"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

You are free to point out any specific errors. I am aware that you
yourself do not read anything, just listen and watch parts of C-SPAN
programs.

Coming from a guy with an imaginary history of demolitions expertise
gained
at Camp Perry, the above is a hoot.


Why don't you bring up the recoiless rifles? You were wrong on that
one too.

Hell, Jack, you did an outstanding job of demonstrating you were clueless
about explosives and demolitions, in spite of that "CIA training" you
alleged yourself to have received. So why bother going into your "recoiless
rifles are great shipboard weapons" crap?


By the way if we are going after Kerry for saying it was a bad war
when are we going to have the trials for Caspar Weinberger, Norman
Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell, all of whom have written books and
testified before Congress on the
Vietnam War and its failures in leadership.

None of the above came home and started claiming that the majority of
their
brethren in arms who saw combat were "war criminals". Recognizing
shortcomings and acting to correct them is one thing--blowing false war
crimes claims out one's bunghole is quite another.


Quote from a Yalie: One student expelled for a prank became an
infantry officer, participated in ferocious combat in 1967-68, and
then was readmitted to Yale where in 1970 he took the author's course
on the history of American foreign relations In 1970. Invited to speak
to the whole class about the war, he said his combat experience could
be summarized In three principles. "If it runs, It is VC [Vietcong-the
Communist enemy], waste it. If It hides, it is VC. Waste it. If It is
dead, it is VC. Count it and wait for your promotion."33
http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/yale.htm

LOL! That is about as good a source as your man Kerry associates himself
with (check out the "Meet the Press" interview from 1971, where Kerry's
fellow "combat vet" who appeared beside him turned out to be lying about his
rank and had never in fact seen any combat). First, note that the author
could not verify the veracity of the quote, nor did he identify where he
obtained it from (footnote 33); secondly, you really should not have quoted
that piece--did you miss the disclaimer at the top?


Sound like an isolated case to you?

Sounds like more unverified BS, which is about what we have come to expect
regarding this subject in general and from you in particular.

Know what the prize was for
killing a "VC" or bringing in his weapon with proof the owner was
dead? A three day pass. Your bunghole, play through.

Uhmmm...you were they guy who has been claiming you were not allowed to come
close to combat, so your source for the above would be...?

Brooks

In article ,
says...


Sounds like more unverified BS, which is about what we have come to expect
regarding this subject in general and from you in particular.

Brooksie, you should take a glance at the Toledo (?) Blade (?)

Nothing we didn't suspect at the time......

Cheers,
dba