Pajamas Media

40 Comments

1. July 14th Link Roundup | THE HOT JOINTS:

[...] Vets 4 Obama suppressing Vietnam atrocities? [...]

Jul 14, 2008 - 3:42 pm 2. jorb:

Sounds like Gard felt he was suffering from “undue command influence” and didn’t honor his oath as a member of the Military or as an officer. I’m sure his appearing with Senator Red, I mean Reid, has helped assuage the loss of honor. Not.

Jul 14, 2008 - 4:24 pm 3. keithacita:

check with president john fitzgerald kerry, he knows all about it.

Jul 14, 2008 - 5:33 pm 4. Winston:

I am not surprised. Hussein Obama’s team of advisers and campaign people are all either ex-terrorists or radical idiots. This guy is no exception. I hope Obama loses in November

Jul 14, 2008 - 7:33 pm 5. ZEITGEIST:

[...] OWENS LOOKS AT CALLS FOR A WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATION — involving an Obama [...]

Jul 14, 2008 - 8:44 pm 6. Elroy Jetson:

Did Lt. Gen Gard ever follow up on cases he felt were especially egregious?
Was there an active effort to seek justice for those Vietnamese who suffered because of an American breakdown in discipline or was the entire process just a lot of paperwork that was tossed into a black hole?
Something is rotten here. We owe it to the innocent victims and those who served with honor in Vietnam to find out why these out of control soldiers were not investigated.
To me this is much bigger than who Obama has on his team.

Jul 14, 2008 - 11:05 pm 7. XBradTC:

If he (Gard) wasn’t the commander, no he wouldn’t have had court-martial authority. But it would be interesting to see what recommendations he made. Did he recommend further investigation? Pursuing court-martial for those allegations substantiated? Did he make a recommendation that no good could come from “picking at the scab” that was just forming over the wound of Vietnam?

Curiously, he says the report went out “over his signature”. It’s either his report, or it ain’t.

Jul 14, 2008 - 11:45 pm 8. Toride Kogusoku:

I find it rather ironic that Kerry claimed such actions occurred and encountered white-heat rage from conservative sources. And now, here is a cover up and there is anger (rage is too strong) that these incidents were not prosecuted. Had they been prosecuted, would those who villified Kerry have claimed that the atrocities were all lies, or would they have supported the prosecutions? Simply asking due to the inconsistencies here.

Jul 15, 2008 - 12:45 am 9. KeithNolan:

The mind reels at the hypocrisy and opportunism being displayed here.

Let me try to explain. When John Kerry’s Winter Soldiers first spoke out about the issue of U.S. war crimes in Vietnam in 1971, they were dragged through the mud by the right-wing (from the Nixon Whitehouse on down to editorial writers, and, eventually, author Guenter Lewy) as a pack of liars and frauds who hadn’t even served in the military, let alone in Vietnam.

When Kerry ran for president in 2004, the whole liars-and-frauds meme regarding the Winter Soldiers was reanimated by the right-wing in order to tar the Democratic candidate. The Swift Vets for “Truth” were most active in this smear campaign, followed closely by Scott Swett, Jugs Burkett, and Sean Hannity over at Fox News.

Bob Owens himself recently took umbrage (at hiw Confederate Yankee website) at Brian DePalma’s factually-based movie (Casualties of War) about a rape-murder committed by members of the 1st Cavalry Division in 1966, arguing that the movie was actually fiction and an insult to the troops.

Even more recently, in the messages following a recent CY article about Colonel Bud Day, Bob Owens’ readers renewed the old right-wing smear that Kerry and the Winter Soldiers were liars in speaking out about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam.

But, now, in order to cast aspersions on a retired general linked to the Obama campaign, Bob Owens is quite willing to discuss the hundreds of war crimes committed by U.S. Army troops in Vietnam, confirmed by the army’s own CID, and subsequently covered up by the powers that be during the 1970s.

Doesn’t that mean that John Kerry and the Winter Soldiers are owed a HUGE apology?

And, please, the cover-up described in this post did not originate with that retired general. The White House and the Department of Defense wanted the whole issue of war crimes to go away after the public-relations debacle that was the Lieutenant Calley court-martial of 1970-71.

Remember the Calley case? Two infantry companies from the 11th Light Infantry Brigade, Americal Division, supervised from above by the task-force commander, the brigade commander, and the division commander, burned down three hamlets (including, most infamously, My Lai 4) on March 16, 1968, in Quang Ngai Province, Republic of Vietnam. In the process, some 500 unarmed Vietnamese were killed by U.S. infantryman, their platoon leaders, and one of their company commanders. (Yes, officers were pulling triggers on women, children, and old people along with their stressed-out nineteen-year-old grunts.)

The army could have court-martialled dozens of officers and men for their role in the My Lai massacre. Death sentences would not have been out of bounds for what happened that day in March of ‘68. Instead of seeing justice done, however, the army pinned the whole mess on one incompetent lieutenant named Calley (who certainly did his share of killing, no doubt), while letting everyone above and below that hapless platoon leader off the hook.

Remember that the American public rallied behind Calley, bombarding the White House with telegrams decrying the lieutenant’s conviction. As a result, President Nixon intervened in Calley’s behalf; in the end, the convincted murderer did a couple years of house arrest, never seeing the inside of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

When the Commander in Chief personally intervenes on behalf of a war criminal found guilty by the army’s own judicial system it’s pretty obvious which way the wind’s blowing.

Thus, the entire military establishment allowed the hundreds of other cases that could have been prosecuted to disappear down a black hole.

You want to blame this now on one general?

Crazy, just crazy. And, like I said (and the thought is echoed above by Toride Kogusoku), doesn’t this mean that the years of right-wing smears against Kerry and the Winter Soldiers were pure B.S.?

Keith Nolan

Jul 15, 2008 - 2:22 am 10. Bob Owens:

Keith,

I asked for your opinion (as a Vietnam War historian) four days ago on the milblog post “Pandora’s Box” that was the basis for this article, before I wrote this post. While I understand why you did not respond, the time to air these concerns and have an impact on shaping this article was over the weekend, before the article went to my editors.

Now?

Just a little late.

Jul 15, 2008 - 4:01 am 11. Rick:

Toride Kogusoku and KeithNolan - you miss the point about Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets. Kerry was/is an opportunist who lied to increase his profile after the war and kick-start his fledgling political career. I notice you don’t really go into Kerry’s claims (like Christmas in Cambodia) or his quotes: “they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”

I very clearly remember the attacks on Kerry and while some of them could honestly be described as one-sided and over the top, most included the acknowledgment that crimes WERE committed in Vietnam and that the scope of them had never been fully investigated. But the point was that Kerry was not involved and never knew anyone else who was. He exaggerated and used the claims (that certainly struck a cord with the anti-war movement in the US) to advance his career.

So let’s recap:
John Kerry: Lied about war crimes
Robert Gard: Did not have “court martial authority”
Swift Boat Vets: Told the truth about Kerry’s lies

Why are you defending folks who lied and attacking ones who told the truth. Lying/exaggerating is no way to expose atrocities. Neither is signing off on a report and doing nothing about it for nearly 40 years until you decide to criticize another Vietnam veteran, saying “If we want to hold people accountable, then let’s stand behind my friend Wes Clark — and hold John McCain accountable for what he’s said.” OK, let’s do that… to Gard.

Jul 15, 2008 - 4:20 am 12. tonto:

” doesn’t this mean that the years of right-wing smears against Kerry and the Winter Soldiers were pure B.S.?”

Really? This article is talking about 203 suspects. I was alive (and aware) of John Kerry back in the 70’s, who used a very wide broad brush in his accusations. And speaking of lying, how come Kerry hasn’t picked up Pickens million bucks yet?

Jul 15, 2008 - 4:41 am 13. Vietnam » 03/29/1973 - America Leaves Vietnam:

[...] Did Vets for Obama Head Shirk His Duty?Did General Robert G. Gard help suppress the investigation of Vietnam-era atrocities? [...]

Jul 15, 2008 - 6:39 am 14. Bugs:

AS far as I can tell, VVAW wasn’t interested in finding and prosecuting individual war criminals. They were using the occurrence of war crimes to condemn the entire U.S. war effort in Vietnam. As tonto said, they painted ALL American soldiers as war criminals or potential war criminals. Nice bit of opportunism at the expense of your comrades in arms. The question is, are ex-VVAW members, John Kerry boosters, and Obamaniacs going to apply the same standards to Gard - who was close to the atrocity issue - as they did to thousands of American service personnel who had nothing to do with atrocities? Or will political expediency, once again, win out over commitment to the truth?

Jul 15, 2008 - 9:00 am 15. skylark:

Interesting that you would cite to Greyhawk’s piece at Mudville Gazette but ignore the comment thread at that piece.

If you had read it (I assume you’re not intentionally “covering it up”), you would know that the military most certainly did NOT have “the legal option to pursue all 203 suspects even after they were discharged.” As Greyhawk himself pointed out, the military may only prosecute “ex-soldiers” who are retired and drawing pay (I include certain reservists per UCMJ). And those “ex-soldiers” could not have been prosecuted by a civilian court under any circumstances.

I look forward to seeing the correction in your piece.

I enjoyed my conversation with Greyhawk, a blogger who seems genuinely interested in the facts.

I invite anyone who’s interested to read that comment thread:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/030528.html

Jul 15, 2008 - 11:12 am 16. Bob Owens:

Interesting that you would cite to Greyhawk’s piece at Mudville Gazette but ignore the comment thread at that piece.

I wrote teh bulk of my post and last read “Pandora’s Box” on July 11. You began commenting on July 12, after I’d read the post at Mudville Gazatte and composed my own. It’s more than a stretch to claim that I “ignored” something that didn’t exist when my article was composed.

Jul 15, 2008 - 11:39 am 17. Douglas Bogle:

Simple, another American in power not doing the right thing. We are loosing or in reality have lost world respect because Americans in power are to sleazy

Go Obama bury us once and for all.

Jul 15, 2008 - 1:17 pm 18. skylark:

To Bob Owens:

Well, it would be a “stretch” if you had posted your piece on the 11th or even the 12th. The fact that you posted it on the 14th makes it more of a reasonable assumption.

But thanks for clearing that up. We both agree that you did not intentionally ignore the thread.

I look forward to seeing your corrections, now that you do have more information.

(Let me know if you’d like more links for your research.)

Jul 15, 2008 - 6:03 pm 19. skylark:

“Empowering a military prosecutor to investigate why senior military officials of their era refused to prosecute substantiated war crimes charges for almost four decades should provide both men with precisely what they desire.”

—————

Well, empowering any sort of investigation might prove embarrassing for a few folks, that’s for sure.

Like maybe the 1973-1975 Secretary of Defense who declined to push for prosecution of substantiated war crimes charges, and who sat on the information for all these years.

Yes indeed, Bush homeland security advisor and McCAIN CAMPAIGN ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR James Schlesinger sure has some ’splainin’ to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html

Not to mention his successor as secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

Not to mention the Secretary of the Army who declined to press charges, Howard Callaway. Possibly he didn’t want to jinx his chances at his next job, as campaign manager for Gerald Ford. Of course Ford knew all about the report anyway, as it also went straight to the White House.

Jul 15, 2008 - 6:28 pm 20. Javelin:

Wow, so the only time anybody here gives an eff about military abuse and atrocities here is when it’s a Demcocrat and Viet Nam? What a bunch of trog bloggers!

Jul 15, 2008 - 6:52 pm 21. Javelin:

So does this mean that what Kerry said back in the 70’s was true?

Jul 15, 2008 - 7:06 pm 22. Javelin:

Rick,
your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your petty vindictiveness, You are a typical right winger, congrats!

Jul 15, 2008 - 7:10 pm 23. KeithNolan:

Mr. Owens, sorry about any communication screw-ups, but when you wrote me, I tried to explain that I’m currently checking out with terminal lung cancer, and don’t have loads of time on my hands to answer correspondence. (I’m too busy cryin’ for myself!)

Sorry that I didn’t respond BEFORE you wrote your piece…. but I would have basically written to you personally what I posted at your blog, anyway.

In any event, as new information comes in, it’s easy to update, rewrite, etc.

To the rest of y’all, it is beyond amusing (or disgusting) that you keep calling Kerry and the Winter Soldiers liars when the evidence from the government’s own archives is overwhelming that U.S. atrocities in Vietnam were a major problem, and, further, that they were covered up by just about everyone in the chain of command.

More later…..

Best,
Keith Nolan

Jul 15, 2008 - 7:40 pm 24. skylark:

Bob Owens wrote:

“While I understand why you did not respond, the time to air these concerns and have an impact on shaping this article was over the weekend, before the article went to my editors.”

And exactly what would you have changed, knowing his opinion?

Jul 15, 2008 - 10:10 pm 25. Wayne R. Brownell:

As a mobilized (but not deployed) Army National Guardsman for the original DS/DS, I had an interest in a decorated Viet Nam vet winning the Democratic nomination for President (Kerry). The repeated thread comments from KeithNolan and Toride Kogusoku obfuscate the primary charges against Kerry’s presidency. His statements to Congress painting the service of all Viet vets in such broad and loaded terms, is what was at the core of my disgust with Kerry. That there were “Winter Soldiers” who had at best padded their military service or worst, out right lied about it, is now known. That unfortuantely, over shadowed the few who did step up and present their statements. Statements, NOT sworn affidavits. Do these lying fools absolve Kerry of due diligence in bringing their stories to the world’s attention? I and a majority of American voters weighed in the balance these and other flaws in Kerry, and the rest, as they say, is history.

We will be arguing/debating the whys and where fores for Kerry’s thunderous presidential collapse for year’s to come. That if you are a liberal Democrat, and as such, by temperament and political philosophy, anti-war/anti-military can not be.

Mr. Nolan, may the God of all give you comfort and peace as you walk your path fighting the cancer.
Wayne Brownell

Jul 16, 2008 - 12:57 am 26. jorb:

Not condoning anything that may or may not have happened,(I didn’t witness any incidents), but does anyone care about prior wars? Say like Korea or WWII? Seems to me there were plenty of stories about this type of thing back then also. Well,at least WWII was “popular”. Just wondering where it begins and ends.

Jul 16, 2008 - 6:30 am 27. Rick:

Javelin, please explain specifically, my “hypocrisy” and “petty vindictiveness”.

I think there were “atrocities” or at least very serious criminal behavior that was known about but never followed up on and punished. I also think these things happen during wars and the only way to minimize them is to confront them and seriously punish those involved. We failed to do that in Vietnam, in part, due to the lies that some vets (Kerry) told when they came home. And, in greater part, due to a military establishment that was reeling from anti-war sentiment. They chose to protect their own… which I understand, but think (clearly) broadened the rift between the establishment and counter-establishment that still exists today.

Does anyone think Kerry spent the Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia on an illegal, secret mission to insert CIA operatives? Does anyone believe this Kerry quote:

“We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those ’swift boats’ that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That’s when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam.”

Everything in this quote is contradicted by everyone that served with Kerry - everyone willing to go on record, that is. I go back to what I said before; the voices of those that saw crimes should be heard… that very likely includes many (most?) of the winter soldiers. But their choice of methods, leaders and associates weakened their case. Maybe they felt they had no choice, it was a bad time in American history, but it does not alter the fact that Kerry lied to further his own goals and Gard kept silent about war crimes… for his own reasons, I won’t speculate. But I reserve the right not to listen to sermons from the man on how we must hold people accountable for their actions and words.

It is ironic that Kerry and Gard are together today, because 37 years ago they were on opposite sides creating this whole mess. Kerry lying/exaggerating from the anti-war side, and Gard centrally involved with the military reaction – protect our own. It’s sad.

Jul 16, 2008 - 7:36 am 28. Bugs:

jorb: It doesn’t as long as parties and candidates can squeeze a drop political capital out of any of these conflicts. People are so blatantly using and abusing the candidates’ veteran status for political purposes that I’m surprised anyone takes the issue seriously anymore.

Men like Schwartzkopf and Powell seem to have retained most of their officer qualities and values over the years. But Kerry, McCain, Murtha and Randy Cunningham have demonstrated one thing: Most Vietnam veterans - and especially the ones currently involved in politics - are NOT the same men they were 40 years ago. I can respect their service - Cunningham was one of my heroes in my younger days. But politically, I’m more interested in how they’ve changed over the years and how they comport themselves today. I’d have to say that most of them have not improved with age. I’d almost rather be represented by someone who never served than by a jaded ex-hero.

Jul 16, 2008 - 8:05 am 29. KeithNolan:

Rick, quick note, but regarding Kerry’s quote about shooting up villages along riverbanks, you can find photos of U.S. sailors burning villages at various Swiftee websites.

In addition, the official history of the small-boat war in the Mekong Delta (BROWN WATER, BLACK BERETS by Tom Cutler) quotes career officers saying the exact same thing Kerry did back in ‘71.

You seem to forget that it was U.S. policy in many units, circa 1965-66, to destroy all hamlets, destroy all food stuff, and slaughter all livestock in areas dominated by the enemy.

In other words, Kerry’s quote is absolutely unexceptional and entirely accurate.

Best,
Keith Nolan
P.S. Thanks for the kind words, Mr. Brownell.

Jul 16, 2008 - 1:58 pm 30. skylark:

Wayne R. Brownell wrote:

That there were “Winter Soldiers” who had at best padded their military service or worst, out right lied about it, is now known.

———————————————–

Actually, that’s a myth perpetuated by those with an agenda. Keith Nolan dispatched it pretty handily at this comment over at Mudville Gazette:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/030520.html
(Keith Nolan 2008-07-08 05:58:48)

Jul 16, 2008 - 8:21 pm 31. skylark:

Rick wrote:

“Does anyone think Kerry spent the Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia on an illegal, secret mission to insert CIA operatives?”

***

No.

He never said he was “on an illegal, secret mission to insert CIA operatives” on Chirstmas Eve 1968. He said he was on a routine patrol at the border.

———————————————-

” Does anyone believe this Kerry quote:

‘We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those ’swift boats’ that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That’s when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam.’

Everything in this quote is contradicted by everyone that served with Kerry - everyone willing to go on record, that is. ”

***

That’s not true. Plenty of guys did go on record, including at least one member of SBVT, William Garlow, in 2001:

~~Several officers, even some under Hoffmann’s command, said the rules then in effect allowed for too much violence. William Garlow says he and his fellow swift-boat commanders were ordered to shoot up villages almost at random. “We burned their hooches and killed their livestock,” he says. Even one of Hoffmann’s senior commanders in Cat Lo says the killing became indiscriminate. “I hated it,” says the former officer, who requested anonymity.~~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/magazine/25KERREY.html?pagewanted=6&ei=5070&en=9672eb6e13f0feb9&ex=1216353600

Jul 16, 2008 - 8:30 pm 32. Rick:

Skylark: You are right and wrong about Cambodia – Kerry claimed to have gone into Cambodia several times but the CIA operation was some time after Christmas that winter: “My good luck hat,” Kerry told the paper. “Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia.” Of the Christmas mission, Kerry said: “Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.” Shot at by Cambodians and Khmer Rouge? He said it was South Vietnamese doing the shooting… because they were, you know, across the border. Kerry now settles for language like he was “between” Vietnam and Cambodia; or that he was very near the border on that night. But it all still goes to the heart of the problem with Kerry’s post-war statements – his exaggerations and self-aggrandizements make people question everything he said. He may very well have carried CIA operatives on OTHER occasions, but due to his penchant for exaggeration… I have doubts.

William Garlow clearly feels it went too far, but as a member of SBVT, also must disagree with Kerry, or else he would not have signed a letter denouncing Kerry’s statements, no? I think there is a big difference between “killing livestock” and “butchering a lot of innocent people”. KeithNolan: I simply disagree that the “butchering” comment is as you say, “absolutely unexceptional and entirely accurate”. Again, had Kerry just said that they were ordered to fire on buildings to draw out the enemy and that in the course of these actions, innocent people were certainly killed, or at least put in harms way… I would respect his statements. But he just can’t help embellishing. I think the rules of engagement that Bob Kerrey talks about in the article Skylark linked are very problematic and did lead to abuse. I still find no evidence that John Kerry did any of what he says he did… that is, “butchering a lot of innocent people”. I don’t doubt he heard stories and maybe talked with direct witnesses, but his testimony over the years has been delivered in the first person and is contradicted by the evidence. You say “Plenty of guys…” but list only one (Garlow, whose statements do not support Kerry’s claims anyways) and one other that refused to go on record – as I acknowledged.

Jul 17, 2008 - 11:43 am 33. KeithNolan:

Hey, Rick, only time for a quick note, but, yes, I do think Kerry’s rhetoric got overheated at times back in ‘71…. but, conversely, organizations like the SBVFT, simply refuse to recall in vivid detail the furies and frustrations involved in fighting a guerrilla enemy like the Viet Cong, and the tough tactics that resulted: tactics like firing up hootches on the slightest pretext, torching entire hamlets, contaminating villagers’ food stuffs with tear-gas, and shooting all their pigs and water buffalos…. and, hell, if a unit was in a bad mood from having taken booby-trap casualties, perhaps shooting a few villagers, too, hating them for not having offered warning….

And then you’ve got the documented massacres (My Lai, My Khe, Son Thang, the Tiger Force rampage, etc.), and the hundreds upon hundreds of smaller war crimes that took place as a result of the frustrations of a guerrilla war, and the U.S. command’s emphasis on body count, body count, body count–and never mind whose body is being counted as long as it’s Vietnamese.

So, yeah, I can’t stand 100% behind EVERY statement Kerry ever made, but, sorry, compared to the white-washers and atrocity-deniers in the SBVFT, he was on the side of the angels.

Best,
Keith

Jul 17, 2008 - 1:22 pm 34. Bozoer Rebbe:

So let’s see, out of about 2 million Americans who served in Vietnam, about 200 have been identified as war criminals, responsible for 320 atrocities. Shameful for Americans, true, but hardly representative. Those 200 criminals represent .01% of Vietnam vets.

People who are welded to a narrative aren’t likely to let the facts get in the way.

In all the alleged American atrocities were there as many innocents killed as during the communist occupation of Hue?

Jul 17, 2008 - 9:22 pm 35. Rick:

KeithNolan, yours is an ends-verses-means argument that basically says that Kerry lied/exaggerated, but that this is OK because it got the message out – and the message was the most important thing. I just vehemently disagree. As Bozoer Rebbe just said, the anti-war movement ended up losing its narrative, quite badly, and ended up painting all Vietnam vets with the same brush. And you continue to miss/ignore my point – these exaggerations have seriously hurt this country’s ability to face up to what actually did happen in Vietnam. A very small percentage of troops did some very bad things in a war that America had no idea how to fight. Every lie told by the rabid branch of the anti-war movement made any real reconciliation harder and harder. And the finger pointing continues to this day…

Jul 18, 2008 - 4:40 am 36. KeithNolan:

Rick, I don’t think we’re that far apart in what we’re saying. It’s simply that I don’t find any lies, and few exaggerations, in Kerry’s ‘71 statements…. while finding multiple, endless lies in the stuff that poured out of Fox News and the Swiftees for “Truth” during Campaign 2004.

In short, I think we have a hard time facing up to what happened in Vietnam not because of the occasional exaggerations from the Kerry camp, but because of the extreme white-washing from the Swiftee side of the argument.

However, that being said, Kerry and the anti-war movement (as suggested above by Rebbe) just never came to grips with the systematic atrocities of the communists in Vietnam, from keeping hamlets in line with systematic assassinations to massacres like those that took place at Hue.

Of course, the ARVN were as bad as the VC in terms of abusing the populace…. and the ROKs (our allies from South Korea) were probably the worst of all.

In comparison to the VC, ARVN, and ROKs, the American troops fought a relatively clean war. Still, it was the New Zealanders and Australians in Vietnam, not the Americans, who were probably the most disciplined, atrocity-free troops of the war.

Anyway, as I say, I don’t think we’re that far apart in our thinking. It’s just that you’re saying the glass is half full, and I’m saying it’s half empty.

Best Wishes,
Keith

Jul 18, 2008 - 7:15 am 37. skylark:

Rick wrote:

~~~Skylark: You are right and wrong about Cambodia – Kerry claimed to have gone into Cambodia several times but the CIA operation was some time after Christmas that winter: “My good luck hat,” Kerry told the paper. “Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia.” Of the Christmas mission, Kerry said: “Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.” Shot at by Cambodians and Khmer Rouge? He said it was South Vietnamese doing the shooting… because they were, you know, across the border. Kerry now settles for language like he was “between” Vietnam and Cambodia; or that he was very near the border on that night.~~~~

***

I think you’re mixing a few things up.

Kerry didn’t claim he was shot at by South Vietnamese across the border. He said they were shot at by drunk South Vietnamese on their way back to Sa Dec. That also is written in the excerpt of his journal that was published. His crewmen also attest to it.

Kerry has always said he was on a patrol at the border that night. His crewmen attest to it. George Elliott affirmed the enemy ambush (not the drunk soldiers shooting) in Kerry’s fitness report. Kerry told the Boston Globe he thought he had crossed into Cambodia during the patrol and/or ambush.

——————————————-

~~~William Garlow clearly feels it went too far, but as a member of SBVT, also must disagree with Kerry, or else he would not have signed a letter denouncing Kerry’s statements, no? I think there is a big difference between “killing livestock” and “butchering a lot of innocent people”. KeithNolan: I simply disagree that the “butchering” comment is as you say, “absolutely unexceptional and entirely accurate”. Again, had Kerry just said that they were ordered to fire on buildings to draw out the enemy and that in the course of these actions, innocent people were certainly killed, or at least put in harms way… I would respect his statements. But he just can’t help embellishing. I think the rules of engagement that Bob Kerrey talks about in the article Skylark linked are very problematic and did lead to abuse. I still find no evidence that John Kerry did any of what he says he did… that is, “butchering a lot of innocent people”. I don’t doubt he heard stories and maybe talked with direct witnesses, but his testimony over the years has been delivered in the first person and is contradicted by the evidence. You say “Plenty of guys…” but list only one (Garlow, whose statements do not support Kerry’s claims anyways) and one other that refused to go on record – as I acknowledged.~~~

You don’t know why Garlow signed that letter, and he has never spoken out about his reasons. I think it is inaccurate to imply that he signed because he disagreed with a particular comment by Kerry.

As you note, another officer besides Garlow did think the killing was indiscriminate and said so on record…the fact that he was not identified does not mean the statement is not on the record.

Your claim was that everything Kerry said in the statement you quoted was contradicted by everyone who has served with Kerry and who has gone on record. I’ve shown you that people have gone on record with accounts that support what he said, even before he was ever a candidate.

More accounts by Swift Boat officers who found Hoffmann’s policies too bloodthirsty?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2975-2004Oct2.html

Note the comment toward the end:

“Douglas Brinkley says he soft-pedaled Hoffmann’s role in the book, but that he is ‘the most egregious example of blatant disregard for civilian casualties and for the lives of his men in the U.S. Navy in Vietnam.’ ”

Maybe Brinkley will make his sources public someday. We do know this: the source of the comment quoted in the book that infuriated Hoffmann so much, the one comparing him to the bloodthirsty Col. Kilgore in “Apocalypse Now,” came from none other than former Swift Boat officer and congressman Jim Kolbe (R, Arizona), speaking for an oral history project of the Naval Archives. I guess that’s “on the record” too.

Jul 19, 2008 - 6:33 pm 38. skylark:

Bozoer Rebbe:

So let’s see, out of about 2 million Americans who served in Vietnam, about 200 have been identified as war criminals, responsible for 320 atrocities. Shameful for Americans, true, but hardly representative. Those 200 criminals represent .01% of Vietnam vets.

————————————————-

Well first, I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that everyone who committed a criminal act in VN is a “war criminal,” and I think that would include the 200 confirmed cases described in the article. On the other hand there were many, many more such cases … reading the Tiger Force stories, Vietnam histories, and court martial records will tell you that.

Jul 19, 2008 - 6:40 pm 39. Bill Bruni:

Now let me get this straight. We were fighting a war, a guerilla war so called against a very crafty folk who liked to hide in the “sea” of people. When you shoot in water at a bad guy, you hit alot of water before you get the bad guy. A dilemma, no doubt, but war is hell and the innocents pay the price. Also, when you are a trigger puller, the switch is off, and you have reverted to that primitive sattribute of man called instinct and survival. My brother who survuved 13 months “in country” said his outfit had a “live and let live attitude when on patrol. So long as a village did shoot at them, they didn’t shoot at the village. If they violated the rule, fire superiority was rapidly established. Its one thing to talk about this stuff we are in the rear with the beer its another thing when you are in the middle of it all.

In 1971 when most of the fighting on the ground was taken over by the Vietnamese, we just wanted to forget about this stuff. There was alot of turmoil in the Services from folks getting RIF’d, to the reconstitution of forces and adjusting to the peacetime environment. And the social bum scoop artists were running rampant with huggy feely stuff, making life more comfy for the troops, the all-volunteer force was in the throes of happening, and whether these 200 were guilty (and I doubt that) wasn’t even on the back burner as far as anyone is concerned. Besides, these 200 and alot of their buddies have to live with what they did, whether they were atrocities or just plain old shoot em up and bomb them actions. So throttle your self-righteousness and quite a few of you sound like you never served so shut your face!!

USMC OLD SALT

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:36 am 40. KeithNolan:

“Shut your face!!”

No problem. Starting with my Marine father, I’ve learned over the years that you can never win arguments with Old Salts, especially guys who think anything is permissible because, well, “war is hell.”

Except guys generally weren’t investigated or court-martialled in Vietnam simply for returning fire in populated areas.

Things had to get a little more wicked than that to bring out the military lawyers.

Cheers,
Nolan

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:19 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: