86 Comments

1. Katherine:

Well, he does not fall down, doesnít he?

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:39 pm 2. Sandy P:

I just fired off a email to this guy telling him his column was pure bunk:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4948025.html

What Kerry did – and didn’t – say in 1971

Americans can hold honorably different views about what a young John Kerry, veteran of Vietnam, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 about the war. But those views should be based on what Kerry actually said, not on distorted versions of his testimony being peddled by others, including the ironically named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Kerry did not criticize a single veteran or soldier. He did not accuse a single veteran or soldier of a war atrocity, though he did repeat other soldiers’ stories of horror. Kerry’s whole purpose was to appeal, on behalf of veterans and soldiers still in Vietnam, for an end to the war. He said, in effect: Look at what your mistaken war has done to us. He spoke movingly and with great concern for both veterans and those still fighting. Below you will find excerpts of his testimony. The entire record can be read at http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp.

What relevance this entire issue has to a presidential election 33 years later is, frankly, beyond me, but to my mind Kerry’s testimony reflects enormous courage and conviction on the part of a young veteran just home from war….

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:47 pm 3. jdwill:

Possible he won’t apologize, because he thinks he was right. It may be just that simple.

Here is my shorter version of the Cavett debate – June 30, 1971 – I’m posting it because it really frames the larger issue – why America has to confront why it backed away from Vietnam.

O’Neill:

And it is in the spirit of ending that war in a rational manner that I would like to speak today. I think any rational man can see that the Vietnamization program of the president has done more to end this war than all the demonstrations and hate of the last 10 years in this country.

… if we come home from Vietnam leaving our POWs rotting in North Vietnamese jails, that we will leave the heart and soul of this country there also.

… the biggest problem of them all, the big lie by Mr. Kerry and his group, that we were either each individually war criminals or that we were collectively the executioners of a criminal policy

Kerry:

… I really haven’t come back to this country nor have Vietnam Veterans against the War come back to this country to try in any sense or in any form to show bitterness or to tear the country apart or to tear it down.

I think that the attitude of the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace is really one sort of – of my country, right or wrong, which is really on the intellectual level, I think, of saying my mother, drunk or sober.

On the question of Vietnamization, this is something which people can argue about for hours and hours. … Well, a few weeks ago the report came out that 54 naval bases and other bases, all the bases in the Delta, had been overrun in the first three months of 1971, …

What we say is the killing can stop tomorrow, and it can stop if the president of the United States will set a date certain for the withdrawal for all United States combat and advisory troops from South Vietnam

I don’t think that any man comes back to this country to say that he raped … or something for pleasure. I think that he does it at the risk of certain kinds of punishment, … because he believes intensely that people have got to be educated about the devastation of this war.

O’Neill

We certainly, obviously, would never support this country if we felt it were wrong. We just feel we need a rational way out of Vietnam. As far as setting a date, that accomplishes nothing.

I think that, clearly, the biggest question we’re going to have to deal with is the moral question of war crimes.

Kerry:

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.

What we’re looking for is an examination of our policy by people in this country, particularly by the leaders before they take young men who are the objects of that policy and try them rather than examine the policy at the highest level where it was in fact promulgated.

O’Neill:

The Army pursued him (Danny S. Notley) all the way to Minnesota to try and get him to sign a deposition regarding the allegations of war crimes that he made, and he refused to, as have all 50 people that testified there and 150 that testified in Detroit, and so I suggest that if you’re honest, you ought to finally produce the depositions after all of us waiting for two months.

I think further that the justification that Hanoi uses for keeping our POWs is that they were engaged in criminal acts there, and I think that someone who comes out and says exactly the same thing could be doing nothing but serving those purposes, …

Kerry:

They haven’t cited names of individuals involved because they don’t want more Calleys. They don’t want men to enter double jeopardy, … Nobody’s ducking anything.

O’Neill:

You said that before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, same testimony previously cited, “I’m here as one member of a group of a thousand, which is a very much … very … which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit here at this table, they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.”

I’m here, John. I’m a veteran in this country. I’m here to say that’s a lie.

Kerry:

As to this question of who speaks for the majority and all this personal vindictiveness, I really think that that’s not what we’re here to talk about. We’re here to talk about the question of this war and why it is continuing, why …

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:54 pm 4. RogerA:

OT: Roger (namesake of mine)–a suggestion: you keep raising too many interesting points that diffuse our concentration–Slow down, man! I’m still three threads behind!

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:00 pm 5. Terrye:

Sandy P:

I would think that if it were that simple we would not be discussing it today.

John Kerry is the man who brought these charges before the Senate, knowing full well men were still in country. When ask to give evidence of his claims he could not. But the charges remained and to this day remain.

So is he a war criminal or not?

He was 27, not a boy.

This is the problem with the man. Partisan politics aside. He is like smoke. You can not really find any lasting substance.

As for courage, in those days it required more courage to wear a uniform and say I am an American and proud of it.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:13 pm 6. jdwill:

Terrye,

If you are answering about simplicity, you are speaking to my comment. I think there is a larger issue than John Kerry at stake here. My point about Kerry, however, is that he may be simple in the sense that all he has ever cared about is his plan to emulate the other JFK. He may be so tone deaf that he does not even now contemplate the true nature of the Winter Soldier investigation.

Witness the phone call to Brant:

KERRY: “Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?”

BRANT: “You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there.”

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:32 pm 7. ambisinistral:

I first saw the Swift Vet’s site before the Democratic Convention. I didn’t spend a lot of time on it, but what really struck me as odd was the large percentage of people in that unit who had came out against Kerry. You would think that out of a group of three hundred, people’s opinion about virtually anybody in that group would graph out to a bell curve. Some liking, some disliking, and most rather neutral. It was both striking and puzzling not to see that bell curve.

I’ve posted on this site that I was an undecided voter up until I heard Kerry’s Convention speech. While his dwelling on Vietnam struck me as being odd, it was his weak comments against the War of Terror that lost this Liberal Hawk’s vote. Since that speech his words and actions, both in the campaign and in what I’ve read of his life since Vietnam, have greatly increased the unease I feel towards him.

I think I’m beginning to understand the lack of a bell curve in the Swift Vets attitudes towards him. The more I read his antiwar testimony and writtings, the more I realize just how cynical, insulated and self-centered he actually is. I can see from his 1970s arguments how he could think that he was both a war hero and had in fact never insulted his fellow Vietnam Veterans.

The main theme of his New Soldiers argument was not directed towards the Golden Horde of rapists, but rather towards the Jen-jis Kahns in the administration. He was arguing that the Establishment (there’s an ol’ Hippy word for ya) had turned a generation of decent American kids into killing machines. In that first political fight of his career, in his mind the enemy sat in the halls of government and I don’t think he even considered how hateful and slanderous his charges of wide spread and at every level war crimes were.

I don’t think he considered those people at all, and if he did he probably felt he was being compassionate in his understanding of the killing machines he served with. Faced with his political enemies he launched a furious and over the top attack.

Since the Swift Vet’s ad he has been ramping up the same sort of attack. Again he faces the same old Establishment that is still manipulating its killer machines. His honor is impugned, and so he is righteous in the scorched earth tactics of calling the veterans liars and the Bush campaign felons. Read Kerry’s Clealand delivered letter of today. It verges on being a belligerant internet rant. Contrast the tone of it to Bush’s reply.

Yesterday the MSM was all but saying this story was over. Today I saw an angry looking FEc Chairman broadly hinting Kerry’s charges could be applied to his own campaign. It makes no difference. Kerry, in his mind, is on the side of right fighting the good fight. He’ll lie, he’ll bully, he’ll posture, he’ll hint at conspiracies. He seems not to have changed at all.

The most frightning thought — is this the “diplomacy” he promises us?

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:34 pm 8. jdwill:

I’m suprised we haven’t yet seen more background on Kerry’s earlier campaigns. I’m pretty sure he got into a fight over his Vietnam record in more than one. There may be a pattern here – I need time to dig.

He was certainly attacked as a war criminal in his 96 contest with Weld.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:45 pm 9. jdwill:

Also, here is a link for the Boston Globe June 2003 Profile

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/

Here is a Snopes exoneration of the ‘fishy’ medals from Feb 2004

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Too bad it uses ‘Tour of Duty’ as a source.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:53 pm 10. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó Kerry brought those charges knowing full well they were false. In fact, he helped coach some of the “veterans” who spoke at VVAW appearances.

Not one of the 150 charges the VVAW brought was ever confirmed.

NOT ONE.

In fact, the leadership of the VVAW was proven, documented to be lying about their nonexistent military and Nam service ó at least those who faced public scrutiny. Many of them, like Chicago Rood, refused to answer questions about their statements.

Kerry lied. Knowingly and willfully. For his own advancement and no other reason. And he poisoned the lives of two and a half million Americans with his lying.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:17 pm 11. jdwill:

Richard,

How many were disproved? Kerry seems to have 9 lives on the Vietnam question and I would appreciate any links. I have seen plenty that discredits the WSI, but beyond Stolen Valor, what sources are there?

Here’s Gov Welds 1996 campaign manager:

“Late in 1996, Kerry was on the defensive from reports he had accepted free cars and free housing from lobbyists and political supporters. Then Boston Globe columnist David Warsh accused Kerry of committing a war crime while serving in Vietnam. The effect was devastating – for Weld. Kerry denounced the unfounded charge, surrounded by his “band of brothers.” The story had legs for a few days, allowing Kerry to change the subject and stop Weld’s momentum.”

From http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=4696

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:23 pm 12. Cecil Turner:

Sorry, but that “Kerry did not criticize a single veteran or soldier” crap just won’t flush. When someone says: “war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command . . .” he’s accusing everyone there of committing or condoning those acts. And he knew at the time it was nonsense.

Mack Owens’s takedown is probably still the best summary of the “Winter Soldier” affair. The bottom line is that it was a lie, made up of whole cloth, told to a script, with poseurs and liars in place of veteran “witnesses.” Kerry knew it and used it for personal political gain. The pure chutzpah of running on his war record now is frankly astounding.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:33 pm 13. G M Roper:

“For any offense I may have caused–especially to my fellow veterans–I now wish to apologize.”

Any apology that contains “I may have” is bogus from the get-go. An apology, if sincere is about specific behaviors directed at specific people.

Kerry should state “For all of the offense that I caused, to my fellow veterans, to my fellow countrymen, to members of the United States Senate, but mostly to my fellow veterans, I apologize for the lies, the dishonesty and the grandstanding in furtherance of what I saw to be my future, ignoring the men still fighting in Vietnam.”

Now, That might even make me sit up and take notice.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:37 pm 14. E Rey:

The problem with a political candidate apologizing for his past is that it would seem transparently opportunistic. After a lifetime in the public eye, why would Kerry apologize now (or even a year ago)?

No matter how elegantly worded the apology (such as our host’s example above), there are those who will hear: “Gee, I’m sorry I slandered my band of brothers 30 years ago and that I repeated falsehoods as needed throughout my political career since then. Now get over it, and vote for me.”

Besides, a political campaign is not the time for a moral epiphany on the part of the candidate. The country deserves to choose between grown-up, self-actualized adults. Right now, Kerry and Bush are as fully-formed as they are going to get. We can only choose accordingly.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:42 pm 15. Mike:

” I first saw the Swift Vet’s site before the Democratic Convention. I didn’t spend a lot of time on it, but what really struck me as odd was the large percentage of people in that unit who had came out against Kerry. You would think that out of a group of three hundred, people’s opinion about virtually anybody in that group would graph out to a bell curve. Some liking, some disliking, and most rather neutral. It was both striking and puzzling not to see that bell curve.”

ambisinistral, this is a point (one of many unfortunately) that the MSM is working tirelessly to misrepresent. The pro-Kerry media consistently attempts to exaggerate the level of Kerry’s support among the totality of Swift personnel.

In short, the MSM is determinedly trying to make the Swifties who support Kerry dominate this controversy, while ignoring the crucial fact that an overwhelming percentage of Swifties claim he is a fraud.

As an aside, I am absolutely seething over CNN’s coverage of the entire Swift Boat story, particularly Judy Woodruff of late. For those with an interest, have a look at the CNN transcripts from February of her handling of the Bush AWOL accusation, and compare it to her barely contained indignation and contempt for the SBVT. Woodruff’s hypocrisy, blatant partisanship and unethical journalism in general is beyond disgraceful.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:59 pm 16. richard mcenroe:

jdwill ó John Moore has linked on that often in the past; perhaps he’ll do us the courtesy again. Meanwhile, I’ll dig up a link if I can.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:59 pm 17. Mantic:

The question is will an apology by Kerry at this point in time mean anything at all? I don’t think so. It is a day late and a dollar short… to coin a phrase.

Any apologies for his VVAW activities will only be craven political acts and will be questioned for their sincerity and look like a typical Kerry patronizing flip-flop.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:04 pm 18. Sandy P:

Richard,

– And he poisoned the lives of two and a half million Americans with his lying.–

He didn’t poison just them, he poisoned THIS COUNTRY and THE WORLD and we’re still paying for it.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:11 pm 19. jdwill:

This review of ‘Conversations with Americans’ would seem to be a genesis of the WSI. Check out the photo of Lane with Jane Fonda in 1970.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm

Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Neil Sheehan reported on the Vietnam War for the New York Times. Although he became strongly opposed to the war, he condemned Lane’s book in the following review from the New York Times Book Review, December 27, 1970.

A key exchange between Sheehan and Lane shows the thinking of the left:

Mr. Lane did not bother to cross-check any of the stories his interviewers told him with Army or Marine Corps records. I asked him why in a telephone conversation.

“Because I believe the most unreliable source regarding the verification of atrocities is the Defense Department,” he said.

But what about simple and obvious facts like those in the cases of Onan and Schneider which might throw light on the credibility of his witnesses? I asked.

“It’s not relevant,” he said.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:11 pm 20. julie:

LAT poll (which after last summer I would not trust as far as I could spit), has Bush ahead of Kerry 49% to 46%, 3% margin of error.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:16 pm 21. wu-ping:

Roger,

The real question is that when John Kerry wins the Presidency by popular vote and electoral college, will the authors and readers of this blog, lgf, instapundit, misha, michaeltotten be prepared to stand up for our President and support our country? Will Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly support our country?

Or will you continue the sniping, snarking, whinging and whining that keeps bringing our country down to the dirt?

Roger? Are you prepared to support our President, regardless of who wins? Roger?

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:18 pm 22. ordi:

The entire gambit the SBVT?s have used to date has been awesome. I?ve been contemplating the next maneuver of the Swiftees.

Jdwill?s post with portions of the Cavett Debate has prompted me to consider another possibility for their next maneuver. The text mentions the 150 VVAW guys that testified in Detroit plus another 50 Vets that testified some place else. It is possible the Swiftees have contacted some of the VVAW guys that testified in Detroit. It is also possible that, like Roger some have seen the light over the past 35 years.

Wouldn?t it be absolutely delicious to see some of Kerry?s old VVAW Buddies turn traitor on Kerry and show up in the next SBVT TV ad.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:19 pm 23. Syl:

Sandy P

The words Kerry spoke were not parsed by the veterans of the day nor the people of America in the way you read them now.

America reacted to those words by turning against the veterans.

It’s Kerry’s own damn fault that he still doesn’t see this. As ambi implied, if Kerry is too tone deaf to understand his own country, how can he negotiate with another.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:20 pm 24. jdwill:

As to the MSM, Glenn Reynolds puts his finger on it as usual:

Just as who controlled the Senate in 2002 wasn’t the most important thing in the world, who wins the White House in 2004 isn’t either, except perhaps to those involved. But if the institutional press is, as Evan Thomas suggested, capable of delivering a 15% margin to its preferred candidate, enough to decide almost any election, and if they’re willing to go to almost any lengths in delivering that margin, well, then, we’ve got a serious problem. (And we don’t, really, have a democracy.) To me (and to others) that’s a bigger deal than Bush v. Kerry, but it’s certainly illustrated by the Kerry issues of the last few months.

My current view is that four major themes are running:

1. Kerry band of brothers are demonstrating world class payback after reading Tour of Duty – Kerry dissed them here as well.

2. Campaign finance reform and free speech for non-libs is going to have to be resolved

3. The MSM is feeling a breeze

… and most importantly,

4. America is going to have to confront the uneasy truce over Vietnam as its lessons apply to Iraq and the general war on Islamofacism

Obviously, I don’t have all of the wrinkles in this worked out just yet.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:24 pm 25. Syl:

Sandy P

I meant not you, but what you quoted. Didn’t preview. Sorry

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:25 pm 26. Rick Ballard:

jdwill,

How do you disprove the ‘Legend of Sleepy Hollow’?

How do you disprove ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’?

Dispositive proof of non-occurence of events that didn’t happen is difficult. It’s not as if the Winter Soldier “testimony” had dates, map coordinates, unit decriptions and names. This was all “I saw Jack (no I can’t remember his last name) rape three babies and goat in the Mekong Delta in the autumn of ‘69. I mean, I was there man, and I remember it like it was yesterday.” That’s the quality of the Winter Soldier “testimony”. Kinda tough to disprove. I think Richard means that of the few instances when actual dates, times and locations were identified, no reports were found showing units actually in or around the location on the date. Which leads to rebuttal “testimony” of “Well ya’know man, just seeing that shit really screwed me up, so I might have mistaken the date, man, but I was there, man, believe me. Want a hit?

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:36 pm 27. Sandy P:

Terrye, from a certain aspect, it is simple.

He is a communist sympathizer. He deliberately and actively participated in smearing our entire armed forces. Because of this, (& JKF blinking on Cuba) our own hemisphere started turning red in the 80s.

We’re being VietNam’d now by our press, as we were then, but didn’t — and still don’t — realize it.

–… I really haven’t come back to this country nor have Vietnam Veterans against the War come back to this country to try in any sense or in any form to show bitterness or to tear the country apart or to tear it down.–

You don’t join a group which discusses assassinating senators to get your way. And if you do, you report them, not just disassociate yourself. He knew what that group was, that was just one aspect of them. We know they discussed that, kind of makes one wonder what else they discussed.

—WHOA — W is AHEAD in the latest LA TIMES poll, 49/46. — Even tho he hasn’t articulated his 2nd term policies, they think they know. That speech better be a doozy.

Bros. Judd has this:

One of the most exhilarating moments in Lewis Koch’s life came in the summer of 1968. He was a producer for NBC News, based in Chicago, specializing in the anti-war movementóof which he was a sympathizer. Now, at the Democratic National Convention, he was an actor in what he thought was one of its glorious episodes. Cops were beating kids without provocation (LIAR – the Weathermen and others, IIRC, had plans), and with the footage he was putting on the air, Middle America might finally realize that justice rested more with those protesting the war than those so violently defending it.

“I remember my self-satisfaction,” Koch recalls, “and saying to myself, ‘Oh, did you do a terrific job!’ ”

Then came the most traumatic moment in Lewis Koch’s life.

“The phones would ring off the hook. People were furious. . . . Nothing I had intended had gone through. Actually what they saw were clear pictures of these young kids rioting. Chaos in their city.” Next thing he knew, Richard Nixon had swept to presidential victory on the wings of a commercial proclaimingóabove those selfsame picturesóthat “the first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence.”

Now Lew Koch senses dÈj‡ vu all over again in the loose talk among protesters of staging similar scenes at next week’s Republican conventionótalk that by putting the ugliness of the Bush regime on display, protesters thereby might end it. Koch’s frustration is overwhelming. “What the protesters are saying is the same thing as the Weathermen: ‘Bring the war home.’ And you know what happens? You lose the war! They have guns. And they’ll have the judges that Bush will appoint to the Supreme Court in the next four years.”

—

Justice – whatever. I’m beginning to agree w/that sociologist who theorized they knew they could never live up to their greatest generation parents, possibly hated their fathers, so they had to tear everything their parents built down.

And you know why they’re still fighting so hard to hang on? They can’t admit they were wrong. Their utopian policies are wrong. Trillions spent, lives destroyed (look at the blacks after The Deal v. before) cause they feel guilty they had it so good. They never had to work for it, so it’s easy to give it away. I’m a tail-ender. I have a lot of issues w/certain of your group. They have wreaked havoc wherever they went.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:36 pm 28. holdfast:

Judy Woodruff’s husband is a major Dem fundraiser. Nope – no connections there – somebody get me a chart!

Wu Ping – I think that most of the posters on this board care about America and Western Civilization far more than they care about GWB. I think almost everyone here is deeply commited to the misnamed WOT. If Kerry were to vigorously defend this country and the western way of life from Radical Islam, I think that most of Rogers’ peanut gallery, and most Independents, Republicans and disaffected Dems would back him. I know that until Nov 2 I’m pulling, hard, for Bush because I think he’s the better man for the job – but I’m always pulling for victory.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:36 pm 29. Syl:

If there is such a thing as feminine intuition then I’d understand why Glenn Reynolds doesn’t think it makes a difference who wins in Novemeber.

Glenn ain’t got no feminine intuition.

I do. And mine says Kerry is a creep and gawd help our country if he’s elected.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:39 pm 30. Mark Poling:

wu-ping:

For my part, the answer is “yes”. Whoever wins in November is President, period. Does that mean I won’t criticize? Hell no. But then again, I’ve been pretty critical of Bush’s domestic policies.

I wrote about this a few days ago, in regards to a recent inflamatory column by Paul Krugman:

http://www.whatsapundit.com/archives/000140.html

Here are the most pertinant paragraphs:

I’ve said it elsewhere, and I’ll say it here; I want Bush to win, but if Kerry wins I’m going to give the man a chance. I don’t like him, but Kerry isn’t evil incarnate. I don’t trust his policy visions (I frankly think his “nuance” is a substitute for having anything like rational principals) but I do believe he would govern according to what he believes would be what’s best for our country.

This election is not about Good versus Evil. It’s about each of us deciding who we trust more to govern well over the next four years.

Everybody needs to get their “End of the World as We Know It” habits. Kerry isn’t a Manchurian Candidate, captured by evil VC brainwashers during a secret trip to Cambodia. Bush isn’t channeling Adolf. Get. Over. It.

Now, wu-ping, right back atcha. What’s up? Bush wins (even in a squeaker), will you support him?

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:39 pm 31. Rick Ballard:

wu-ping,

Should I be wisked away to an alternate universe where Kerry is president, I can assure you that I will give him the same whole hearted support that President Bush has received from the Democrats. Think a McAuliffe/Moore mind meld. Every minute of every day for the four miserable years of his failed presidency.

How ’bout you. Gotta “God bless President Bush sign” up on your apartment window today?

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:41 pm 32. RogerA:

wu-ping: I assume that you have backed the president even though you may not have supported him–why do I think not. But I will tell you that I will support the winner of the election–I may not agree with his policies–but he will be the commander in chief. That you would even raise that question says a hell of a lot more about you than members of this board–if you are a sentient human being, you could have easily figured out by now that members of this blog do care about the war on terror and islamofacism–But members of this board also have disagreements about a host of other issues. Had you read the piece on gay marriage yesterday, members of this board disagree on social issues.

Your question was absolutely asinine.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:46 pm 33. Sandy P:

wu – we all would support the country – doesn’t mean we support the president.

When Bubba was pres, I asked my dad what he would do if say he did something outstanding and was invited to the WH, would he go?

The answer was yes, because you respect the office.

But that’s the way I was raised. Somehow, looking back on the behavior of certain of the other party, I don’t know if I can say the same for some people on the other side.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:49 pm 34. ambisinistral:

Wu Ping,

I’ve already posted in here that, after banging my head against the wall for five or ten minutes, I will grant Kerry the benefit of the doubt and hope he rises to the challenge.

As an aside, I’m old enough to remember when all President-Elects were granted honeymoon periods when they first took office. The first hint of the dying of that tradition was when I saw an “Impeach Clinton” bumper-sticker before he was even sworn in. To criticize both parties, I was completely disgusted when Gore didn’t concede defeat gracefully after the last election’s drama had run its course.

Bah, I’ll be a cranky old man before long…

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:52 pm 35. RogerA:

Syl–to support your point, JFK lite can’t even negotiate with the President without using Rassman and Cleland–the man has NO interpersonal skills (speaking of which, I would LOVE to see Te-RAY-Zas pre-nup).

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:53 pm 36. RogerA:

meow

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:55 pm 37. Syl:

wu-ping

If Kerry wins I’ll go around the internet dropping off little crying faces.

I’ll put a sticker on my car (which I don’t own but I would if I owned one) that says ‘Don’t blame me, I voted for Bush’.

I’ll put a little tombstone over the TV and never watch again.

What a stupid question.

But…

If Kerry cuts and runs from Iraq before the Iraqi’s are ready all hell will break loose.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:58 pm 38. jdwill:

Rick,

T for true, but I had to ask. I’m collecting what I can.

One more [connect the dots]:

Re: Snopes says photo of Kerry at rally with Fonda is true

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp

The New York Times covered the Valley Forge event in 1970:

Among the speakers at the rally were … Donald Sutherland, the actor; Jane Fonda, the actress; Mark Lane, the civil rights and antiwar lawyer …

Jane Fonda:

We were at a rally for veterans at the same time. I spoke, Donald Sutherland spoke, John Kerry spoke at the end.

Time for me sum up and get to bed.

I think the discussion of what happened in 1971 is pertinent, because if you look closely, many of the same players/ideologies that wanted us out of Vietnam, want us out of Iraq.

Its not just the slander of his band of brothers, its the willingness of the VVAW and others to use any device, any slander to acheive their goal, ie., the Winter Soldier ‘Investigation’.

I want to develop this more, because the stakes are huge. If America backs down again because of self-doubt, egged on by activists with questionable association and dubious honesty, the ‘dialogue’ we are having with Islamofacism could be set back 50 years.

Take a good look at Kerry’s association with Fonda, and her association with Madam Binh?, etal. Read the Kerry testimony and see where he is essentially putting forward some NV talking points regarding the POW’s and potential refugees/reprisals. BTW what happened to all of the POW’s? Did they all come home?

Ask yourself, how would you go about winning against America, with its military might? Would you attempt to sow political discord? Who would you use to do this?

Would the same tactics work today? Were they tried in the runup to May 2003?

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:01 pm 39. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

A few comments…

Anyone who thinks Kerry was brave in his anti-war protests doesn’t understand the times. What Kerry did represented no risk at all. It was possible to get hurt in anti-war protests, but it took hard work, and Kerry certainly needed no bravery.

Likewise, the “young man” bit is no excuse. This guy had a TOP SECRET clearance and nuclear weapoons training (they were carried on his ship). He commanded operation with up to five heavily armed Swift Boats, 30 people, and heavy weapons. This “young man” had killed and ordered killing. This was no kid, but a grown man.

Kerry slandered every Vietnam Veteran including myself. I have the raw transcript of the Senate testimony and I have analyzed it.

There is nothing Kerry could say to expiate his crimes. POWs were tortured as a result of his words. Americans died as a result of the anti-war movement, and Kerry was a major leader and also, unlike many, cynical and lying. If Kerry apologizes, do those lives come back? Do the POWs forget their tortures? Do the vets who couldn’t get jobs ( see Stolen Valor ) suddenly feel better? How about those who committed suicide. Contrary to popular belief, you can’t just say “I’m sorry, mommy” and make everything right.

I would suggest anyone intereted in this issue read Burkette’s Stolen Valor. Burkette wrote the book after discovering that mentioning his Vietnam Vet status brough negative reacftions.

This will probably not be discussed, but Kerry was acting as an agent for the North Vietnamese, speaking for them at times in his Senate testimony, and following their propaganda line in his speeches. Since at that phase of the war, the enemy’s primary strategy involved breaking the US spirit using groups like VVAW. VVAW established liason in Hanoi while Kerry was still giving speeches for them. A subgroup planned killing Senators, at a meeting Kerry attended but “can’t remember” even though that was the meeting where he resigned from VVAW.

In other words, he wasn’t just protesting the war, he was lying many different ways about it, always harmful to the US, soldiers in Vietnam, and veterans. Whatever his motives, he was a malevolent force at the time, doing his best to force the US to lose the war (under terms that did not guarantee POW repatriation, and that would abandon our allies to communist takeover and massacre, as happened later). His activities were to destroy the goal for which 58,000 Americans died.

According to members of the VVAW, and the FBI, Kerry’s motivation was opportunistic – to advance his future career as a politicians (which the VVAW folks were happy with).

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:04 pm 40. Syl:

Roger

Heh. I’d be happy to see Te-Ray-Za’s tax returns. I like her though. Can’t really explain it, but I do.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:07 pm 41. Rick Ballard:

Here is the article on the LAT poll

While I would love to turn a cartwheel or two but – this is the LAT – their polling sucks. This could be a setup poll for a “no bounce” story after the RNC convention. If Gallup comes through with a similiar bump then it would be bankable.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:14 pm 42. jdwill:

John Moore,

Nuclear? USS Gridley? Hadn’t seen this. A source available?

Senate testimone. Check.

A question. Why do some of his crew and some other Swifties stand by him? Is it as black and white as you say?

Speaking NV talking points. Check. But as an agent or as a dupe?

Also, the Boston Globe bio, indicates he was speaking out aginst the war before he left

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:21 pm 43. Mark Poling:

Rick, you’re not suggesting that the news desk at the LA Times might be trying to — gasp! — influence the election!

My innocence has been shattered!

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:26 pm 44. Sandy P:

We “knew/suspected” what Bubba wasafter the interview and the 60s boomers didn’t care, voted for him anyway, he symbolizes them completely.

With Kerry, however, we have testimony and 30 years of wreckage. Stakes are too high to make the same mistake.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:26 pm 45. Charlie (Colorado):

Roger? Are you prepared to support our President, regardless of who wins? Roger?

Wu-ping? Are you?

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:27 pm 46. insatty:

I was in 6th, 7th, and 8th grades with the son of the first Vietnam POW to return after the war ended. His return was famously photographed when his wife and kids ran toward him on the airport tarmac. The Vietcong mercilessly tortured the Colonel for not admitting to the war crimes that Kerry blamed him and the entire establishment for. Kerry flew to Paris to meet with VC without permission and against the UCMJ. This independent voter who voted for Bush but had doubts about his domestic-spending habits has no problem with the SBVTs holding Kerry accountable for his post-war conduct.

Bush should not have to answer for the SBVTs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights, just as Kerry never has to answer for the blatant lies of Move-on.org and Michael Moore. The American voter will settle this dispute with the information provided. It’s shameful that the partisan MSM doesn’t do its job to better inform the voter rather than hype its preferred candidate.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:36 pm 47. ordi:

It has been three weeks since we started discussing Kerry’s Vietnam preformance. Can we now offically call it

“Kerry’s Vietnam Quagmire”?

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:38 pm 48. cubanbob:

John F Kerry is a traitor. There is polite way of saying it and there is no getting around it. Aiding and abetting the enemy in wartime is treason. His actions after he returned from Vietnam are inexcusable and are beyond the pale for a man who is a candidate for President of the United States.

The man is unfit to be commander-in-chief. Clinton for all of his lies and other transgressions at least had the decency not to aid the enemy while the country was at war. He finagled a draft deferment but he did not openly consort with groups that where actively involved with foreign (Soviet communist and Vietnamese communist)front groups.

John F. Kerry a United States Navy officer ( in the inactive reserve but a naval officer all the same)did.

Unlike McGovern in 1972, a man while completely wrongheaded but nevertheless honorable and decent, John F. Kerry is neither honorable or decent.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:55 pm 49. Sandy P:

OT for here but I think the other thread is dead, this is by Ted Olsen in Christianity today:

No one denies that Citizens for the Protection of Marriage has enough signatures to put a state constitutional amendment on Michigan’s November 2 ballot. The organization needed around 317,700 signatures, but got 480,000 of them.

But yesterday, the four-member Michigan Board of State Canvassers deadlocked, thus blocking the amendment from appearing on the ballot.

“Democratic Canvasser Doyle O’Connor said the board should not place an amendment before voters that would be ‘patently unlawful’ and certain to be struck down by the courts if approved,” the Detroit Free Press reports. “O’Connor sided with opponents of the marriage proposal who claim it would nullify existing benefits for unmarried partners offered by universities, local governments and private corporations, in addition to restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. To do so, he said, would violate other constitutional protections and ‘could never be enforced. We know the courts would set it aside.’”

Huh. A constitutional amendment would be unlawful? That’s odd. I wonder what other constitutional clauses are unlawful. Ooh! Maybe the whole separation of powers thing is illegal! Maybe Article II Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution is illegal! Here’s what it says, after explaining how many signatures a petition to amend the constitution requires:

Any amendment proposed by such petition shall be submitted, not less than 120 days after it was filed, to the electors at the next general election. Such proposed amendment, existing provisions of the constitution which would be altered or abrogated thereby, and the question as it shall appear on the ballot shall be published in full as provided by law.

Huh. Nothing in there about the Board of State Canvassers needing to prophesy about what the courts might say.

—

Who died and left him boss?

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:59 pm 50. Sandy P:

Also via Bros. Judd: Oh, brother!

“I called the media. . . . I said, ‘If I take some crippled veterans down to the White House and we chain ourselves to the gates, will we get coverage?’ ‘Oh, yes, we will cover that.’ ”

–John Kerry, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 22, 1971

“Kerry is sending to Crawford former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a frequent companion of Kerry’s on the campaign trail and a fellow Vietnam War veteran who lost three limbs during the war. Cleland . . . will try to deliver a letter protesting the [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] ads to [President] Bush at his heavily guarded ranch, Kerry aides said.”

–Reuters Aug. 25, 2004

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:01 pm 51. sammy small:

Here’s another little interesting bit of news about which “Brothers” Kerry feels closest to.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3782

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:02 pm 52. Sandy P:

Good grief, even from Slate, also via Bros. Judd:

When my boyfriend and I heard that John Kerry was slated to be the guest on last night’s Daily Show, we all but raced to the TiVo to set it on record. (Not that we ever miss The Daily Show anyway, but this would be one worth keeping.) What a “get” for Jon Stewart, the court jester of the 2004 election! And finally Kerry would have the chance to step down from the campaign stump and show people who are desperate for a reason to vote for him what he’s really made of: his passion, his conviction, his much-vaunted (at least by his wife) sense of humor. Except, as Jon Stewart has been known to say: Eh, not so much.

From the moment the senator appeared and sat down on the gray sofa where, just last week, Bill Clinton basked in the audience’s applause like a cat lapping up cream, Kerry’s charisma was less than zero: It was negative. He was a charm vacuum, forced to actually borrow mojo from audience members. He was a dessicated husk, a tin man who really didn’t have a heart. His lack of vibrancy, his utter dearth of sex appeal made Al Gore look like Charo.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:04 pm 53. mwalls:

To jdwill:

USS Gridley carried 2 nuke capable weapon systems:

a) Terrier surface-air missles (if using BT-3A missle with the 1kt warhead – also useful for surface action).

b) Asroc (Torp or nuclear depth bomb).

At least that’s what I get after a few minutes with Google.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:18 pm 54. Sandy P:

And now back to the stuff that’s really important:

Explosives found in van

MONTREALóPolice found a large stash of weapons and explosives yesterday after an investigation of a suspicious minivan tied up traffic through downtown streets for several hours.

Don’t know who, but someone phoned in a tip.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:21 pm 55. Fresh Air:

Sandy P–

Kerry…made Al Gore look like Charo

LOL.

I can see Al belly dancing and singing “Coo-coo-curr-ahh-cha!” Come to think of it, isn’t that what he was doing at the Democratic National Convention a few years back?

Kerry was that bad? Wow. Who’d have thunk we’d long for the charm and magnetic personality of Michael Dukakis?

P.S. Did you notice the DNC’ers in Chicago changed their shirts from red to blue? I think they finally figured out the subliminal message they were sending. I guess no one on the Kerry marketing team bothered to take an entry-level advertising course.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:27 pm 56. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Regarding nuclear weapons – it’s already been answered. In those days essentially all US combat ships carried nuclear weapons. The patrol bomber I flew in carried nuclear depth charges of all things (could be set for air burst).

Before ships went to Yankee Station (the Tonkin Gulf operational area), the stopped at Subic Bay and got rid of their nuclear warheads.

There was a story I heard from two widely varying sources decades apart that at one point a spy was present and tried to arrange for the ships to go out with nuclear warheads, to cause an incident.

A question. Why do some of his crew and some other Swifties stand by him? Is it as black and white as you say?

Remember there are two controversies – the war and the anti-war. I don’t know why some of his crew stands by him. I would guess he was able to convince them that his post-war activities weren’t as bad as they really were. They may not even know the details.

Nothing is black and white. There were plenty of people concerned about the war. But Kerry’s testimony is the best example I have seen of communist propaganda since the days I used to monitor Radio Moscow and Radio Havana. It’s so good that the Vietnamese used it just two months ago!

Speaking NV talking points. Check. But as an agent or as a dupe?

Well, I would say “agent of influence.” A person who is used by intelligence officers to influence the adversary. Dupe? If so, he’s an idiot and shouldn’t be president. Conscious? Then he’s a traitor and shouldn’t be president. Personally, I lend towards the latter. After all, he went and talked to the enemy. It is notable that he didn’t talk to the South Vietnamese. Could there be a little bias there?

Also, the Boston Globe bio, indicates he was speaking out aginst the war before he left

The Boston Globe bio also says he got an honorable discharge in 1970. He didn’t – he got one in 1978. The Boston Globe is pathetic on this.

He did make anti-war noises before he left. After he came back, he did very little in that area for awhile, and then he joined the VVAWW, a very radical group after talking to the enemy.

The point that is black and white is that he spread treasonous propaganda far and wide. He lied about many things. He turned on those of us who went to Vietnam. He turned on his nation. He used communist talking points when they added nothing to his speech. His picture is hanging in the room for those who helped defeat the US, at the museum in Saigon.

This man should not be president. He went too far over the line. It wasn’t useul indiscretion. He wasn’t a dupe. He damaged his country with allegations that carry through to this day. He directly harmed many honorable veterans by the image he created of veterans.

If he is elected, his statements are vindicated. That would be a horrible event.

Link…

Posted by: jdwill

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:51 pm 57. devildog:

Military history of the last few presidents…

Theodore Roosevelt–Colonel, 1st U.S. Volunteers Calvary Regiment (Rough Riders), 1898

William H. Taft–None

Woodrow Wilson–None

Warren G. Harding–None

Calvin Coolidge–None

Herbert Hoover–None

Franklin D. Roosevelt–None

Harry S. Truman–Captain, Missouri National Guard, Active 1918-1919

Dwight D. Eisenhower–General, U.S. Army, Active 1915-1951

John F. Kennedy–Lieutenant J.G., U.S. Naval Reserve, Active 1941-1945

Lyndon B. Johnson–Lt. Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve, 1941-1942

Richard M. Nixon–Lt. Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve, Active 1942-1946

Gerald R. Ford–Lt. Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve, Active 1942-1946

James E. Carter–Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy, Active 1946-1953

Ronald W. Reagan–Captain, U.S. Army Air Corps, Active 1942-1945

George H. W. Bush–Lieutenant, U.S. Naval Reserve, Active 1943-1945

William J. Clinton–None

George W. Bush–1st Lieutenant, Texas Air National Guard, 1968-1973

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:26 pm 58. jdwill:

Well, I was on an ARADCOM site in SF, CA where we had nukes for air defence 70-72, and I knew they had artillery in Germany, so I guess it makes sense. I’m reading American Soldier, and Tommy Franks talks about being heavily outnumbered in both Germany and Korea. I knew they were supposed to be careful about having them near Vietnam.

I don’t really count LBJ as military service, but it is interesting to see what looks like a shift – possibly due to our entering the world stage as a power. Maybe we felt we needed military experience in the WH.

This article may have some errors, but check out the punditocracy’s military record. Not.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/articles/sidebyside-military.html

The Boston Globe article is OK if you adjust and listen for the spaces where something is missing. A good story linked by Instapundit about how Russians read the news that eerily fits the NYTimes

They often denounced ”anti-Soviet lies.” These lies had never been reported by them. Nor were they lies. And their exposure was the first that readers had been told of them.

The main point I am chasing is just what the level of state sponsored agitprop was in the US. Not just during Vietnam, but at other times. From an economy point of view, it makes a lot of sense for some foreign actor to infiltrate and try to turn certain people that can be used to influence American policy. Obviously this goes on all the time as lobbying, but at some point it crosses a line. I think this is what happened during Vietnam, and I think it was tried in the runup to May 2003.

Aug 26, 2004 - 4:00 am 59. M. Simon:

My take on Kerry’s ability to tell the truth, his Navy Reserve service, his post war service:

There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 26, 2004 - 4:27 am 60. Charlie (Colorado):

There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

Okay, now, this line made me laugh.

I mean, credit where credit is due.

Aug 26, 2004 - 5:29 am 61. richard mcenroe:

“Kerry is sending to Crawford former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a frequent companion of Kerry’s on the campaign trail and a fellow Vietnam War veteran who lost three limbs during the war. Cleland . . . will try to deliver a letter protesting the [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] ads to [President] Bush at his heavily guarded ranch, Kerry aides said.”

So when is this man going to resign:

Neil Reiff is listed as the contact person for MoveOn.org’s 527 organization, as can be seen on the actual form submitted by MoveOn.org to the IRS here (PDF).

But Mr. Reiff seems to have another job. According to his firm’s website, he’s also the Deputy General Counsel for the Democratic National Committee:

From June, 1993 until May, 1998, Mr. Reiff served as Deputy General Counsel of the Democratic National Committee, and will retain this title in his new firm. In this capacity, Mr. Reiff has been responsible for assisting the DNC General Counsel in all legal matters affecting the national party. Mr. Reiff’s major field of expertise is federal and state campaign finance laws. In that regard, Mr. Reiff advises and represents the DNC in all matters before the Federal Election Commission and state election agencies.

Aug 26, 2004 - 7:15 am 62. M. Simon:

Charlie (Colorado),

A friend who lurks and watches my stuff said it was my best yet. I’ve decide to push it for the next few days.

And thanks for the kudos. I’ll know it has succeeded when people start quoting it without knowing the origin.

i.e. spread it around!!!!

Simon

–==–

There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

The Ads: Video links

Aug 26, 2004 - 7:22 am 63. richard mcenroe:

And when will THESE guys resign? Courtesy of N.Z. Bear

Aug 26, 2004 - 7:40 am 64. Sandy P:

Via Crooow Blog:

A top foreign policy advisor to Sen. John F. Kerry on Tuesday retracted a comment that had been cited by President Bush and his supporters to claim that Kerry backed the decision to invade Iraq.

In a statement to The Times, James P. Rubin said he was wrong when he recently said that as president, Kerry “in all probability” would also have invaded Iraq if weapons inspections broke down and the United Nations explicitly authorized war.

“I never should have said the phrase ‘in all probability’ Kerry would have launched a military attack because that’s not Kerry’s position and he’s never said it,” Rubin said in the statement.

—

Another one down, Tano.

Aug 26, 2004 - 9:59 am 65. Knucklehead:

Not only is Kerry’s campaign unable to knock off any of the charges against his Vietnam record and claims, but “new” ones are emerging.

If any of y’all recall Kerry’s answers to some questionaire sent out by Humane 2004 to the candidates, he answered a question regarding pets who have made an impact on his life by telling the story of VC The Wonderdog who got blown off his boat when a mine exploded under it and landed, unharmed, on another boat and was returned to Kerry and his crew.

Well, Hugh Hewitt (y’all don’t need no steenking leenk!) is having a grand ol’ time with the VC The Wonderdog story. It seems somebody, somewhere, finally had a “wait a second” moment and said, “What mine exploding under his boat, when, did Swiftboats keep dogs aboard as pets, anybody remember this dog?”

Can we finally put a fork in Kerry’s campaign the day he has to retract his VC The Wonderdog answer to a simple Humane 2004 questionaraire? Or might this allow him his Checkers moment of sweating for the camera?

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating, what a freakin’ loon Kerry is.

Aug 26, 2004 - 10:45 am 66. Pat Curley:

Kerry’s just plain tone deaf on this issue, and it’s going to cost him. I don’t think he can apologize now; back in May when he was on Meet the Press was the time and Kerry refused. It will be interesting to see how the media cover the “Kerry Lied” protest on September 12th.

Aug 26, 2004 - 11:00 am 67. Southpaw:

From Roger’s Corner Link:

“The atrocities were isolated incidents, and they were punished by every level of command at the time and before it became trendy for the media to sensationalize the crimes. They are matters of record because the perpetrators were court martialed, and you can read about them in the court martial reports.”

While I’m sure this is true from this man’s experience, it is also just as true that horrible atrocities of the type Kerry described also happened and went unreported or were covered up. Since My Lai is the example everyone cites, it’s crucial to remember that it took a year and the conscience of Ron Ridenhour writing letter after letter to congressional and military officials for it to be investigated. It’s also depressing to remember that for one of the worst crimes committed by members of the US military, only Lt. Calley was convicted, receiving a life sentence reduced to 10 years and then paroled in 1975 after 3 1/2 years of house arrest. As it was wrong for John Kerry to smear every Vietnam vet as a war criminal, it is also unjust to forget or whitewash history.

Aug 26, 2004 - 11:31 am 68. M. Simon:

Atrocities.

Southpaw. Remember any post US withdrawal?

Or say how were the communists when it came to atrocities?

–==–

There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

The Ads: Video links

Aug 26, 2004 - 11:53 am 69. Southpaw:

M. Simon

Yes, there were awful communist atrocities pre and post US withdrawl, but crimes others are responsible for do not excuse ours.

Aug 26, 2004 - 12:19 pm 70. Roberts:

Sandy, pretty hilarious that not only can we not figure out Kerry’s latest flip-flop but Kerry’s spokesman can’t figure it out either.

Aug 26, 2004 - 1:07 pm 71. Sun-Tzu:

Southpaw:

I saw this with regards to Israel, and I think it applies here.

Is every criticism of Israel somehow anti-Semitic? Of course not. It is not criticism of Israel per se that is anti-Semitic, it is criticism of Israel alone, be it for actions commonly undertaken by all nations, or for its actions when others commit worse ones, that effectively single out Israel as somehow unique in the annals of evil, atrocity, nastiness, etc., that makes one’s comments go from anti-Israeli, to anti-Semitic.

The same applies, I think, to the issue of American atrocities in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Were there atrocities committed by the US military in Vietnam? Yes, there were. There were also atrocities committed in the American Civil War (such as during Sherman’s march through Georgia), the Second World War (read E.B. Sledge’s “With the Old Breed”), in Korea, and in Vietnam. They’ve occurred at Abu Ghraib in the most recent war.

BUT, first, were these policy? I think any honest reading of the history would say “No.”

Were they widespread, such as German brutality towards Slavs, Jews, gypsies, etc.? Or Japanese behavior towards Allied POWs and civilians? Or, for that matter, North Vietnamese and North Korean activities towards their foes? Did they compare, as one testimony to Congress said, to the activities of Ghenghis Khan? Again, I think any honest reading of the history would say “No.” If they did, why would so many of the victims eventually want to come to the United States (i.e., the boat people)??

Were they comparable to the actions of the enemy in that same war? Look at the number of people executed in Hue by the Communists when they took the city. Or the number of civil servants (incl. teachers, administrators, etc.) in cities, towns, hamlets, taken by VC forces.

What was the reaction of higher levels to reports of atrocities? Yes, there were cover-ups. Much as there are in police forces or city governments. But was this widespread? I suspect the answer is, again, no, but here, I don’t know. I would suspect, however, if one were to compare the experiences of LT Calley and Serpico, that it’d probably be close.

So, Southpaw, on the one hand, yes, ideally, even one atrocity is one too many, and the perpetrators should be found and punished. That others committed atrocities, and did nothing about them, condoned and even promoted them, does not excuse failures on our part.

But in the real world of live people and nation-states, I think that such atrocities as DO occur should and need to be placed in context. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are not angels. If they were, they’d be piss-poor troops. But neither are they SS sturmtruppen or riders of the Khanate.

Aug 26, 2004 - 1:18 pm 72. Southpaw:

Sun-Tzu

I agree with almost everything you’ve written. I would only add that while it is important to place atrocities for which we are responsible in context, it is also important not to cross the line into rationalization. I don’t believe that those who serve and protect should be angels, nor do I consider murder, mutilation, and torture of non-combatants to be acceptable tactics for our troops.

Aug 26, 2004 - 1:55 pm 73. Sun-Tzu:

southpaw:

The problem with your response, of course, is definitions.

Frex, is a “free-fire zone” tantamount to murder? Is strategic bombing of cities? Was hitting an air defense bunker that happened to have civilians inside it tantamount to a war crime?

In an insurgency, who is a non-combatant? If I capture a 14 year old w/ a gun, is he a child? Or a combatant?

I think one of the observations from “Breaker Morant” is most apropos here. To attempt to apply civilian standards of morality to wartime is futile. Worse, it is often a travesty.

Does that mean outright murder of civilians (who are identified as such), rape, robbery, etc., is acceptable? No. Period.

But consider this: This very point is also the reason why we should not necessarily treat insurgents and guerillas as subject to the Geneva Convention (to which they are not automatically entitled).

Why? Because operating under the Rules of War puts one at a tactical/operational disadvantage. To allow an enemy to operate with such an advantage (e.g., firing from crowds of actual civilians), yet suffer no consequences when captured, is to essentially give an opponent free rein to violate the very Laws of War that are supposed to prevent tragedies and forestall atrocities.

Think about that, the next time the Left screams about Gitmo and why all enemy prisoners should benefit from the Geneva Convention.

Aug 26, 2004 - 2:12 pm 74. Southpaw:

I’m specifically referring to things like My Lai or the Tiger Force atrocities uncovered last year by the Toledo Blade:

“…In June, an elderly man in black robes and believed to be a Buddhist monk was shot to death after he complained to soldiers about the treatment of villagers. A grenade was placed on his body to disguise him as an enemy soldier, platoon members told investigators.

That same month, Ybarra shot and killed a 15-year-old boy near the village of Duc Pho, reports state. He later told soldiers he shot the youth because he wanted the teenager’s tennis shoes.

The shoes didn’t fit, but Ybarra ended up carrying out what became a ritual among platoon members: He cut off the teenager’s ears and placed them in a ration bag, Specialist Carpenter told investigators.

During the Army’s investigation of Tiger Force, 27 soldiers said the severing of ears from dead Vietnamese became an accepted practice. One reason: to scare the Vietnamese.

Platoon members strung the ears on shoe laces to wear around their necks, reports state.

Former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators: “There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears.”

Records show soldiers began another gruesome practice: Kicking out the teeth of dead civilians for their gold fillings…

A 13-year-old girl’s throat was slashed after she was sexually assaulted, and a young mother was shot to death after soldiers torched her hut.

An unarmed teenager was shot in the back after a platoon sergeant ordered the youth to leave a village, and a baby was decapitated so that a soldier could remove a necklace.

During the Army’s investigation, former Pvt. Joseph Evans – another Tiger Force soldier – refused to be interrogated. But in a recent interview, he said many people who were running from soldiers during that period were not a threat to troops.

“They were just running because they were afraid. They were in fear. We killed a lot of people who shouldn’t have been killed.”

Such crimes are ignored at the expense of our humanity.

Aug 26, 2004 - 2:40 pm 75. Charlie (Colorado):

Southpaw, you dolt, no one is claiming that those things were all right.

But then, Kerry wasn’t saying “atrocities happened and must be punished”. He was saying “atrocities happened and were the policy of the United States, up and down the chain of command.”

Based, by the way, on the perjurious testimony of the (now utterly discredited) “Winter Soldier” “veterans”.

I took it personally back then when I was called “baby killer” and spat upon (in my Jr ROTC uniform with its blue lapels) and I take the implication that atrocities were the norm rather personally today.

Aug 26, 2004 - 2:51 pm 76. penwil:

My husband was a Marine lieutenant in some of the worst of the fighting in Vietnam during 1968 -69. I asked him about the ears thing once years ago, around the time Kerry was giving his Winter Soldier testimony and all the accusations of those sorts of attrocities were being flung about. He told me he never saw a single severed ear the whole year he was in Vietnam.

Recently, after I’d read Unfit for Command, I asked him if he had ever killed animals or burned hootches like Kerry apparently did at least once during his brief four months over there. He said the only living things they shot at were the NVA, and where he was it was too dangerous most of the time to even light a fire to dry out their socks, which is why his feet are still scarred to this day from the jungle rot he suffered from while there.

He was however spat upon and called “baby killer” at the San Francisco airport when he came home in 1969. He likes to tell the story of how one of the older, grizzled sergeants who’d been on the plane with him, crooked his finger at a particularly obnoxioius ranting hippy and said, “C’mere, baby.”

Aug 26, 2004 - 3:04 pm 77. penwil:

And by the way, my husband earned both a silver star and a purple heart while serving there. I know a little of how he came to be wounded–he was hit in the head from shrapnel from an RPG and spent a month in the hospital. He is deaf in one ear from that wound, and his radio operator, who was standning next to him at the time was killed.

I have no idea, however, what he did to earn the silver star. Unlike Kerry, he has never felt the need to brag on it.

Aug 26, 2004 - 3:09 pm 78. IcePilot:

Roger,

1. The Blogosphere and Talk Radio have forced the MSM to report (even if unfairly) on the story told by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.

2. The flood of contributions to the SBVT’s long ago (10 days?) passed and now dwarfs the original $200,000 provided by Texan Bob Perry.

3. The general consensus is that Vietnam veterans are reluctant to even discuss Vietnam, much less stand up, testify and suffer the grim-faced glare of the MSM.

4. Recent polling indicates that the post-Democrat convention status of a slight-Kerry-lead with a pro-Kerry trend has slowly but surely reversed, to a slight-Bush-lead and a pro-Bush trend.

5. Kerry will lose.

Why? This is a Vietnam war that America will win.

When history judges the events of 2004, Vietnam veterans, Vietnam era veterans, all veterans will owe a tear-filled salute and heart-felt thanks to the Swiftboat vets. For a wrong will have been set right. A lie whose most visible perpetrators are John Kerry and Jane Fonda will have been rejected. The venomous, dishonorable, craven and hate-induced vitriolic bile of the America-is-evil crowd will have been discarded. The war was right. The war was good. And had Congress stuck by South Vietnam after Nixon got us out, millions of lives would have been saved. Had LBJ and Nixon let the Generals fight the war, thousands of Vietnam vets would still be with us.

America is not perfect. But as Ben Stein wisely said on the Dennis Miller show the other night – America will not win the war on terror unless we perceive ourselves as good.

We are good.

Thanks, Swiftboat vets.

Daniel J. Steele, CDR, USNR-R

Aug 26, 2004 - 3:29 pm 79. Southpaw:

“Southpaw, you dolt, no one is claiming that those things were all right.

But then, Kerry wasn’t saying “atrocities happened and must be punished”. He was saying “atrocities happened and were the policy of the United States, up and down the chain of command.”

With all due respect, when such crimes go unpunished and unreported to the public, even though they are known and covered up at the highest levels, then that tells us quite a bit about whether people believed such actions “were all right” or not. In the two examples I’ve cited (My Lai, Tiger Force) there was an attempted cover up.

In the case of the Tiger Force atrocities, commanders ignored soldierís complaints for over 4 years. Army investigators learned about them in February 1971 and briefed the White House on progress regularly for two years, but upon conclusion in 1975 not one charge was filed. The Toledo Blade reported that investigators encouraged suspects to remain silent and other deviations from procedures.

So, again, these facts should be considered alongside the testimony of the Marine lawyer I commented on in my first post. What I fear is happening with the Swift Vet / Kerry controversy is that the chance to legitimately question bogus findings from the Winter Soldier hearings is being abused to revise history and whitewash actual crimes that ought not be forgotten.

Aug 26, 2004 - 5:29 pm 80. jdwill:

Southpaw,

When I google the “Tiger Force” I see a lot of URLS like CommonDreams, Zmag, AntiWar.

As to the Pulitzer, they haven’t revoked the one they gave Walter Duranty for covering up the Soviet’s atrocities, so I will take that with a grain of LLL salt.

I am not being completely dismissive, but I have just finished chasing down a lot of info on the Winter Soldier Investigation, and I’m not in the mood for a new paper chase until this one is accounted for. I acknowlege that atrocities and crimes occur in war and Americans are not immune. But we not only try harder to fight cleanly, we are miles ahead of others in admitting and rectifying our mistakes.

So deal with the slander of WSI and Kerry’s complicity before you bring up another set of charges. To me Tiger Force is not relevant to what Lane, Fonda, and Kerry did.

Seting the stage for slander

This review of ‘Conversations with Americans’ would seem to be a genesis of the WSI. Check out the photo of Mark Lane with Jane Fonda in 1970.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm

Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Neil Sheehan reported on the Vietnam War for the New York Times. Although he became strongly opposed to the war, he condemned Lane’s book in the following review from the New York Times Book Review, December 27, 1970.

A key exchange between Sheehan and Lane shows the thinking of the left:

Mr. Lane did not bother to cross-check any of the stories his interviewers told him with Army or Marine Corps records. I asked him why in a telephone conversation.

“Because I believe the most unreliable source regarding the verification of atrocities is the Defense Department,” he said.

But what about simple and obvious facts like those in the cases of Onan and Schneider which might throw light on the credibility of his witnesses? I asked.

“It’s not relevant,” he said.

On to 1971 and connecting Jane Fonda to John Kerry

Re: Snopes says photo of Kerry at rally with Fonda is true

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp

The New York Times covered the Valley Forge in 1970:

Among the speakers at the rally were Representative Allard K. Lowenstein, Democrat of Nassau County; Donald Sutherland, the actor; Jane Fonda, the actress; Mark Lane, the civil rights and antiwar lawyer and Charles Bevel, a leader of a black group from Baltimore, which is marching to the United Nations to protest alleged American genocide in South Vietnam.

Jane Fonda:

We were at a rally for veterans at the same time. I spoke, Donald Sutherland spoke, John Kerry spoke at the end.

Summary

I think the discussion of what happened in 1971 is pertinent, because if you look closely, many of the same players/idealogies that wanted us out of Vietnam, want us out of Iraq.

Its not just the slander of his band of brothers, its the willingness of the VVAW and others to use any device, any slander to acheive their goal, ie., the Winter Soldier ‘Investigation’.

I want to develop this more, because the stakes are huge. If America backs down again because of self-doubt, egged on by activists with questionable association and dubious honesty, the ‘dialogue’ we are having with Islamofacism could be set back 50 years.

Some more material (proof is in the eye of the beholder of course) from a Marine who served in Vietnam 68-69

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane’s 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane’s “eye witnesses” either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp

Connect the dots, Mark Lane, professional muck-racker, Jane Fonda, unprincipled activist, John Kerry (???), VVAW visits to Paris and meetings with NV and VC representatives such as Madam Binh

http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=23

Some of you may remember Mme. Binh as the head of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (PRG) delegation at the Paris Peace Talks. After 1975 she was the minister of education and was a deputy of the National Assembly for four terms. She was elected vice president in 1992 and again in 1997.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040609201851205

In March, Jane Fonda met with Madame Binh, lead negotiator of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (PRG) the political arm of the Vietcong. Fonda then flew to London, where she charged American troops with “applying electrodes to prisoners’ genitals, mass rapes, slicing off of body parts, scalping, skinning alive, and leaving ‘heat tablets’ around which burned the insides of children who ate them.”

John Kerry, interestingly enough, had already met with Madame Binh and Hanoi?s representatives in Paris the previous spring, before he joined the VVAW, while he was still a little-known Naval Reserve officer and fledgling politician.

All of this is enough to make me very suspicious of Kerry to say the least.

Aug 26, 2004 - 6:24 pm 81. Charlie (Colorado):

With all due respect, when such crimes go unpunished and unreported to the public, even though they are known and covered up at the highest levels, then that tells us quite a bit about whether people believed such actions “were all right” or not. In the two examples I’ve cited (My Lai, Tiger Force) there was an attempted cover up.

Worked good, too.

I recognize that logic isn’t your strongest suit, but consider: back in the late 60s and early 70s, there was a group called the Weather Underground, which was a splinter group from the Students for Democratic Action, who were very active in the antiwar movement.

The Weathermen burned an ROTC building, tried to blow up another one, came to Chicago for the “Days of Rage”, in which a large armed mob fought the Chicago police and in which hundreds of people were injured, and blew up a townhouse in Manhattan, killing several people. (This is only a selection of things, by the way; since I was in ROTC in 1970, I felt the attacks on ROTC buildings rather personally.)

Not too long after that, a number of Democratic congressmen joined a large demonstration in which SDS members were instrumental.

Here’s the question: was everyone in SDS, at the various demonstrations, and in the leadership of the Democratic Party responsible for the arsons, assaults, and murders? Are they all implicated, since a number of members of the Weathermen never reported these people, and in fact helped them stay in hiding for years, even decades?

Choose carefully: if you say yes, then Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry are responsible for the men Dohrn’s group killed; if not, then you are being irresponsible to assert that atrocities in Viet Nam were somehow authorized or considered “right”.

Aug 26, 2004 - 7:01 pm 82. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, southpaw, I almost forgot: go fuck yourself.

Aug 26, 2004 - 7:02 pm 83. RMumaw:

jdwill – Re Nukes on ships

“It is the policy of the United States Navy to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons on this ship or any other ship or station under its command” (or something like that – its been 36 yrs since I learned it).

That said, I remember no specific weapons handling in Subic Bay prior to joining the Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club in 1969 (and you tended to remember when nucs were handled due to all of the extra firearms posted). Same on leaving WestPac.

I’m not saying (or denying) the presence of nucs on ships off of the coast of ‘Nam at that time, but I believe that the ships there were prepared in case the war suddenly took a turn for the worst and a major world power decided to assist North Viet Nam directly.

Mr Moore’s time there may have been different from mine and the policy may have been different, too.

Aug 26, 2004 - 9:10 pm 84. Southpaw:

Charlie (Colorado)

While it would be tempting to launch your hanging curveball of a clumsy and witless analogy into the heavens, your second post makes clear that in answering you with the seriousness this subject requires I would credit you with basic civility you no longer deserve. So please: go fuck YOURself, you taint-sniffing jizz sipper.

Aug 28, 2004 - 4:38 am 85. Charlie (Colorado):

you taint-sniffing jizz sipper.

Oh my goodness, Southpaw just attempted to insult me by implying that I’m homosexual.

I’m just crushed.

Heavens.

Aug 28, 2004 - 6:51 am 86. RandMan:

Some years back, talk show host extrodinaire Dennis Prager re-worked the line from Love Story. You know the line, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry”.

Dennis updated it to this:

Being on the Left means never having to say you’re sorry.

Aug 28, 2004 - 9:05 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: