilty. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: submandave at October 22, 2004 11:40 AM

Absolutely noone who “testified” about war crimes and attrocities was willing to work with the authorities to formally document, investigate, indict and prosecute the guilty.

How does their reluctance to cooperate with any subsequent military investigations automatically invalidate their testimony? Please explain.

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at October 22, 2004 01:09 PM

EP is asking a variant on the angel dancing on a the head of a pin question.

He basically cannot refute the good captain’s post so he finds a nit to pick.

did they make up testimony? Apparently. WAs Kerry in the thick of it—definitely. Is that enough to disqualify him you betcha.

This week Michael Medved had Congressman Adam Smith as a guest. Mr Smith’s apologia for Kerry: he was 29 at the time. There ya go folks, that’s the best the Kerry Kamp can come up with: don’t hold this against me I was 29.

perhaps I’d be more inclined to agree with this, having done some dumb things in my youth, if Kerry didn’t have a track record that demonstrates to me that the basic attitudes that drove his choices at 29 drive his choices now.

Posted by: skip at October 22, 2004 02:37 PM

Skip,

If you assert all (140 or so) of the Winter Soldier investigation testifiers lied or if the “bulk” of them lied (as Cap’n asserts), it should be relatively easy for you (or Cap’n Doc) to present some evidence which backs your claims. Or should I just believe you ‘cuz you say it’s so?

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at October 22, 2004 04:55 PM

Hey, EP!

I would suggest you just start right HERE which is the first Google I came up with. I have no clue what lies in store for you, but having BEEN THERE, I can tell you that Senator Kerry is a LIAR who used ‘testimony’ from men who were not only not in Vietnam, but never in the military.

Far be it for me to keep you from doing your own investigation if you so choose. Of course I didn’t serve WITH Senator Kerry, but there sure is a lot of guys from all political perspectives who did.

Care to have your Christmas Dinner in Cambodia???

Hint. Start with ‘winter soldier investigation’.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 22, 2004 08:52 PM

Geeesh, EP It took me one swing to come up with this:

“Many of the veterans, though assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities. A black Marine who agreed to be interviewed was unable to provide details of the outrages he had described at the hearing, but he called the Vietnam War “one huge atrocity” and “a racist plot.” He admitted that the question of atrocities had not occurred to him while he was in Vietnam, and that he had been assisted in the preparation of his testimony by a member of the Nation of Islam. But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated. Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a “criminal policy.” The VVAW’s use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity. It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.”

Now I ain’t takin’ up any more ThreadSpace with what you can discover for yourself. GoogleOn to your heart’s content. Given what I’ve quoted above, I’d say ‘the bulk’ of the ‘testimony’ was not only false, but MADE UP.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 22, 2004 09:01 PM

..here`s a low res…
http://www.buttondepress.com/BostonManifesto/StolenHonor.htm

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 22, 2004 11:11 PM

Thank you, Rob. It’s getting spread around the Blogosphere after Sinclair apparently caved to the Kerry Liars, errr, Lawyers.

It’s damning.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 22, 2004 11:16 PM

Cap’n,

What you specifically quoted references 5 or so individuals (of the approximately 140).

By some bizarre twist of logic, you extrapolate this to mean the “bulk” (of the 140 or so) testimonies were false.

Furthermore what you quoted was written by Burkett in the book, “Stolen Valor”. Burkett sloppily based his book on the book of historian Guenter Lewy (sorry don’t know the book’s name off-hand) who said this was the final analysis of a supposed naval investigation.

Unfortunately the existence of this report can’t be confirmed:
“Burkett can’t verify the existance of the Naval Investigation report - he says to see Lewy. Lewy said he does not recall if he saw a copy of the naval investigative report or was briefed on its contents.”

“Lewy, in his book, claims an investigation was done by Naval Investigative Service (page 317) and cites as his source: Office of the Director, Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters USMC, Winter Soldier Investigation files. Contacting them regarding this matter has revealed that such an investigation does not, and furthermore did not exist.”

So your basing your beliefs on the shakey/sloppy work of these two authors, one of which, Burkett not coincidentally) is apparently friends with the current president Bush.

Sourced from Wikipedia: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at October 24, 2004 10:30 AM