FrontPage Article with a “D” for Dumb

Over at the always hooty FrontPage Magazine, the ambiguously accurate duo of Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer are ready to open fire on John Kerry:

Kerry’s DD 214 lists a Silver Star with a combat “V” (for valor). As the major correctly observes, the “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star. But the actual wording on Kerry?s DD 214 (see www.johnkerry.com) is: “SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT ‘V’.” [Emphasis added]

First they say the “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star. The very next sentence reads:

There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that a combat “V” (called a “Combat Distinguishing Device”) is simply not awarded with a Silver Star.

So it’s only anecdotal evidence? If you can state one never goes with the other, wouldn’t you expect more than anecdotal evidence? And what would happen if you stopped by the web site of the Department of Defense?

Soldier Awarded Silver Star with Valor (link)

Oh. Anyone else?

in 1967, I was off to Viet Nam. I became the company’s standardization officer, flying direct support for our Green Berets in the delta. I flew over 1,100 hours that year, I was awarded 23 air medals with an oak leaf cluster, I was shot down once and awarded the Silver Star with valor. (link)

ok, but no more right?

Garcia’s “tour of duty” ends when his squad is ambushed, two of his men die, and he is seriously wounded. Garcia tells us about the irony of receiving a Silver Star with Valor for his actions in that ambush. (link)

Please stop!

Affectionately know as “Top”, was a retired Master Gunnery Sergeant, United States Marine Corps. Top Shablack during his service was awarded the Silver Star with Valor, the Bronze Star with Valor, and the Purple Heart just to name a few. (link)

I said enough!

MSG Ricardo A. Garcia. Served 7th Cav, and later the Americal. Fought in The battle of the Ia Drang Valley with LTC Hal Moore. Richard earned a Silver Star with valor,was badly wounded there. Served three tours in Nam. He never really came home. (link)

ok, so could it be that there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Holzer are full of shit? They soldier on anyway:

The presence of the combat “V” with Kerry’s Silver Star on his DD 214 raises two extremely disquieting questions. How did the unauthorized “V” get there, and why has Kerry allowed it to remain?

The first question should not be taken lightly because we are talking about possible federal crimes. We are talking about the possibility of a forged official document.

Mr. Kerry, when did you stop forging official documents?

In light of the recent Swift Boat revelations and the cloud they have cast over Kerry’s awards, one plausible answer is that this is yet another example of Kerry’s multiple, and increasingly transparent, lies about his alleged heroics in Vietnam.

We agree it’s yet another example of something!

Let?s hope it won?t take a controversial TV spot to spark a mainstream media investigation of how candidate Kerry received an unearned “V” for valor.

Let’s hope it won’t take too long before Mr. Holzer receives a well-earned kick in the nuts.

Thanks to Redjalapeno for the tip.

 

Comments: 81

 
 
 

Some people are just so stupid,….
but I love this site!

 
 

Funny thing, too. This “major” that they consulted doesn’t seem to have a name. I have a list, by the way, of fifty-seven former Field Marshals of the Army who swear up and down that the silver star really means that you’re a “poopy head.”

Their words! Not mine!

 
 

You’re ignoring the fact that Bush also has a Sliver Star with a mailroom “C” (for competent delivery of base mail despite the risk of splinters from his desk). He also has an Swivel Chair Medal with Coca Leaf Cluster (for valorous snorting of cocaine at his desk, above and beyond the call of addiction), and a Purple Construction Paper Heart (for self-inflicted paper cuts while sorting mail). Do you damn Democrats really want to compare service records?

 
Bored Huge Krill
 

Incredible. Particularly incredible since the amount of research required to thoughroughly debunk the assertion fundamental to the piece consists of typing the phrase “silver star with valor” (including the quote marks) into Google.

Voila. Four pages of links (try it for yourself). What is *up* with these people?

 
 

I hate to be the wet blanket here, but i had to look it up myself.

Even though many google results show that “Silver Star with Valor” is commonly used in print, my research makes me believe that it’s technically incorrect. The Silver Star is bestowed for valor (and/or combat heroism) and for that reason is not awarded the valor device.

Wikipedia has an article about the valor device and specifically mentions this.

The Air Force Personnel Center has a page with the history of the Silver Star and only mentions the Oak leaf Cluster as an authorized device.

From what i’ve read i believe that the valor device on Kerry’s records, if truely incorrect, is just an simple mistake. The Silver Star is awarded for a higher degree of heroism than a Bronze Star with Valor device. There is nothing for anyone with a Silver Star to gain by forging a valor device to it.

 
 

SECNAVINST1650.1G (not the hyperlink they have in the article) does include a list of medals for which a ‘V’ was authorized during different time periods. (Note that the V stands for “Combat Distinguishing Device”, not “Valor”.) As they indicate, that list does not include the Silver Star. Kerry’s bio on his campaign web site doesn’t list a ‘V’ with his Silver Star. However, the DD214 does. It calls it says “SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT ‘V'”. The service member has nothing to do with what goes on the DD214, that comes from official records. Either the citation was fouled up or the person who prepared his DD214 fouled up. In either case, it isn’t Kerry’s error and he’s not claiming the V.

 
 

Though the V means Valor, and is tacitly understood as such in the documents. q.v.

Note that on the Bronze Star record, “The Combat Distinguishing Device is authorized.” The Silver Star record makes no such statement. So it looks like T. VANSTIYDONCK screwed up on his DD214. Probably just copied the WITH COMBAT “V” from the line above. Easy to do. Google

“silver star with valor” -kerry site:mil

And you get twenty-two pages of military reports that made the same mistake. I suspect that the phrase may even be in common usage, since the silver star does not seem to be issued under any circumstances where a bronze star with combat “v” could not be issued.

Finally, I would like to take back my implication (without prejudice) that these people simply made these allegations up out of whole cloth. Evidence indicates that this Major (who in interests of journalism should have either been named or cited as “unnamed” or “anonymous”) was indeed correct. I cannot and should not allow such allegations to be made in light of this new evidence, and I issue my apologies to the unnamed major.

 
 

The service member has nothing to do with what goes on the DD214, that comes from official records. Either the citation was fouled up or the person who prepared his DD214 fouled up. In either case, it isn’t Kerry’s error and he’s not claiming the V.

Yes, and I’ll note that there’s no mention of correcting the mistake in his DD215, either. Anywa, your point still stands: Kerry’s not trying to make out anything beyond what he was legitimately awarded; he has no control over these docs.

 
 

The Silver Star is a combat award for valor and the “V” is incorporated in the medal itself. Lower ranking medals and awards, like the Bronze Star, can be awarded for “meritorious service” rather than “valor” and thus the “V” to differentiate.

In simple terms: being shot at is “meritorious”, being able to shoot back indicates “valor”.

Jessica Lynch was awarded a Bronze Star, but not the “V”.

 
 

Two points.

1. The services do indeed treat the “V” device very differently. The US Army and USAF use the device to further “flag” an award that is based on demonstrated valor in combat. The US Navy and USMC us the device to signify an award given for actions during combat – but not necessarily for valor per se. The device must be authorized specifically in the award citation, and the award in question must be an award for which the V device may be authorized.

The services also have different lists of awards on which the V device may be authorized. For example: the Navy/USMC allow the device on the Legion of Merit and Achievement Medal, while the Army does not (I’m not positive without researching it, but I believe the USAF mirrors the Army).

However, the Silver Star is NEVER authorized a V device. The Silver Star is ONLY awarded for valor in combat. Any reference to “Silver Star with Combat V” or “Silver Star with V Device” is either erroneous or fradulent.

2. Regarding the comment above that “the service member has nothing to do with what goes on the DD214 . . . ” This is simply not correct.

For each DD214 I’ve received (more than one), I was required to review the item for correctness, THEN SIGN THE DOCUMENT. If I remember correctly, by signing I was certifying that to the best of my knowledge ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED ON THE DD214 WAS CORRECT. (It was, of course, subject to later verification and/or correction – based on official records.) The DD214 posted on Kerry’s web site showing his separation from active duty in 1970 has his signature. Obviously this means that he accepted what was on this DD214 as correct when he “mustered out.”

A junior officer might possibly be unaware of the specifics regarding the V device (personally, I find this unlikely – military personnel tend to be VERY interested in their personal decorations – but it’s possible). However, Kerry obviously thought enough of his military records to go through the process of amending his DD214 in 2001 (see the DD215 posted on his web site). A DD215 is issued, on request of the service member, to correct errors in an existing DD214. Kerry’s DD215 dated 12 March 2001 corrected his DD214 from 1970 by adding some additional unit decorations that he was authorized by virtue of his Vietnam service. It also made at least one correction to a decoration already listed on his DD214 (e.g., it added authorized campaign stars to his Vietnam Campaign Medal). The error regarding his Silver Star should have been corrected at this time, and almost certainly would have been had Kerry requested such a corretion.

I am thus forced to conclude that Kerry was either grossly sloppy when he corrected his DD214 in 2001 – or knowingly allowed the error regarding his Silver Star to remain uncorrected.
Such carelessness might be understandable (and forgivable) in a young man of 26 leaving military service. It’s far less understandable in a 57 year old US Senator.

 
 

Actually sir, if I remember correctly, when I looked at Kerry’s DD214, the words “was not available for signature” appear on it. I can go back and verify.

 
 

Well, the words are there, in section 32. But I’m not sure now to whom they refer. Because I think I see Sen. Kerry’s faded signature in the appropriate spot at the end.

Forgive my ignorance. The only other DD214 I’ve ever looked at was my dad’s

I have all his dd214’s, and the last one doesn’t list all his medals. My dad never bothered to get that fixed either. Doesn’t alter the medals themselves, does it?

 
 

When I got out of the Army in ’92, they forgot to put my Combat Infantrymans Badge on my DD214. When you are clearing your unit, you are asked to verify that everything is correct and complete on your 214, and then you sign it. Since I didn’t care at the time (I just wanted to finish up and leave), I decided to sign it instead of having to come back the next day, wait around, and sign it. That being said, I can understand how this stuff happens. And Erica, so long as the Orders exist for those medals, it doesn’t matter if they are on the 214, as the Orders prove the award/citation.

Now if I was going to be running for office, and I was a Washington hotshot senator, I would make damn sure that my 214 was up to snuff before I ever authorized it to be displayed, especially when people were actively disputing my combat record. If I DID find something like that (V device on a Silver Star), I would immediately get it corrected, and provide a disclaimer on the site. Otherwise, you are giving tacit approval for people to believe something that isn’t true. That’s basically committing willfull blindness, which is what I would have to believe, especially after he had his 214 corrected and left the correction off, then gave himself 2 more bronze service stars than he was apparently allowed.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf

Personally, I have to call bullsh-t…

 
 

If anyone remembers, Kerry was forced to publish military records online under heavy media pressure in basically a day or so. I don’t believe he had ever published it before, and probably didn’t intend to publish it this time around before the demands. If he had not published the DD-214, doubtless there would have been cries that he was concealing something. Now, he publishes it, and he’s being blamed because there’s an error in it.

His website simply says Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat “V”. No Silver Star with Combat “V”.

Should he have corrected it when he asked for the other change ? Maybe, but that was 30 odd years after the fact, and he didn’t intend to publish it anyway.

And a Silver Star incorporates the “V” by definition, because its a combat medal. So there isn’t even any question of claiming something that wasn’t real.

Now, shall we turn our attention to GWB’s medals ? The honorable order of the Teeth, for getting your teeth cleaned, the order of the Beer Can ?

 
 

Um, does anyone have someone else’s DD214 to compare this to? Do we know that “SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT ‘V'” was NOT the standard way to cite a silver star on a DD214 in 1971? How about today?

If not, I’d have to agree that it’s a typo. Kerry’s silver star is a matter of record. Not much point of forging a DD214 when the real thing’s good enough. It would seem to me that a lot of partisans are desperate to keep a dying pseudo-scandal going.

In a related matter, the guy who got George Bush into the National Guard ahead of a lot of less priviledged people is now on record as having fessed up.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_22.php#003360

 
 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html

Kerry’s Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.

However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for “Counteroffensive, Phase VI,” and one for “Tet69, Counteroffensive.”

Look! Kerry had a chance to correct the record and he embelished it further.

I think it’s obvious that Kerry is printing up his own records at this point. Hell, the New York Times has assured him they won’t ask him any real questions.

I also noticed that all those links posted above went to Army and Marine personnel that were awarded a silver star with a ‘V’ but no one in the navy. The Army and Marines could very well have different regulations.

 
 

The U. S. Navy Memorial Foundation includes a listing for SMC Glen A. Braden (USN) who served from 8/1/1950 to 8/1972 who is reported to have received a Silver Star with Combat “V”. In an obituary in the Elizabethton Star, CDR Ralph E. Gaither (USN) (Ret) also is reported to have received two Silver Stars with Combat “V”. CDR was a Vietnam POW.

As to the Vietnam campaign medals, it should be remembered that Senator Kerry served aboard the USS Gridley during the Vietnam War and has recorded combat service from that billet.

 
 

Thanks to all for the observations and personal experience!

Not wanting to throw more gasoline onto the fire; I’d just like to state that a servicemember should be/is very cognizant of his/her DD214 from my generation (USAF 1966-1970). If I were the four months “Combat Hero” Senator Kerry believes himself to be; I would DAMN sure be aware of EVERY nuance (no pun intended) of my MILITARY RECORDS! Every one of them…that’s why the services give out the records within a “pretty little folder” with information needed to fulfill your further obligations.

John Forbes Kerry needed to “ride herd” on his DD214 just as a DRAFT DODGER would on his CV. It’s a no-brainer.

Also, to those of you that have not served in the U. S. Military and wish to drumbeat the ABB mindset; if you think for one minute that veterans will allow you to disparage those who SERVED in the National Guard/Air National Guard and Reserves without redress , you may personally GO TO HELL and I’d be glad to “punch yer’ ticket!”

I had to train Air National Guard servicemembers and waved “good bye” to them as they went home to their lives and families. I was not able to do the same…I received my overseas alert and went!

Civilians, you have no credibility with your bullshit angst! Veterans can find fault with NG/ANG/Reservists; but civilians don’t got the paperwork.

Talk to me!

No brag, jest’ fact.

Serenity Now!

 
 

::quote:: As to the Vietnam campaign medals, it should be remembered that Senator Kerry served aboard the USS Gridley during the Vietnam War and has recorded combat service from that billet. ::quote::

Noted!

I just wonder what “combat” in which Johnny Four Months participated while supporting aircraft carriers and searching for downed pilots? Also, what happened to SEA (Southeast Asia) in all this “sailing around?” Komrade Kerry seems to think he was “in Vietnam” while assigned to the U.S.S. Gridley…at least when “waxing the hero” at a MLK remembrance speech in 2003; I believe.

I’m talkin’ “boots on the ground” Vietnam; not qualifying for a medal/ribbon while at sea in SEA.

Cheers!

::shameless promotion:: I have the “facts” as I have found them on the ‘Net at my Blog…

A Vietnam-Era Veteran.

 
 

“I also noticed that all those links posted above went to Army and Marine personnel that were awarded a silver star with a ‘V’ but no one in the navy. The Army and Marines could very well have different regulations.”

Did you notice if they were awarded the “Silver Star with Valor” or the “Silver Star with V Device”? All of the ones I saw said “With Valor”, which is just a way of saying what it was awarded for so that the general public would understand. “Silver Star with Valor” is not a military term, as it is redundant. But, “Silver Star with V Device” is not only not a military term, it’s not a correct decoration/award. And that’s the fact people!

“Should he have corrected it when he asked for the other change ? Maybe, but that was 30 odd years after the fact, and he didn’t intend to publish it anyway.”

If he didn’t intend to publish it, why did he file a DD215 to ADD AWARDS??? I have awards that were awarded post Desert Storm, and an ETS Army Commendation Medal that didn’t make it on my 214 because my chain of command didn’t get it submitted fast enough to make my 214. Anyways, I never filed a 215. Why? Because to most anyone, they mean exactly squat. Besides, I have the orders that prove I was awarded those decorations. Now lets read something:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf

Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon
Navy Unit Citation Ribbon

Republic of Vietnam MUC Gallantry Cross Medal Color with Palm
Republic of Vietnam MUC Civil Action Medal Color with Palm

Delete: Vietnam Service Medal
Add: Vietnam Service Medal with 4 Bronze Service Stars

Some intel on the Vietnamese awards:

“The Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm was issued to every Allied nation which provided military support to Vietnam between 1 March, 1961 and the fall of Saigon in April 1975. The unit decoration thus became the most commonly awarded Vietnamese decoration to foreigners, second only to the Vietnam Campaign Medal. ”
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Vietnam_Cross_of_Gallantry

OK, so what does all that mean? Kerry added 2 unit awards (which do not denote personal achievement), 2 Foreign Awards, and then added 4 service stars to his service medal. Why is this important? Because he wanted to PAD his 214, ie. list of military achievement. It is dated March 12, 2001! It’s not like adding those decorations will get him a better job, or any more recognition. If you were an average Vet, those medals wouldn’t buy you a cup of coffee. So, WHY file the 215 at all? And in filing the 215, in 2001, he obviously knew what was and wasn’t on his 214, and he obviously knew, in 2001, he was going to want to PUBLICIZE these records, otherwise WHY file the DD215 30 YEARS after the fact?

Let me say that again:

He obviously knew, in 2001, he was going to want to PUBLICIZE these records, otherwise WHY file the DD215 30 YEARS after the fact?

If John Kerry was a man of true honor, and I believed he would make a good Commander in Chief, I would support him wholeheartedly. But that’s just not the case.

“Now, shall we turn our attention to GWB’s medals ? The honorable order of the Teeth, for getting your teeth cleaned, the order of the Beer Can ?”

Did you serve? I served personally in both Active Duty Army, and 6 years in the Army National Guard. My Guard unit has been deployed 3 times during the past 3 years to support these operations either directly or indirectly (thankfully without me). Just some reading so you can get your collective heads out of your a$$es:

http://www.arng.army.mil/history/
http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Forging.asp

And of special interest to you who said Bush was dodging the draft…

“On 3 May [1968], F-100s from the 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron (Colorado) arrived at Phan Rang Air Base. By 1 June, all of the 120th’s pilots were flying combat missions. In the meantime, the 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and the 136th (New York) had all deployed to Vietnam with their F-100s. In addition, 85 percent of the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron — on paper a regular Air Force unit — were Air Guardsmen. ”

Also, read this for some perspective:

http://www.mblog.com/emigre_with_digital_cluebat/010785.html

So, it wouldn’t appear that being a fighter jock was such a safe ticket in dodging the draft after all!

 
 

“I also noticed that all those links posted above went to Army and Marine personnel that were awarded a silver star with a ‘V’ but no one in the navy. The Army and Marines could very well have different regulations.”

Did you notice if they were awarded the “Silver Star with Valor” or the “Silver Star with V Device”? All of the ones I saw said “With Valor”, which is just a way of saying what it was awarded for so that the general public would understand. “Silver Star with Valor” is not a military term, as it is redundant. But, “Silver Star with V Device” is not only not a military term, it’s not a correct decoration/award. And that’s the fact people!

“Should he have corrected it when he asked for the other change ? Maybe, but that was 30 odd years after the fact, and he didn’t intend to publish it anyway.”

If he didn’t intend to publish it, why did he file a DD215 to ADD AWARDS??? I have awards that were awarded post Desert Storm, and an ETS Army Commendation Medal that didn’t make it on my 214 because my chain of command didn’t get it submitted fast enough to make my 214. Anyways, I never filed a 215. Why? Because to most anyone, they mean exactly squat. Besides, I have the orders that prove I was awarded those decorations. Now lets read something:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf

Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon
Navy Unit Citation Ribbon

Republic of Vietnam MUC Gallantry Cross Medal Color with Palm
Republic of Vietnam MUC Civil Action Medal Color with Palm

Delete: Vietnam Service Medal
Add: Vietnam Service Medal with 4 Bronze Service Stars

Some intel on the Vietnamese awards:

“The Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm was issued to every Allied nation which provided military support to Vietnam between 1 March, 1961 and the fall of Saigon in April 1975. The unit decoration thus became the most commonly awarded Vietnamese decoration to foreigners, second only to the Vietnam Campaign Medal. ”
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Vietnam_Cross_of_Gallantry

OK, so what does all that mean? Kerry added 2 unit awards (which do not denote personal achievement), 2 Foreign Awards, and then added 4 service stars to his service medal. Why is this important? Because he wanted to PAD his 214, ie. list of military achievement. It is dated March 12, 2001! It’s not like adding those decorations will get him a better job, or any more recognition. If you were an average Vet, those medals wouldn’t buy you a cup of coffee. So, WHY file the 215 at all? And in filing the 215, in 2001, he obviously knew what was and wasn’t on his 214, and he obviously knew, in 2001, he was going to want to PUBLICIZE these records, otherwise WHY file the DD215 30 YEARS after the fact?

Let me say that again:

He obviously knew, in 2001, he was going to want to PUBLICIZE these records, otherwise WHY file the DD215 30 YEARS after the fact?

If John Kerry was a man of true honor, and I believed he would make a good Commander in Chief, I would support him wholeheartedly. But that’s just not the case.

“Now, shall we turn our attention to GWB’s medals ? The honorable order of the Teeth, for getting your teeth cleaned, the order of the Beer Can ?”

Did you serve? I served personally in both Active Duty Army, and 6 years in the Army National Guard. My Guard unit has been deployed 3 times during the past 3 years to support these operations either directly or indirectly (thankfully without me). Just some reading so you can get your collective heads out of your a$$es:

http://www.arng.army.mil/history/
http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Forging.asp

And of special interest to you who said Bush was dodging the draft…

“On 3 May [1968], F-100s from the 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron (Colorado) arrived at Phan Rang Air Base. By 1 June, all of the 120th’s pilots were flying combat missions. In the meantime, the 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and the 136th (New York) had all deployed to Vietnam with their F-100s. In addition, 85 percent of the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron — on paper a regular Air Force unit — were Air Guardsmen. ”

Also, read this for some perspective:

http://www.mblog.com/emigre_with_digital_cluebat/010785.html

So, it wouldn’t appear that being a fighter jock was such a safe ticket in dodging the draft after all!

 
 

Sorry for the multiple post. Not sure how that happened. 🙁

 
 

Sorry, Chuckie. Bush got into the Guard to stay out of Vietnam. No amount of spinning is going to change that fact.

 
 

Sorry Frankie, but Bush got into the Guard because it was the fastest way to become a pilot, much in the same way people enlisted in the Army instead of the Navy or Air Force during Vietnam because they could become pilots without a college degree.

Now what’s worse Frankie? Using opportunism to become a pilot, or using it the way Kerry used the domestic turmoil in the US to launch his political career?

Apparently having all the major networks in your pocket allows you to spin those facts, huh?

 
 

Before Frankie or anyone else chimes in any further (hopefully), I want you all to think of a couple things.

Yes, Bush served in the Guard instead of in Vietnam. And if many of you were to join the Guard next week, and were given the option to check a box that said you do not volunteer to serve overseas (especially given what is going on in Iraq), you should not be faulted for that. Later on in your enlistment, you may decide to volunteer for overseas duty if the opportunity arose. If you were not selected, you should not be faulted for that. But alas, that part is speculation, so let’s stick with the facts. You serve, you claim nothing more than that you served, and that is the extent of your military service.

Now, let’s compare that to Kerry. Kerry tried to get a deferment, and when that failed, yes, he did enlist in the active duty Navy. Yes, Kerry did serve in Vietnam, however, regardless of your political leanings, it should be painfully obvious that there are some intense questions concerning more than a few of his decorations ( Two of the Purple Hearts and the Silver Star), as well as his conduct during the 4 months he served in Vietnam. What’s more, he transferred to a staff position back in the states at the first opportunity, being one of the few (if not the only) swift boat commander to do so. After he gets back, he becomes an ardent anti-war protester. During this time he falls in with a bunch of people who blatently lied about their service, and some who lied about even serving in Vietnam. Kerry threw his medals away in protest, and now we learn they weren’t actually his medals, which he now proudly displays in his office.

So what’s the worst Bush is accused of? Serving in the Guard instead of Vietnam? Being accused of being AWOL, although from his records it would appear he made up his mandatory drill time by doing SUTA’s (Split Unit Training Assemblies), which almost every member of the National Guard has done at some point or another (although perhaps not to that extent).

Did Bush get out of the Guard and then slander his fellow Guardsmen? Did Bush protest the war (God knows it didn’t take serving to do that)? No, he served and got out, much like the majority of veterans.

Now you should ask yourself, what did John Kerry do? Did his “heroics” get his a blank check to sell out his fellow servicemen and help lead a movement that in the end aided our enemies?

If you can read ALL that John Kerry did, and get past the “spin”, and if you can still support him to be the Commander in Chief, then you have my sympathy, because you are a dupe and a fool.

I’ll leave you all with this last post, because it’s become painfully apparent that many Kerry supporters are incapable of actually contemplating the fact Kerry is not the second coming of Kennedy, and to continue this argument would be as pointless as explaining fire to my dog.

Over, and out…

 
 

Is anyone comparing someone like SMC Glen A. Braden (USN) who served from 8/1/1950 to 8/1972 who is reported to have received a Silver Star with Combat “V” to John Kerry who served 4 months????? Even if SMC Braden did recieve a V at least he earned it with his 22 years of service. He earned it especially for being a soldier who probably worked his way up the ranks as an enlisted. Not some wet behind the ears Lt. who shows up and doesn;t have a clue whats going on, goes back home and calls his fellow soldiers babykillers.

 
 

Kerry’s Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.

However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for “Counteroffensive, Phase VI,” and one for “Tet69, Counteroffensive.”

So Kerry asked for his 214 to be updated to a fraudulent number of campaign stars. This is not a clerical error, he submitted it, asking for the change.

Think for your self …

 
 

Oh boy. I’ve never seen so much attention to detail to ferret out some incredibly meaningless mistake made by the Navy (I don’t think the military bureaucracy has ever been noted for it’s attention to detail), during wartime, over thirty years ago. Isn’t that a bit much? Shouldn’t we be talking about the economy or health care or what their respective plans are for the war on terror? Clearly, nobody on either side is going to be swayed by some, at best, trivial detail that is unable to be proved one way or the other, so why bother. You’ve already made up your mind. As for someone’s comment about us being dupes and fools, I suggest that they eliminate all the spin, not just the spin that you disagree with. After eliminating all items related to all questions/comments above, the following facts remain: (1) John Kerry volunteered for and served on the ground in Vietnam, receiving at least one Purple Heart (that is unquestioned). (2) George Bush did not volunteer and did not see action. After that, everyhing else is really not all that relevant, is it?

By the way, I am a veteran of Korea and an ardent Republican and will be voting for George W. based on the real issues facing this country. However, I do so despite the comparison of military records, not because of them. Comparing military careers, Kerry’s service beats Bush’s hands down…something that George W. Bush agrees with, in fact. There’s no shame in that, and just because you support Bush doesn’t mean you have to be a sycophant about every single position and item that arises between Republicans and Democrats. Like it or not, it is clear that Kerry has the background and experience to be Commander-in-Chief, based on the last thirty years of his service to this country. What he may not have is the same sort of public support that Bush enjoys. Ultimately, that may or may not be important, because Bush’s support is far from unanimous.

 
 

Actually Bill , I think that character is very important and as a veteran of the first Gulf War I’m positive that if J F’n Kerry earned what medals he put himself in for, Then he would be the most decorated veteran in history. I challenge anyone to go down to there local V.A. hospital and ask veterans how many purple hearts did they recieve. Officers are the only ones who had Purple Hearts awarded thrice and are certainly the only ones who were awarded them while standing and not in a bed. Four months in country and bailed on his now so called band of brothers. You as a veteran can’t be that stupid Bill, and then to sit and say that his fellow soldiers were rapists and murderers after he left them there. “Come On” George W. Bush never used his military service as a tool for getting elected. His home of Texas has nothing but praise for him and you think that this piece of crap senator is worthy of being my Commander in Chief, I’d rather have William (dodge the draft) Clinton. I’m embarrased to hear a veteran spewing the kind of illiterate nonsense that you are talking Bill. If you want to know me and what I’m made of; Ask the men that I served with. On that note look at what J F’n Kerry’s fellow Swiftboat Veterans have to say about him. Oh wait they are all involved in the conspiracy against Kerry…..

 
 

Actually, Dean…
I think Bill made the most sensible post I have read on this topic. All these factless claims are being thrown around, but if you throw all that garbage aside, what is really being done? These are merely attacks on someones character, and it disgusts me that people don’t take the time to find out for themselves what is actually known.

I found this board by searching for info on this Silver Star debate, and I still cannot conclude that the “V” was rightfully there, a mere mistake, or a blatant move on Kerry’s part to exploit his war record. In any case, everyone seems to agree that it is redundant (the Silver Star is for Valor). Regardless, its obvious that there are Vets who are very bitter about Kerry’s actions after the war, and I think most people can understand those feelings. Would you feel the same way if everyone went with the gov’t and didn’t speak out and we fought this war into the ’80s? When does it become right to speak out about something that is wrong? Should the soldiers at Abu Ghraib have spoke out earlier? This can all be debated. What we do know is that we have two politicians who have served their country. Why aren’t Vets criticizing the chickenhawks in the current administration and past administrations who have sent our sons and daughters into battle? All I ever hear is Clinton, but we all know there are a lot more than just him.

 
 

Are they factless claims norman or did you not notice the accounts of J F’n Kerry’s fellow swiftboat veterans. Or do you believe that they are all speaking on behalf of the Republican party. The Facts: John F Kerry came home from Vietnam after his four hour tour, Leaving county and abandoning his fellow soldiers. also doing so on a technicality or munipulation of the military rule that someone is allowed to leave combat duty after recieving three purple hearts. Getting home and using that three months to spark his political career. He has admitted to embellishing his stories of atrocities. He has been outed on the merits of his purple hearts, and most of his other awards although we now must assume they were all fraudulant. He jeopardize the lives of American P.O.W’s by substantiating the Norths claims of them commiting war crimes and this is comeing from the vets that actually made it home. How many did not. As for Bush’s military service, He (GWB) must have had special insider knowledge to know that his Guard unit would not be sent to Vietnam. Kerry has brought up his military service to advance his career, How hipicritical when he so condemed it at the time. Bush never asked for a deferment as Kerry did and Bush didn’t commit the crimes that were commited at Abu Grab prison. You are one of the Morons that went to Michael Moore for your facts and can’t think for yourself. Me , I’ve talked to veterans, I’ve read transcripts from the Winter Soldier meetings and all of the Senate hearings that followed and I’m kind’a not surprised to hear you talking about us still being in Vietnam in the 80’s as you probably believe that Al Gore created the Internet. Kerry didn’t do America any favors by slandering the soldiers that were over there. As I see it he gave merit and validity to the Peace lovers that spat upon them as they returned. My Grandfather was a Marine in WW2 and to see the cover of John Kerry’s book, The New Soldier, simply turns my stomach. I’m wasting my time here so I’m ending this disscussion and hope that you enjoy your freedom and “God Bless America” and the Soldiers that keep her free.

 
 

I too found this website from Googling the question of silver stars vith V. I felt the need of more facts. After reading the discussions, I realized why I believe the “padding” on Kerry’s military record is deliberate. It’s that he was not embarrassed to take three! purple hearts in just four months, for some scratches, while many other vets got less for losing their limbs (or lives). After that Kerry was not ashamed to slander his comrades in arms to our Congress. Bank tellers are trained to spot phony bills by handling the genuine currency. All of us who know and love the men who have served our country in the military with honor, are able to spot the phony, because we are close to the genuine guys. Real heroes don’t puff their deeds. ’nuff said.

 
 

Note to Dean: Your points would be much more acceptable if you could spell (or use a spell checker), construct a proper sentence and had matured past the need to write J F’n Kerry. You are obviously not a veteran of any service. Anyone can see that by reading your posts (what vet would say “I’ve talked to veterans…”).

For the rest of us, it is important to note that we are not voting for God. Certainly every Presidential candidate in the last 30+ years has had some character flaw or another, and I would guess that that has been true of every President (virtually every one of the Founding Fathers was a supporter of slavery, for example). Bush has his problems in this regard as well, and since it is on topic here, his military service is foremost among them. In my view, we Republicans have panicked because the Dems have been able to put forth a candidate, during a time of war, that has war experience superior to the President; indeed, superior to most of our administration. We have been successful in beating that out of them to this point, so hurrah for us. There were two ways in which we could have responded to Kerry’s (seemingly never-ending) talk about his military service. First, as we did, with a vengeful attack upon that service, which, though effective, is also a bit embarrassing, and opens us up to similar critique (which George W’s record may not stand up to). Second, we could have stood up on day one and loudly proclaimed our admiration for Kerry’s service and personally thanked him. This would have shut the argument down completely, we come out on the high road (no, we’re no longer on that) and we could have moved on to more important things.

I will be honest and admit that I do not know the details of Kerry’s actions after the war except to the extent that he protested our involvement there. I think that the tenor of those times was very different than our country today, and even just thirty-odd years later we have a difficult time understanding, especially those who weren’t there. However, I see Kerry’s resolve when he came home to be nearly heroic in nature. The Vietnam War was wrong from virtually every point of view, and that’s not a partisan opinion. Someone asks the question regarding Vietnam Vets, “how many did not” make it home? The more important question might be “how many MORE would not have made it home had the war continued?” I agree that much of the “content” of the anti-war movement in the 70’s was misguided at best, but it did force an end to our involvement there, which, ultimately, was a good thing. As for that starting Kerry’s political career, well, that just doesn’t make any sense at all. What’s most interesting is that those who claim that his return from Vietnam and subsequent protests was the start also claim that his time IN Vietname was a manufactured start to his political life. Which is it?

 
 

Note to Dean: Your points would be much more acceptable if you could spell (or use a spell checker), construct a proper sentence and had matured past the need to write J F’n Kerry. You are obviously not a veteran of any service. Anyone can see that by reading your posts (what vet would say “I’ve talked to veterans…”).

For the rest of us, it is important to note that we are not voting for God. Certainly every Presidential candidate in the last 30+ years has had some character flaw or another, and I would guess that that has been true of every President (virtually every one of the Founding Fathers was a supporter of slavery, for example). Bush has his problems in this regard as well, and since it is on topic here, his military service is foremost among them. In my view, we Republicans have panicked because the Dems have been able to put forth a candidate, during a time of war, that has war experience superior to the President; indeed, superior to most of our administration. We have been successful in beating that out of them to this point, so hurrah for us. There were two ways in which we could have responded to Kerry’s (seemingly never-ending) talk about his military service. First, as we did, with a vengeful attack upon that service, which, though effective, is also a bit embarrassing, and opens us up to similar critique (which George W’s record may not stand up to). Second, we could have stood up on day one and loudly proclaimed our admiration for Kerry’s service and personally thanked him. This would have shut the argument down completely, we come out on the high road (no, we’re no longer on that) and we could have moved on to more important things.

I will be honest and admit that I do not know the details of Kerry’s actions after the war except to the extent that he protested our involvement there. I think that the tenor of those times was very different than our country today, and even just thirty-odd years later we have a difficult time understanding, especially those who weren’t there. However, I see Kerry’s resolve when he came home to be nearly heroic in nature. The Vietnam War was wrong from virtually every point of view, and that’s not a partisan opinion. Someone asks the question regarding Vietnam Vets, “how many did not” make it home? The more important question might be “how many MORE would not have made it home had the war continued?” I agree that much of the “content” of the anti-war movement in the 70’s was misguided at best, but it did force an end to our involvement there, which, ultimately, was a good thing. As for that starting Kerry’s political career, well, that just doesn’t make any sense at all. What’s most interesting is that those who claim that his return from Vietnam and subsequent protests was the start also claim that his time IN Vietname was a manufactured start to his political life. Which is it?

 
 

Bill,
You’re right I can’t spell or form a sentence. You vote I’ll vote and hopefully America will never expierence another 9/11 . You obviously hate Bush and could care less about the facts. I guess I should start cutting and pasting from a word processor so that I don’t appear ignorant. It’s funny that I represent the Veterans as Yes I’m a combat Veteran, Decorated although I don’t have 4 purple hearts and the Congressional Medal of Honor. Johnson once said that those screaming make love and not war, Don’t look like they can do either. Also when a person becomes a Veteran, They still refer to Veterans as Veterans. You are very good at using your spell check Bill but as usual you lack common sense. I’d like to meet you and welcome you to Boot Camp Bill. Also I find it funny that the people screaming the loudest about the war are not usually involved in actually fighting the war. But don’t worry Bill you enjoy your day off on Veterans day “My gift to you” ! I will not argue about Kerry with you as you will only see my misspelled words and not the content. I will never believe that John F. Kerry was a hero for imbellishing his stories of atrocities in Nam. I base this on the message I’ve recieved from Family members (4) living (2) engraved on the wall. Were there atrocities commited ? I’m sure that there were. My problem is that he generalized and said that all were guilty. He dis-respected the Uniform, He dis-respected his fellow soldiers by leaving them early and then spewing lies about how they had cut heads off, Raped, etc…. He is well know in Vietnam and is regarded as a hero to the once North Vietnamese. As for the results from our involvement. I as a veteran don’t like to think that all those men died without a cause. I do know that after dealing with us, Communism didn’t spread across Asia (Domino Theory) as many predicted. Globaly the real numbers came after we pulled out of Saigon ( Now Ho Chi Mihn City)as the N/V slaughtered what was left. I’d like to think that all was not a waste But any time you place reporters and critics into something as emotional as a war the outcome is and will always be the same. My point is that you Bill are an Arm Chair Quarterback and should stick to watching the Michigan Vs. Notre Dame game.

 
 

“What’s most interesting is that those who claim that his return from Vietnam and subsequent protests was the start also claim that his time IN Vietname was a manufactured start to his political life. Which is it?”

They are one in the same. He was wearing the uniform when he returned and was still on active military status when he started his platform as a peace activist. He jeopardized the safety and welfare of prisoners of war by validating the claims of the Vietnamese captors. He stood in front of the Wall (illegaly I should add) and made a political comercial promoting his bid as a U.S. Senator. He has used (again illegally) Pictures and home movies that he produced while in Vietnam as a tool for his current campaign and has also used every opportunity to tell about his adventures in Nam and his now exposed lies about events that led to his awards, and Purple Hearts. I spend at least 12 hours a week at the Veterans Hospital and have met thousands of Vets, although I’ve never met any that got multi- Purple Hearts without seeing a hospital bed. Even a person who has never know the military or its customs should be scratching his/her head on that one.

 
 

I don’t hate George Bush at all and nothing I’ve said would indicate that I do. You’ve made that point up to support whatever it is you are trying to say. I voted for him in 2000 and supported his work following 9/11/2001. I have a number of problems with the war in Iraq (and, despite the widespread belief that an intelligent person cannot separate the two), I do support the work of the soldiers themselves (and I do something about that besides just saying so, in case you wonder). I will again be voting for George Bush in November, but as is clear, in the list of pros and cons between the candidates, Kerry’s military record outshines that of my candidate.

As I said before, I too am a veteran, having served briefly in Korea. I do not have any “significant” decorations but am not jealous of yours or Kerry’s. I honor them, in fact.

I would be interested in the content of your arguments, Dean, if there was any. You say things like “Kerry is a hero in North Vietnam,” “welcome me to Boot Camp Bill,” “I am sure there were [atrocities committed]”. Those aren’t substantive arguments at any level and, really, are just dumb. My original point was only that there are a lot of people that seem desperate to find some trivial factoid that tells how horrible John Kerry really is (“illegally filmed a commercial…” ?!?!) when it DOES NOT MATTER. Having a substantive position would be useful. The rest is not relevant.

George Bush has said, publicly and repeatedly, that John Kerry has a “better” military record than he has. Clearly, the President isn’t hurt by this and doesn’t see the need to attack on the point. Why are the rest of us so busy with it? It’s not the end of the world and it doesn’t even mean that Kerry would be an effective Commander in Chief.

We undermine our arguments, not strengthen them, with this kind of approach. In fact, I think that’s what so many of us liked about Ronald Reagan and now like about George Bush as he deals with terrorism, Congress, elections, etc. He has a clear focus on the larger issues facing him.

Finally, like it or not, the quality and power of your arguments are directly related to your ability to present it. Note that the Constitution (for example) doen’t start “Us the peeple…”

 
 

Boo Hoo, I’m so ashamed that Bill can’t comprehend what I’m xprss’n . Kerry is a fraud and you Bill are an idiot. Did I spell Idiot correct? Can you understand me Bill or do you need some Geritol. George Bush has nothing against John Kerry. It’s you and me dumbass ! We were wearing the uniform that he shit all over. You are alright with this Bill? Pull your head out of your ass Bill. If Kerry called you a Baby Killer and said that you cut off heads and raped women in Nam, Would you be offended? Did you cut off heads in Korea Bill, Hey I bet you did. You are a Baby killer aren’t you Bill, Raped you some Korean women while in country , didn’t you ? “Please don’t kill me G.I. Me love you long time” Are you offended by this Bill ? Good, then now you understand.

 
 

Boo Hoo, I’m so ashamed that Bill can’t comprehend what I’m xprss’n . Kerry is a fraud and you Bill are an idiot. Did I spell Idiot correct? Can you understand me Bill or do you need some Geritol. George Bush has nothing against John Kerry. It’s you and me dumbass ! We were wearing the uniform that he shit all over. You are alright with this Bill? Pull your head out of your ass Bill. If Kerry called you a Baby Killer and said that you cut off heads and raped women in Nam, Would you be offended? Did you cut off heads in Korea Bill, Hey I bet you did. You are a Baby killer aren’t you Bill, Raped you some Korean women while in country , didn’t you ? “Please don’t kill me G.I. Me love you long time” Are you offended by this Bill ? Good, then now you understand.

 
 

“Bill should be back with a response in a day or two because he will be busy with his spell check and paragraph structure.” “You Go Bill” When your wife is done proof reading your words; we will be here waiting…..(Jeopardy theme Song)…….

 
 

Actually, Dean, I’m fairly certain that there’s nothing I need to say. You’ve made yourself quite clear.

 
 

Few have ACTUALLY read tis. MANY should:

Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia Thursday, April 22, 1971 United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Fulbright, Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case and Javits
The Chairman: The committee will come to order.
Opening Statement
The committee is continuing this morning its hearing on proposals relating to the ending of the war in Southeast Asia. This morning the committee will hear testimony from Mr. John Kerry and, if he has any associates, we will be glad to hear from them. These are men who have fought in this unfortunate war in Vietnam. I believe they deserve to be heard and listened to by the Congress and by the officials in the executive branch and by the public generally. You have a perspective that those in the Government who make our Nation’s policy do no always have and I am sure that your testimony today will be helpful to the committee in its consideration of the proposals before us.
I would like to add simply on my own account that I regret very much the action of the Supreme Court in denying the veterans the right to use the Mall. (Applause)
I regret that. It seems to me to be but another instance of an insensitivity of our Government to the tragic effects of this war upon our people.
I want also to congratulate Mr. Kerry, you, and your associates upon the restraint that you have shown, certainly in the hearing the other day when there were a great many of your people here. I think you conducted yourselves in a most commendable manner throughout this week. Whenever people gather there is always a tendency for some of the more emotional ones to do things which are even against their own interests. I think you deserve much of the credit because I understand you are one of the leaders of this group.
I have joined with some of my colleagues, specifically Senator Hart, in an effort to try to change the attitude of our Government toward your efforts in bringing to this committee and to the country your views about the war.
I personally don’t know of any group which would have both a greater justification for doing it and also a more accurate view of the effect of the war. As you know, there has grown up in this town a feeling that it is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the war and I don’t know a better source than you and your associates. So we are very please to have you and your associate, Mr. Kerry
At the beginning if you would give to the reporter your full name and a brief biography so that the record will show who you are.
Senator Javits:
Mr. Chairman, I was down there to the veterans’ camp yesterday and saw the New York group and I would like to say I am very proud of the deportment and general attitude of the group.
I hope it continues. I have joined in the Hart resolution, too. As a lawyer I hope you will find it possible to comply with the order even though, like the chairman, I am unhappy about it. I think it is our job to see that you are suitably set up as an alternative so that you can do what you came here to do. I welcome the fact that you came and what you are doing. (Applause.)
The Chairman: You may proceed, Mr. Kerry
Statement of John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Mr. Kerry: Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.
I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven’t had a great deal of chance to prepare.
Winter soldier Investigation
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to 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.
It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape 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, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We call this investigation the “Winter Soldier Investigation.” The term “Winter Soldier” is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.
Feelings of Men Coming Back from Vietnam
I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn’t know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.
As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.
In 1970 at West Point, Vice President Agnew said “some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse” and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.
But for us, as boys in Asia, whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans’ Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we can not consider ourselves America’s best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.
In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.
We are probably much more angry than that and I don’t want to go into the foreign policy aspects because I am outclassed here. I know that all of you talk about every possible alternative of getting out of Vietnam. We understand that. We know you have considered the seriousness of the aspects to the utmost level and I am not going to try to dwell on that, but I want to relate to you the feeling that many of the men who have returned to this country express because we are probably angriest about all that we were told about Vietnam and about the mystical war against communism.
What Was Found and Learned in Vietnam
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.
We found most people didn’t even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American.
We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong.
We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.
We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals.
We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against “oriental human beings,” with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn’t lose, and we couldn’t retreat, and because it didn’t matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881’s and Fire Base 6’s and so many others.
Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese. Each day- (Applause)
The Chairman: I hope you won’t interrupt. He is making a very significant statement. Let him proceed.
Mr. Kerry: Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn’t have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can’t say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to dies so that President Nixon won’t be, and these are his words, “the first President to lose a war.”
We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President’s last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says, and says clearly:
But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.
But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.
Returning Veterans Are Not Really Wanted
But the problem of veterans goes beyond this personal problem, because you think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says “I want you.” And a young man comes out of high school and says, “That is fine. I am going to serve my country.” And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn’t kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn’t really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation’s unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.
The hospitals across the country won’t, or can’t meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don’t have the appropriations. A man recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the operation but because there weren’t enough personnel to clean the mucous out of his tube and he suffocated to death.
Another young man just died in a New York VA hospital the other day. A friend of mine was lying in a bed two beds away and tried to help him, but he couldn’t. He rang a bell and there was nobody there to service that man and so he died of convulsions.
I understand 57 percent of all those entering the VA hospitals talk about suicide. Some 27 percent have tried, and they try because they come back to this country and they have to face what they did in Vietnam, and then they come back and find the indifference of a country that doesn’t really care, that doesn’t really care.
Lack of Moral Indignation in United States
Suddenly we are faced with a very sickening situation in this country, because there is no moral indignation and, if there is, it comes from people who are almost exhausted by their past indignations, and I know that may of them are sitting in front of me. The country seems to have lain down and shrugged off something as serious as Laos, just as we calmly shrugged off the loss of 700,000 lives in Pakistan, the so-called greatest disaster of all times.
But we are here as veterans to say we think we are in the midst of the greatest disaster of all times now because they are still dying over there, and not just Americans, Vietnamese, and we are rationalizing leaving that country so that those people can go on killing each other for years to come.
Americans seems to have accepted the idea that the war is winding down, at least for Americans, and they have also allowed the bodies which were once used by a President for statistics to prove that we were winning that war, to be used as evidence against a man who followed orders and who interpreted those orders no differently than hundreds of other men in Vietnam.
We veterans can only look with amazement on the fact that this country has been unable to see there is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter crew, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration.
No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control. But believe me the helicopter crews fill the same body bags and they wreak the same kind of damage on the Vietnamese and Laotian countryside as anybody else, and the President is talking about allowing that to go on for many years to come. One can only ask if we will really be satisfied only when the troops march into Hanoi.
Request for Action by Congress
We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America which has the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war.
We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now.
Extent of Problem of Vietnam War
We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything.
An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation al Alcataz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said “My God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people.” And he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.
Where is the Leadership?
We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.
The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.
Administration’s Attempt to Disown Veterans
Finally, this administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifice we made for this country. In their blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam. We do not need their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of limbs are witnesses enough for others and for ourselves.
We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbarous war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last 10 years and more and so when, in 30 years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say “Vietnam” and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory but mean instead the pace where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
Thank you. (Applause.)
The Chairman: Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you properly said in the beginning.
You said you wished to communicate. I can’t imagine anyone communicating more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and beneficial to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.
You said you had been awake all night. I can see that you spent that time very well indeed. (Laughter)
Perhaps that was the better part, better that you should be awake than otherwise.
Proposals Before Committee
You have said that the question before this committee and the Congress is really how to end the war. The resolutions about which we have been hearing testimony during the past several days, the sponsors of which are some members of this committee, are seeking the most practical way that we can find and, I believe, to do it at the earliest opportunity that we can. That is the purpose of these hearing and that is why you were brought here.
You have been very eloquent about the reasons why we should proceed as quickly as possible. Are you familiar with some of the proposals before this committee?
Mr. Kerry: Yes, I am, Senator.
The Chairman: Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?
Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don’t mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh’s points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.
As to the argument concerning the danger to our troops were we to withdraw or state that we would, they have also said many times in conjunction with that statement that all of our troops, the moment we set a date, will be given safe conduct out of Vietnam. The only other important point is that we allow the South Vietnamese people to determine their own figure and that ostensibly is what we have been fighting for anyway.
I would, therefore, submit that the most expedient means of getting out of South Vietnam would be for the President of the United States to declare a cease-fire, to stop this blind commitment to a dictatorial regime, the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime, accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this Government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese.
Desire to Disengage From Vietnam
The Chairman: You seem to feel that there is still some doubt about the desire to disengage. I don’t believe that is true. I believe there has been a tremendous change in the attitude of the people. As reflected in the Congress, they do wish to disengage and to bring the war to an end as soon as we can.

Question is How to Disengage
The question before us is how to do it. What is the best means that is most effective, taking into consideration the circumstances with which all governments are burdened? We have a precedent in this same country. The French had an experience, perhaps not traumatic as ours has been, but nevertheless they did make up their minds in the spring of 1954 and within a few weeks did bring it to a close. Some of us have thought that this is a precedent, from which we could learn, for ending such a war. I have personally advocated that this is the best procedure. It is a traditional, rather classic procedure of how to end a war that could be called a stalemate, that neither side apparently has the capacity to end by military victory, and which apparently is going to go on for a long time. Speaking only for myself, this seems the more reasonable procedure.
I realize you want it immediately, but I think that procedure was about as immediate as any by which a country has ever succeeded in ending such a conflict or a similar conflict. Would that not appeal to you?
Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, frankly it does not appeal to me if American men have to continue to die when they don’t have to, particularly when it seems the Government of this country is more concerned with the legality of where men sleep than it is with the legality of where they drop bombs. (Applause.)
The Chairman: In the case of the French when they made up their mind to take the matter up at the conference in Geneva, they did. The first thing they did was to arrange a cease-fire and the killing did cease. Then it took only, I think, two or three weeks to tidy up all the details regarding the withdrawal. Actually when they made up their mind to stop the war, they did have a cease-fire which is what you are recommending as the first step.
Mr. Kerry: Yes sir; that is correct.
The Chairman: It did not drag on. They didn’t continue to fight. They stopped the fighting by agreement when they went to Geneva and all the countries then directly involved participated in that agreement.
I don’t wish to press you on the details. It is for the committee to determine the best means, but you have given most eloquently the reasons why we should proceed as early as we can. That is, of course, the purpose of the hearing.
Mr. Kerry: Senator, if I may interject, I think that what we are trying to say is we do have a method. We believe we do have a plan, and that plan is that if this body were by some means either to permit a special referendum in this country so that the country itself might decide and therefore avoid this recrimination which people constantly refer to or if they couldn’t do that, at least do it through immediate legislation which would state there would be an immediate cease-fire and we would be willing to undertake negotiations for a coalition government. But at the present moment that is not going to happen, so we are talking about men continuing to die for nothing and I think there is a tremendous moral question here which the Congress of the United States is ignoring.
The Chairman: The congress cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system we can advice the President. We have to persuade the President of the urgency of taking this action. Now we have certain ways in which to proceed. We can, of course, express ourselves in a resolution or we can pass an act which directly affects appropriations which is the most concrete positive way the Congress can express itself.
But Congress has no capacity under our system to go out and negotiate a cease-fire. We have to persuade the Executive to do this for the country.
Extraordinary Response Demanded by Extraordinary Question
Mr. Kerry: Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and you have been one of the strongest critics of this war for the longest time. But I think if can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for pork barrel programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country. (Applause.)
And this, Mr. Chairman, is what we are trying to convey.
I understand. I really am aware that there are a tremendous number of difficulties in trying to persuade the Executive to move at this time. I believe they are committed. I don’t believe we can. But I hope that we are not going to have to wait until 1972 to have this decision made. And what I am suggesting is that I think this is an extraordinary enough question so that it demands an extraordinary response, and if we can’t respond extraordinarily to this problem then I doubt very seriously as men on each that we will be able to respond to the other serious question which face us. I think we have to start to consider that. This is what I am trying to say.
If this body could perhaps call for a referendum in the country or if we could perhaps move now for a vote in 3 weeks, I think the people of this country would rise up and back that. I am not saying a vote nationwide. I am talking about a vote here in Congress to cut off the funds, and a vote to perhaps pass a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the war and to do the things that uphold those things which we pretend to be. That is what we are asking. I don’t think we can turn our back on that any longer, Senator.
The Chairman: Senator Symington?
Witness Service Decorations
Senator Symington: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kerry, please move your microphone. You have a Silver Star; have you not?
Mr. Kerry: Yes, I do.
Senator Symington: And a Purple Heart?
Mr. Kerry: Yes, I do.
Senator Symington: How many clusters?
Mr. Kerry: Two clusters.
Senator Symington: So you have been wounded three times.
Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir.
Senator Symington: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Senator Aiken. (Applause.)
North Vietnamese and VC Attitude Toward Definite Withdrawal Date
Senator Aiken: Mr. Kerry, the Defense Department seems to feel that if we set a definite date for withdrawal when our forces get down to a certain level, they would be seriously in danger by the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong. Do you believe that the North Vietnamese would undertake to prevent our withdrawal from the country and attack the troops that remain there?
Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, if I may answer you directly, I believe we are running that danger with the present course of withdrawal because the President has neglected to state to this country exactly what his response will be when we have reached the point that we do have, let us say, 50,000 support troops in Vietnam.
Senator Aiken: I am not telling you what I think. I am telling what the Department says.
Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir; I understand that.
Senator Aiken: Do you believe the North Vietnamese would seriously undertake to impede our complete withdrawal?
Mr. Kerry: No, I do not believe that the North Vietnamese would and it has been clearly indicated at the Paris peace talks they would not.
Senator Aiken: Do you think they might help carry the bags for us? (Laughter)
Mr. Kerry: I would say they would be more prone to do that then the Army of the South Vietnamese. (Laughter) (Applause)
Senator Aiken: I think your answer is ahead of my question. (Laughter)
Saigon Government’s Attitude Toward Complete Withdrawal Date
I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government would be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by October 1st, and be completely out of there-air, sea, land- leaving them on their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon government under those circumstances?
Mr. Kerry: Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face his question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country-
Attitude of South Vietnamese Army and People Toward Withdrawal
Senator Aiken: I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam after the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vienamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?
Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years.
If we don’t withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic combing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.
The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can’t go around- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can’t right every wrong, that we can’t solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn’t go into East Pakistan; we didn’t go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?
We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capacity. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.
Senator Aiken: I might say I asked those questions several years ago, rather ineffectively. But what I would like to know now is if we, as we complete our withdrawal and, say, get down to 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or even 50,000 troops there, would there be any effort on the part of the South Vietnamese government of the South Vietnamese army, in your opinion, to impede their withdrawal?
Mr. Kerry: No; I don’t think so, Senator.
Senator Aiken: I don’t see why North Vietnam should object.
Mr. Kerry: I don’t for the simple reason, I used to talk with officers about their- we asked them, and one officer took great pleasure in playing with me in the sense that he would say, “Well, you know you American, you come over here for 1 year and you can afford, you know, you go to Hong Kong for R. & R. and if you are a good boy you get another R. & R. or something you know. You can afford to charge bunkers, but I have to try and be here for 30 years and stay alive.” And I think that that really is the governing principle by which those people are now living and have been allowed to live because of our mistake. So that when we in fact state, let us say, that we will have a cease-fire or have a coalition government, most of the 2 million men you often hear quoted under arms, most of whom are regional popular reconnaissance forces, which is to say militia, and a very poor militia at that, will simply lay down their arms, if they haven’t done so already, and not fight. And I think you will find they will respond to whatever government evolves which answer their needs, and those needs quite simply are to be fed, to bury their dead in plots where their ancestors lived, to be allowed to extend their culture, to try and exist as human beings. And I think that is what will happen.
I can cite many, many instances, sir, as in combat when these men refused to fight with us, when they shot with their guns over tin this area like this and their heads turned facing the other way. When we were taken under fire we Americans, supposedly fighting with them, and pinned down in a ditch, and I was in the Navy and this was pretty unconventional, but when we were pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or something and they refused to come in and help us, point blank refused. I don’t believe they want to fight, sir.
Obligation to Furnish Economic Assistance
Senator Aiken: Do you think we are under obligation to furnish them with extensive economic assistance?
Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir. I think we have a very definite obligation to make extensive reparations to the people of Indochina.
Senator Aiken: I think that is all.
The Chairman: Senator Pell.
Senator Pell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the witness knows, I have a very high personal regard for him and hope before his life ends he will be a colleague of ours in this body.
Growth of Opposition to War
This war was really just as wrong, immoral, and unrelated to our national interests 5 years ago as it is today, and I must say I agree with you. I think it is rather poor taste for the architects of this war to now be sitting as they are in quite sacrosanct intellectual glass houses.
I think that this committee, and particularly Chairman Fulbright, deserve a huge debt of gratitude from you and everyone of your men who are here because when he conducted hearings some years ago when we were fighting in Vietnam. At that time the word “peace” was a dirty word. It was tied in with “appeasement” and Nervous Nellies and that sort of thing. Chairman Fulbright and this committee really took public opinion at that time and turned it around and made “peace” a respectable word and produced the climate that produced President Johnson’s abdication.
The problem is that the majority of the people in the Congress still don’t agree with the view that you and we have. As the chairman pointed out, and as you know as a student of political science, whenever we wanted to end this war, we could have ended this war if the majority of us had used the power of the purse strings. That was just as true 5 years ago as it is today.
I don’t think it is a question of guts. We didn’t have the desire to do that and I am not sure the majority has the desire to do that yet. Whenever we want to as a Congress, we could do it. We can’t start an action, but we can force an action with the purse strings.
I think it is wonderful you veterans have come down here as a cutting edge of public opinion because you again make this have more respect and I hope you succeed and prevail on the majority of the Congress.
Voting of Veterans and Nonveterans Concerning Vietnam War
It is interesting, speaking of veterans and speaking of statistics, that the press has never picked up and concentrated on quite interesting votes in the past. In those votes you find the majority of hawks were usually nonveterans and the majority of doves were usually veterans. Specifically, of those who voted in favor of the Hatfield-McGovern end-the-war amendment in the last session of the Congress 79 were veterans with actual military service. Of those voting against the amendment, only 36 percent were veterans.
Now on the sponsors of the Cooper-Church amendment you will find very much the same statistics. Eighty-two percent were veterans as compared to 71 percent of the Senate as a whole being veterans. So I would hope what you are doing will have an effect on the Congress.
Obligation to South Vietnamese Allies
I have two questions I would like to ask you. First, I was very much struck by your concern with asylum because now I see public opinion starting to swing and Congress passing legislation. Before they wouldn’t get out at all; now they are talking about getting out yesterday. When it comes to looking after the people who would be killed if we left or badly ruined, I would hope you would develop your thinking a little bit to make sure that American public opinion, which now wants to get out, also bears in mind that when we depart we have an obligation to these people. I hope you will keep to that point.
Finally, in connection with Lieutenant Calley, which is a very emotional issue in this country, I was struck by your passing reference to that incident.
Wouldn’t you agree with me though that what he did in herding old men, women and children into a trench and then shooting them was a little bit beyond the perimeter of even what has been going on in this war and that that action should be discouraged. There are other actions not that extreme that have gone on and have been permitted. If we had not taken action or cognizance of it, it would have been even worse. It would have indicated we encouraged this kind of action.
Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, on Lieutenant Calley is what he did quite obviously was a horrible, horrible, horrible thing and I have no bone to pick with the fact that he was prosecuted. But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere.
I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies with the men who encourage body counts. I think it lies in large part with this country, which allows a young child before he reaches the age of 14 to see 12,500 deaths on television, which glorifies the John Wayne syndrome, which puts out fighting man comic books on the stands, which allows us in training to do calisthenics to four counts, on the fourth count of which we stand up and shout “kill” in unison, which has posters in barracks in this country with a crucified Vietnamese, blood on him, and underneath it says “kill the gook,” and I think that clearly the responsibility for all of this is what has produced this horrible aberration.
Now, I think if you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same time try all those other people who have responsibility, and any aversion that we may have to the verdict as veterans is not to say that Calley should be freed, not to say that he is innocent, but to say that you can’t just take him alone, and that would be my response to that.
Senator Pell: I agree with you. The guilt is shared by many, many, many of us, including the leaders of the get-out-now school. But in this regard if we had not tried him, I think we would be much more criticized and should be criticized. I would think the same fate would probably befall him as befell either Sergeant or Lieutenant Schwarz of West Virginia who was tried for life for the same offense and is out on a 9 months commuted sentence. By the same token I would hope the quality of mercy would be exercised in this regard for a young man who was not equipped for the job and ran amuck. But I think public opinion should think this through. We who have taken this position find ourselves very much in the minority.
Mr. Kerry: I understand that, Senator, but I think it is a very difficult thing for the public to think through faced with the facts. The fact that 18 other people indicted for the very same crime were freed and the fact among those were general and colonels. I mean this simply is not justice. That is all. It is just not justice.
Senator Pell: I guess it is the old revolutionary adage. When you see the white of their eyes you are more guilty. This seems to be our morality as has been pointed out. If you drop a bomb from a plane, you don’t see the white of their eyes.
I agree with you and with the body count. It is like a Scottish nobleman saying, “How many grouse were caught on the moor.” Four or five years ago those of us who criticized were more criticized.
Thank you for being here and I wish you all success. (Applause)
The Chairman: Senator from New Jersey.
Senator Case: Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Strategic Implication of Vietnam War
Mr. Kerry, thank you too for coming. You have made more than clear something that I think always has been true: that the war never had any justification in terms of Indochina itself. I wish you would take this question a little further and touch on the larger strategic implications. It is in these larger strategic implications, if anywhere, that may be found justification for our involvement. As you know, the President said the other day that it is easy to get out and to end the war immediately.
The question is to get out and leave a reasonable chance for lasting peace. We have to look at this because the American people are going to see the issue in the terms he has defined it. I would be glad to have your comment on this matter, although I won’t press you to discuss it because in a sense you have already said this is not your area.
Mr. Kerry: I do want to. I want to very much.
Senator Case: And I would be very glad to have you do it.
Mr. Kerry: Thank you, sir. I would like to very much.
In my opinion, what we are trying to do, as the President talks about getting out with a semblance of honor is simply whitewashing ourselves. On the question of getting out with some semblance for peace, as a man who has fought there, I am trying to say that this policy has no chance for peace. You don’t have a chance for peace when you arm the people of another country and tell them they can fight a war. That is even criminal in the sense that their country, if we are really worried about recrimination, is going to have to someday face up to the fact that we convinced a certain number of people, perhaps hundred of thousands, perhaps there will be several million, that they could stand up to something which they couldn’t and ultimately will face the recrimination of the fact that their lives in addition to all the lives at this point, will be on our conscience. I don’t think it is a question of peace at all. What we are doing is very, very, hypocritical in our withdrawal, and we really should face up to that.
Senator Case: May I press you just a little further or at least raise the question on which I would ask you to comment.
Mr. Kerry: I wish you would, please.
Senator Case: I think your answer was related still to the question of Indochina, but I think the President has tried to tie in Indochina with the question of world peace.
Mr. Kerry: I would like to discuss that.
It is my opinion that the United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers, and the foreign policy of John Foster Dulles which was responsible for the creation of the SEATO treaty, which was, in fact, a direct reaction to this so-called Communist monolith. And I think we are reacting under cold-war precepts which are no longer applicable.
I say that because so long as we have the kind of strike force we have, and I am not party to the secret statistics which you gentlemen have here, but as long as we have the ones which we of the public know we have, I think we have a strike force of such capability and I think we have a strike force simply in our Polaris submarines, in the 62 or some Polaris submarines, which are constantly roaming around under the sea. And I know as a Navy man that underwater detection is the hardest kind in the world, and they have not perfected it, that we have the ability to destroy the human race. Why do we have to, therefore, consider and keep considering threats?
At any time that an actual threat is posed to this country or to the security and freedom I will be one of the first people to pick up a gun and defend it, but right now we are reacting with paranoia to this question of peace and the people taking over the world. I think if we are ever going to get down to the question of dropping those bombs most of us in my generation simply don’t want to be alive afterwards because of the kind of world that it would be with mutations and the genetic probabilities of freaks and everything else.
Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerilla wars and I think we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate threats and that is what I would say to this question of world peace. I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands. (Laughter)
Senator, I will say this. I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in other it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist.
But when you start to neglect those needs, people will start to demand a new structure, and that, to me, is the only threat that this country faces now, because we are not responding to the needs and we are not responding to them because we work on these old cold-war precepts and because we have not woken up to realizing what is happening in the United States of America.
Senator Case: I thank you very much. I wanted you to have a chance to respond to the question of Indochina in a large context.
Mr. Chairman, I have just one further thing to do. Senator Javits had to go to the floor on important business, and he asked me to express his regret that he couldn’t stay and also that if he had stayed he would have limited his participation to agreement with everything Senator Symington said. (Applause)
Background of Vietnam War
The Chairman: Mr. Kerry, I have one other aspect of this I would like to explore for a moment. I recognize you and your associates, putting it on a personal point of view, feeling the seriousness and the tragedy of the experience in Vietnam. But I am disturbed very much by the possibility that your generation may become or is perhaps already in the process of becoming disillusioned with our whole country, with our system of government. There was much said about it. You didn’t say it, but others have said this. I wonder if we could explore for a moment the background of this war.
It has seemed to me that its origin was essentially a mistake in judgment, beginning with our support of the French as a colonial power, which, I believe, is the only time our country has ever done that. Always our sympathies has been with the colony. If you will recall, we urged the British to get out of Egypt and India, and we urged many thought too vigorously, the Dutch prematurely to get out of Indonesia. I think there was much criticism that we acted prematurely in urging the Belgians to get out of the Congo. In any case, the support of the French to maintain their power was a departure from our traditional attitude toward colonial powers because of our own history.
It started in a relatively small way by our support of the French. Then one thing led to another. But these were not decisions, I believe, that involved evil motives. They were political judgements which at that time were justified by the conditions in the world. You have already referred to the fact that after World War II there was great apprehension, and I think properly. The apprehension was justified by the events, especially from Stalin’s regime. There was apprehension that he would be able, and if he could he would, impose his regime by force on all of Western Europe, which could have created an extremely difficult situation which would amount to what you said a moment ago. You said if our country was really threatened, you would have no hesitancy in taking up a gun. So I think, in trying to evaluate the course of our involvement in this war, we have to take all of this into consideration. It was not a sign of any moral degradation or of bad motives. They were simply political judgments as to where our interest really was.
In retrospect I think we can say that our interest was not in supporting the French, that it was not in intervening, and it was not in undoing the Geneva Accords by the creation of SEATO, but that is all history. I am not saying this in order to try to lay the blame on anyone, but to get a perspective of our present situation, and hopefully to help, if I can, you and others not be too disillusioned and not to lose faith in the capacity of our institutions to respond to the public welfare. I believe what you and your associates are doing today certainly contributes to that, by the fact that you have taken the trouble to think these things through, and to come here. I know it is not very pleasant to do the things you have done.
While I wouldn’t presume to compare my own experience, I have taken a great deal of criticism since I myself in 1965 took issue with the then President Johnson over his policies. I did what I could within my particular role in the Government to persuade both President Johnson and subsequent political leaders that this was not in the interests of our country. I did this, not because I thought they were evil men inherently or they were morally misguided, but their political judgment was wrong. All of us, of course, know that as fallible human beings we all make errors of judgment.
Possibility of Making U.S. Institutions Work Effectively
I think it is helpful to try to put it in perspective and not lose confidence in the basically good motives and purposes of this country. I believe in the possibility of making our institutions work effectively. I think they can be made responsible to the welfare of the people and to proper judgments. I only throw this out because I have a feeling that because of the unusual horror that has developed from this war too many people may lose confidence in our system as a whole. I know of no better system for a country as large as this, with 200-plus millions of people. No other country comparable to it in history has ever made a democratic system work.
They have all become dictatorships when they have achieved the size and complexity of this country. Only smaller countries really have made a democratic system work at all.
So I only wish to throw it out hopefully that, in spite of the tragic experiences of you and so many other people and the deaths of so many people, this system is not beyond recall and with the assistance of people like yourself and the younger generation we can get back on the track, and can make this system operate effectively.
I know that the idea of working within the system has been used so much, and many people have lost confidence that it can be done. They wish to destroy the system, to start all over, but I don’t think in the history of human experience that those destructions of systems work. They usually destroy everything good as well as bad, and you have an awful lot of doing to recreate the good part and to get started again.
So I am hopeful that the younger generation- and I am certainly getting at the end of my generation because I have been here an awfully long time- but that you younger people can find it possible to accept the system and try to make it work because I can’t at the moment think of a better one given the conditions that we have in this country and the great complexity and diversity.
I really believe if we can stop this war- I certainly expect to do everything I can. I have done all I can with all my limitations. I am sure many people have thought I could do better, but I did all that I was capable of doing and what wisdom I may have has been applied to it. I hope that you and your colleagues will feel the same way or at least you will accept the structure of the system and try to make it work. I can see no better alternative to offer in its place.
If I thought there was one, I would certainly propose it or try.
Can Basic System Be Made To Work
Have you yourself arrived at the point where you believe that basic structural changes must be brought about in our system or do you believe it can be made to work?
Mr. Kerry: I don’t think I would be here if I didn’t believe that it can be made to work, but I would have to say, and one of the traits of my generation now is that people don’t pretend to speak for other people in it, and I can only speak as an individual about it, but I would say that I have certainly been frustrated in the past months, very, very seriously frustrated. I have gone to businessmen all over this country asking for money for fees, and met with a varying range of comments, ranging from “You can’t sell war crimes” to, “War crimes are a glut on the market” or to “well, you know we are tired now, we have tried, we can’t do anything.” So I have seen unresponsiveness on the racial question in this country. I see an unwillingness on the part of too many of the members of this body to respond, to take gutsy stands, to face questions other than their own reelection, to make a profile of courage, and I am -although still with faith- very, very, very full of doubt, and I am not going to quit. But I think that unless we can respond on as a great a question as the war, I seriously question how we are going to find the kind of response needed to meet questions such as poverty and hunger and questions such as birth control and so many of the things that face our society today from low income housing to schooling, to recent reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision on busing.
But I will say that I think we are going to keep trying. I also agree with you, Senator. I don’t see another system other than democracy, but democracy has to remain reponsive. When it does not, you create the possibilities for all kinds of other systems to supplant it, and that very possibility, I think, is beginning to exist in this country.
The Chairman: That is why I ask you that. The feeling that it cannot be made responsive comes not so much from what you have said but from many different sources. I can assure you I have been frustrated too. We have lost most of our major efforts. That is we have not succeeded in getting enough votes, but there has been a very marked increase, I think, in the realization of the seriousness of the war. I think you have to keep in perspective, as I say, the size and complexity of the country itself and the difficulties of communication. This war is so far removed. The very fact, as you have said, you do not believe what happens there to be in the vital interest of this country, has from the beginning caused many people to think it wasn’t so important.
Gradual Development of Concern About Vietnam War
In the beginning, back in the times that I mentioned when we first supported the French and throughout the 1950’s up until the 1960’s, this whole matter was not very much on the minds of anybody in the Congress. We were more preoccupied with what was going on in Western Europe, the fear, particularly during Stalin’s time, that he might be able to subjugate all of Western Europe, which would have been a very serious challenge to us. This grew up almost as a peripheral matter without anyone taking too much notice until the 1960’s. The major time when the Congress, I think, really became concerned about the significance of the war was really not before 1965, the big escalation. It was a very minor sideshow in all the things in which this country was involved until February 1965. That was when it became a matter that, you might say, warranted and compelled the attention of the country. It has been a gradual development of our realization of just what we were into.
As I said before, I think this came about not because of bad motives but by very serious errors in political judgment as to where our interest lies and what should be done about it.
I am only saying this hopefully to at least try to enlist your consideration, of the view that in a country of this kind I don’t believe there is a better alternative from a structural point of view. I think the structure of our Government is sound.
To go back to my own State certainly, leaving out now the war, its affairs are being well managed. The people are, as you may say, maybe too indifferent to this.
Mr. Kerry: As it does in Massachusetts, too.
The Chairman: I have often thought they were too indifferent to it, but they have responded to the arguments as to where our interest lies quite well, at least from my personal experience. Otherwise I would not be here. But I think there is a gradual recognition of this.
War’s Interference With Dealing With Other Problems
I also feel that if we could finish the war completely within the reasonably near future, as some of the proposals before this committee are designed to do if we can pass them, I think the country can right itself and get back on the track, in a reasonably quick time, dealing with the problems you mentioned. We are aware and conscious of all of them.
The thing that has inhibited us in doing things about what you mention has been the war. It has been the principal obstacle to dealing with these other problems with which you are very concerned, as, I think, the Congress is. Always we are faced with the demands of the war itself. Do you realize that this country has put well over $1,000 billion into military affairs since World War II?
I think it now approaches $1,500 billion. It is a sum so large no one can comprehend it, but I don’t think outside of this war issue there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system that cannot be righted.
If we can give our resources to those developments, I don’t have any doubt myself that it can be done. Whether it will be done or not is a matter of will. It is a matter of conviction of the various people who are involved, including the younger generation.
In that connection, I am say, the recent enactment of the right of all people from 18 years up to vote is at least a step in the direction where you and your generation can have an effect.
I hope that you won’t lose faith in it. I hope you will use your talents after the war is over, and it surely will be over, to then attack these other problems and to make the system work.
I believe it can be made to work.
Do you have anything else you would like to say?
Mr. Kerry: Would you like me to respond at all, sir?
The Chairman: If you care to.
Mr. Kerry: Well, my feeling is that if you are talking about the ideal structure of this country as it is written down in the Constitution, then you or I would not differ at all. Yes, that is an ideal structure.
Developments in United States Requiring Fundamental Changes
What has developed in this country, however, at this point is something quite different and that does require some fundamental changes.
I do agree with you that what happened in Vietnam was not the product of evil men seeking evil goals. It was misguided principles and judgments and other things.
However, at some point you have to stop playing the game. At some point you have to say, “All right we did make a mistake.” At some point the basic human values have to come back into this system and at this moment we are so built up within it by these outside structures, other interests, for instance, government by vested power which, in fact, you and I really know it is. When a minority body comes down here to Washington with a bill, those bodies which have the funds and the ability to lobby are

 
 

Yep…. Read It, And all Americans should also read Unfit For Command. Another good read is the transcripts from The Dick Cavett Show June 30th. 1971. The Debate of John F. Kerry and John E. O’neill. Dick Cavett asked the two if they thought that a bloodbath would occur if we pulled our troops from Vietnam. O’neill responded that he thought that it would cause a bloodbath. Kerry responded that he thought that no more then five thousand would perish. Unfortunatly O’neill was correct, An estimated 3.5 million to include the 2.5 in the Killing Fields of Cambodia, 1.4 million refugees, many of whom made it to the United States although Tens of thousands of “boat people” perished. Ironicly Kerry could not produce one incident of the many atrocity claims that he had used to spark controversy. Since 1971 Kerry has admitted to embellishing his stories of attrocities and It is now known that many of his so called Band Of Brothers never even served in Vietnam. It is also know that the peace movement in the United States gave comfort to the enemy, as they saw Civil Unrest as a victory and a reason to continue the fight in S.E. Asia. The Vietcong revere Kerry and Jane Fonda, and the whole peace movement. Kerry’s photo hangs on the Wall in a museum in (Saigon) Ho Chi Minh city, that celebrates the North Vietnamese victory over the Americans. Kerry disregarded our POW’s He betrayed his fellow servicemen, and he is a fraud.

 
 

Dean-I’m curious what you thought of the senate testimony above, exactly? I’m a undecided, which is how I stumbled across this page. Although I think it’s a minor decision point, all the static about military service is interesting. I wouldn’t bother with “unfit For Command” both because I don’t have time, and because I wouldn’t trust much out of any of these books that are published around elections nowadays. They’re certinly partisan and the conclusions they draw are questionable at best. Anyway, what do you draw from that testimony? I won’t say what I get, just yet.

 
 

John,
If you are not willing to research what is said in “Unfit For Command”, then our time would be best spent elsewhere. Also, I should add that John E. O’Neill is the person who debated JFK on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. This is not a new battle for O’Neill. He was offended by John Kerry’s comments upon returning to the States. Kerry reopened wounds when he used a photo of his fellow Swiftboat veterans. The book is 185 pages and you are an intelligent individual, John. If you can invest $20.00 and a couple of hours reading then get back with me and we can discuss the Senate transcripts you posted above. I do read quite a bit and can seperate the Kitty Kelly’s from the John E. O’Neill’s. “Unfit” is essential reading for all who plan to vote in November.

 
 

Dean. If I had already made up my mind, then I would read pointless partisan drivel like Unfit for Command or go see Fahrenheit 911 because they would make me feel good about my decision. However, I haven’t made up my mind and am interested in something more.

I asked you on this board because it sounded like you had some definite opinions that I don’t really see, but am open to. That O’Neill was “offended” by Kerry’s statement seems pretty unimportant. For every person that didn’t like what he said, there’s one that did. Frankly, I don’t see anything that Kerry said either int he Cavett show or the Senate testimony that’s so bad. He definitely wanted the war to end immediately, definitely believed that a significant amount of “immoral” activities were taking place. Kerry certainly stretches the arguments, but so does O’Neill. I could definitely spend more time on re-reading those things, but nothing struck me, on either side, as an out and out lie. Stretch the truth? Certainly. The “problem” with the Cavett debate was that both Kerry and O’Neill were both more interested in “winning” than having any sort of discussion and just attacked and talked over each other at every opportunity, stretching the truth as they went. It was more humorus than anything (or would have been, with a different topic).

In the end, I’ve not been able to figure out what all the hubbub aoubt John Kerry has been in terms of his military service. Well, that’s not quite true. I do realize that the hubbub is there because he made it his lead issue and has stuck with it, at least until the last week or so. If the gist of what his critics say is true, then I can understand that, well, Kerry worked the system for his own political future, made some horrible, terrible mistakes when he joined the peace movement. However, if they’re more wrong than right, then Kerry served honorably and came home to fight for changes he saw as necessary. In the first case, it’s bad, but his record in the thirty years since certainly seems to reflect a much more moderate viewpoint. In the second case, he served for four months, so how useful is that really going to be to a potential commander in chief? Not very convincing arguments either way. That’s what I’ve been trying to figure out.

Anyway, Dean, I know you’ll not agree with me and say that Kerry is a scumbag, and I guess it’s cool that you have made up your mind, but I was just looking for some honest, legitimate help. Since I won’t have time to read the book (and doubt it’s veracity), I’ll search elsewhere.

 
 

Dean. If I had already made up my mind, then I would read pointless partisan drivel like Unfit for Command or go see Fahrenheit 911 because they would make me feel good about my decision. However, I haven’t made up my mind and am interested in something more.

I asked you on this board because it sounded like you had some definite opinions that I don’t really see, but am open to. That O’Neill was “offended” by Kerry’s statement seems pretty unimportant. For every person that didn’t like what he said, there’s one that did. Frankly, I don’t see anything that Kerry said either int he Cavett show or the Senate testimony that’s so bad. He definitely wanted the war to end immediately, definitely believed that a significant amount of “immoral” activities were taking place. Kerry certainly stretches the arguments, but so does O’Neill. I could definitely spend more time on re-reading those things, but nothing struck me, on either side, as an out and out lie. Stretch the truth? Certainly. The “problem” with the Cavett debate was that both Kerry and O’Neill were both more interested in “winning” than having any sort of discussion and just attacked and talked over each other at every opportunity, stretching the truth as they went. It was more humorus than anything (or would have been, with a different topic).

In the end, I’ve not been able to figure out what all the hubbub aoubt John Kerry has been in terms of his military service. Well, that’s not quite true. I do realize that the hubbub is there because he made it his lead issue and has stuck with it, at least until the last week or so. If the gist of what his critics say is true, then I can understand that, well, Kerry worked the system for his own political future, made some horrible, terrible mistakes when he joined the peace movement. However, if they’re more wrong than right, then Kerry served honorably and came home to fight for changes he saw as necessary. In the first case, it’s bad, but his record in the thirty years since certainly seems to reflect a much more moderate viewpoint. In the second case, he served for four months, so how useful is that really going to be to a potential commander in chief? Not very convincing arguments either way. That’s what I’ve been trying to figure out.

Anyway, Dean, I know you’ll not agree with me and say that Kerry is a scumbag, and I guess it’s cool that you have made up your mind, but I was just looking for some honest, legitimate help. Since I won’t have time to read the book (and doubt it’s veracity), I’ll search elsewhere.

 
 

What an ass!

All Americans should also read Unfit For Command. – What the hell for?

Dick Cavett asked the two if they thought that a bloodbath would occur if we pulled our troops from Vietnam. O’neill responded that he thought that it would cause a bloodbath. Kerry responded that he thought that no more then five thousand would perish. Unfortunatly O’neill was correct, An estimated 3.5 million to include the 2.5 in the Killing Fields of Cambodia, 1.4 million refugees, many of whom made it to the United States although Tens of thousands of “boat people” perished. – That’s right, John Kerry was responsible for those deaths.

Ironicly Kerry could not produce one incident of the many atrocity claims that he had used to spark controversy. – Not true. And what’s wrong with sparking controversy?

Since 1971 Kerry has admitted to embellishing his stories of attrocities and It is now known that many of his so called Band Of Brothers never even served in Vietnam. – Hee hee!! What!?

It is also know that the peace movement in the United States gave comfort to the enemy, as they saw Civil Unrest as a victory and a reason to continue the fight in S.E. Asia. – Common sense would tell even you that the military organization from the Pentagon down to the leaders on the ground were more involved in the fighting than the peace movement. And how many lives were saved by drawing an early end to the war, which the peace movement played a huge part in? Ending a war in the interest of peace, by definition, would give the enemy a reason to stop fighting, wouldn’t it.

The Vietcong revere Kerry and Jane Fonda, and the whole peace movement. Kerry’s photo hangs on the Wall in a museum in (Saigon) Ho Chi Minh city, that celebrates the North Vietnamese victory over the Americans. – True. So what?

Kerry disregarded our POW’s He betrayed his fellow servicemen, and he is a fraud. – Hee hee!

 
 

If Kerry can make up lies to fit his agenda, and that’s alright with you then by all means roll with John Kerry. I hope that the best interest of the country is what’s important to him, But what I see is someone that is willing to tell everyone everything that they want to here, Thus the flip-flops and the waffling. Again I disagree that what O’neill has to say is in any way partisan although I base that on an educated opinion as I’ve read the book and have seen the professionalism that they show on there website. It is not a good comparison to mention Moore or Ferenheit 9/11 as he is a know liar and preys on American emotion to encite controversy. Moore has a very partisan objective that he does not hide. If you go to the discussion board on SwiftVets.com you will not find anything promoting Republicans, Democrats, or Bush.

I’m including the Mission Statement from the Swiftvets forum. Please note there is no mention of George Bush.

Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his “band of brothers.”
But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false “war crimes” charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry’s brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience — our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.
We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America’s highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry’s phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward.
For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.
The time has come to set the record straight.

http://www.swiftvets.com

 
 

Thank You Kevin, Your helping me make my point……Hee Hee ! Lefties are so cute and animated, Gotta love em………

 
 

The mission statement is fine. I don’t think too many people would argue with the facts, and the rest is open to argument, certainly.

1. Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. – True.

2. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. – True

3. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his “band of brothers.” – Not true. Of course John Kerry, and everyone else on the face of the earth, understands that he is not universally loved. The daily polls would remind him of that in the case that he forgot. Do you suggest that John Kerry would (or should) fly around veterans that DON’T like him and make appearances at his appearances?

4. But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light. – May or may not be true. Hinges on the word “Most”. And it doesn’t matter much anyway. At times, George W. Bush has had less than a 50% approval rating. Does that mean that he’s wrong? If he had a 2% approval rating, or if all but one or two guys condemned Kerry, that would be one thing. But that’s not the case.

5. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been formed to counter the false “war crimes” charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere. – Why the supposition that the war crimes charges were “false”? Is this group claiming that there were no “war crimes” committed?

6. And to accurately portray Kerry’s brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. – Yes, that’s accurate.

7. We speak from personal experience — our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. – Kerry’s own group includes the same kind of men. This group points that out in the second sentence of their mission statement.

8. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead. – I agree that they agree on that.

9. We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America’s highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. – Fair enough. It may or may not be fair to ask: Have they been as suspect and vocal about the discrepancies in Bush’s service records?

10. However, Kerry’s phony war crimes charges. – See above.

11. His exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam. – Exaggerating the positives and downplaying the negatives is what happens during campaigns, and throughout life, for most of us.

12. His deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations. – I’ll assume that this is true.

13. Compels us to step forward. – OK. They’re clearly compelled.

14. For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent. – Why is it improper for Kerry to speak for “most” vets, but acceptable for this group to claim that they do?

15. As we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. – Vietnam and its aftermath, like the Civil War and its aftermath, was a horrible, tragic and eminently regrettable period of our past for all sorts of reasons. And like the Civil War, it still reverberates today. It is, though, again like the Civil War, primarily history and not the present. You’d be hard pressed…very hard pressed…to find even a significant minority of people that would call Vietnam Vets misfits, addicts and baby killers.

14. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence. – John Kerry is noted by many as one of the people in this group, so this is true enough. I don’t see that it’s reasonable to say that any single person is responsible for creating that image. He wasn’t, for example, seen in that role five years ago. Hell, most of the population had never seen him. And just how does a Junior Grade Lt. come to wield this sort of power?

15. The time has come. – Odd that the one single man that destroyed the reputation of every Vietnam Veteran garnered so little attention until he ran for president. You would think that his name would be in all the schoolbooks, that everyone would know his name like they know Genghis Kahn, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and the rest.

16. To set the record straight. – Nothing wrong with that at all; in fact, it’s number one on the ol’ Bill of Rights. But there’s precious little evidence that they’ve set the record straight. Or, for that matter, that Kerry has set it straight. Seeing no clear decision on this point after thirty years of history leads me to think that “setting the record straight” will never happen.

I’m not sure how I helped you make your point, but if I did, your point is a rather weak one, even with my help. Whatever that point is.

 
 

Nice comeback Kevin, this I can respect. You raise some good questions and points. The hee hee thing kinda put me off at first but I guess you can contribute when poked.

“I’m not sure how I helped you make your point, but if I did, your point is a rather weak one, even with my help. Whatever that point is.”

My point is that the Main Stream Media has you brainwashed and you find it difficult to weigh all the issues, as you stated earlier, about not reading “Unfit For Command”. The other point was that your post was just immature and without any substance. If you were labeled a rapist and a baby killer, maybe you would understand! People keep saying that this is a non-issue, but I have to wonder if Kerry was the reason that our veterans were mistreated upon returning from ‘Nam. He helped bring about the end, although I don’t believe it was done correctly, I can’t blame Kerry for the mass killings that were done when we left Saigon. But I do question his motives. I think he was self-serving and I think he betrayed alot of people that would have given their lives to save his ass. As a veteran I question the amount of awards he recieved, I question the manner in which they were recieved and I just detest the fact that he only served four months on the ground. He left his fellow soldiers there and when you are in combat, the cause and reason disappear, it becomes about bringing you and your brothers home. Nothing More, Nothing Less. Kerry left and for that, he is a coward and a piss-poor excuse for a soldier, and a piss-poor excuse for an American. News Flash: Veterans Day will be held on November 02 this year.

 
 

First of all, there’s no such thing as a Mainstream Media as you think of it. That’s a farce dreamt up and promulgated by Rush Limbaugh. In this country’s history, there has never been such a wide variety of information sources available to read, study and consider as there is today, so put that out of your head. Even if there was, how could you possibly know that it had brainwashed me? You have no idea who I am, what I read, what I believe. I assume that you know what you’re talking about and have some real basis for the things you say. Why do you assume that I am ignorant? Is it simply because I don’t agree with you?

You say that my previous post is without substance. Can you tell me where the substance is missing? I agreed with most of that mission statement and gave reasons why the others at least may not be true. Where am I wrong?

You say that if I were labeled a racist and a baby killer I might understand. Have YOU yourself been labeled a rapist and a baby killer, Dean? If not, how do you know how these folks feel? And what about the veterans that were either (a) not called rapists and baby killers or (b) were called that, but did not accept that label. How do you know what they feel? I think you’re guilty of the same thing you accuse John Kerry of: speaking for everybody.

Yes, John Kerry was self-serving. Fine. So what? Do you suppose that any recent President, nay, any President was not self-serving? Do you know that even George Washington insisted on driving around in a fancy carriage to promote his own image as the leader of the country *after* he was elected?

Can you respond to this question: You detest that he only served four months on the ground. What is your opinion of George Bush’s service (or that of Rumsfeld, Cheney or Ashcroft while we’re at it). If you’re pissed at just four months, you must be fucking livid that the President and most of his cabinet did nothing. A second question on that: why does it upset you that he left after four months? Is it just because he didn’t put in more time? I’m seriously asking…it’s an interesting point. How long would he have needed to stay to satisfy you or are you irritated for some other reason? I think you said you were a veteran, right? Why did you leave? Are you a coward, and a poor soldier and American because you didn’t re-up? What about your friends, are they cowards because they went home? Why aren’t you a career soldier?

For myself, I consider service as a Senator, President, Representative, Diplomat, etc. as service to this country, as important, necessary and “useful” as that of a soldier. Our government was originally founded on that principal, as early representatives weren’t paid for their work. Although that lifestyle is way more lucrative now, and too many of the top positions are held by the very wealthy in the search for power, I still believe it is a service, not a gift.

In 1972 (or whatever year it was), that John Kerry petitioned to leave the service in order to pursue a Senatorial position in the hope of being able to effect change in this country (as I would submit he desired to do), well, then that’s alright with me. He didn’t quit (for example) to take a job with a defense contractor, and it doesn’t seem that he quit just to avoid danger, or avoid serving. He could easily have gotten a desk job somewhere just as easily as he got out early. He got out to continue serving, just in a different capacity.

You also say that Kerry is a coward? What about what he did in Vietnam that says he’s a coward?

 
 

Ouch: That is 10 minutes I’ll never get back !!

 
 

Dean-I’ve noticed in all the previous posts that when you try to put something forward, or ask someone a question and they respond to it, or when someone asks you a question or an opinion, you almost always just change the subject. I know (and you probably know) that you can’t support your positions. Can you prove me wrong?

All that I can see that you’ve ever said is that “John Kerry is a fraud, and you should read Unfit for Command which will prove it.” What the hell? Is that all you’ve got?

I challenge you to respond to any of the questions I asked you above, clearly, with some reasonable explanation or fact to support your answers (“John Kerry is a fraud” is not a fact). Absent that, it’s clear what kind of political intellect you are.

For your convenience, I’ll paraphrase some of the questions I asked, but see above for the whole context:

1. Why do you assume that I am ignorant? Is it simply because I don’t agree with you?

2. You say that my previous post [regarding the swift boat vets mission statement] is without substance. Can you tell me where the substance is missing? I agreed with most of that mission statement and gave reasons why the others at least may not be true. Where am I wrong?

3. Do you suppose that any recent President, nay, ANY President was not self-serving?

4. You detest that Kerry only served four months on the ground. What is your opinion of George Bush’s service (or that of Rumsfeld, Cheney or Ashcroft while we’re at it). If you’re pissed at just four months, you must be fucking livid that the President and most of his cabinet did nothing.

5. Why does it upset you that he left after four months? Is it just because he didn’t put in more time? I’m seriously asking…it’s an interesting point. How long would he have needed to stay to satisfy you?

6. What of what John Kerry did IN VIETNAM suggests to you that he’s a coward?

We all eagerly await your answers.

 
 

I didn’t think you’d have the courage or the facts to be able to formulate an answer.

You’re just a chickenshit coward. You’ll happily jump up and down and whine about John Kerry being a fraud, but when challenged on it, you can’t even respond at the most basic level. What a freakin’ loser.

 
 

Right on, brother. Right on.

 
 

Bill is back, Does your wife know your on the computer again Bill?

This little Bastard starts his shit by calling me an ass,
Disects my writing with his little immature quips and has no interest in hearing anything I have to say. So explain to me why I should give you the time of day? You are imature….Hee Hee… You are a name caller and now Bill is your biggest fan. Congrats. You are an antagonist and not interested in anything but what you already think you know. As for calling you ignorant, I didn’t what I said was that your first post was immature and lacked any kind of substance. As for me being a coward, I’d beat you to an inch of your pathetic life you little faggott. See now look what you’ve done, Now I’m name calling.

 
 

And yet, Dean, you still cannot answer a single question!

You’re ignorant because: (1) You have a strange notion that when someone asks you a question it’s because they DON’T want to hear an answer, which make no sense. (2) You say that I’m not interested in anything but what I think I know, but in fact, I have already agreed with quite a few things that you have said (see my previous posts). You seem not to realize this.

You’re a coward because: It seems like you’re on this board to put your view out there and convince others what a fraud Kerry is, but now when directly asked about things, you run away instead of continuing the fight.

Many of the folks on the board (and, like Bill, there are probably a number who, at this point, are just enjoying watching you get pushed around). Even if you believed that I could not be convinced, maybe you could sway someone to understand what you’re saying. But you could only do that if you said something intelligent! C’mon, give it a try.

P.S. You should be careful about talking about “beating faggots”. Someone might get the wrong impression of you. Or maybe the right one?

 
 

Kevin, You are a little piece of dog shit and anyone who has read anything you have written above surly agrees. I’m not sure your American, let alone old enough to vote and you constant name calling gives no validity to the message you try to convey. I know your insecure with yourself and you hide behind your computer to escape the reality that you are a looser. My best advice would be for you to Join the Army and then talk your shit around real men. They do have a don’t ask, don’t tell policy now so the time you can spend in the shower would be priceless. You lacked hte basic knowledge of the topic and that is why I’m wasting my time. You start with and I’ll quote, “What an ass !” Now how in the hell am I supposed to take you serious? You cut and paste my posting (Learned that from Bill I’ll bet) Then disect it with little stupid quips…ie….Hee hee..What? You message gets lost son! Take a debate class there at Mrs. Johnsons 5th. grade and then present yourself in a way that may deserve a response. By the way; If you read the posts above, Bill resorted to attacking my spelling and sentence structure, thus his message was lost as well.

I could care less about how you feel about John Kerry or even Me. You’re questions are void of any kind of response, as you don’t know shit about Military, John Kerry, or any of this topic.

I’m going to humor your ignorance a little bit.
John Kerry was sent to Vietnam during the war. A combat tour consists of usually 11 months on the ground although most are dedicated to staying with the unit and wind up extending.
They give people the Purple Heart when they are wounded in combat. They usually pin this on the pillow of the soldier, as it is usally at the hospital where this is presented. The Purple Heart is a revered medal and in most cases is presented after the person has died.
The only reason that any of this is an issue is because Kerry used it as his platform. All of his bids for office, going all the way back to the seventies.
Back to our story: Now Kerry is deployed and while in Vietnam, He is put into a Swiftboat unit. They patroled the rivers and deltas. While there He is awarded Three Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star, All this in four months.
Next he uses a military provision that allows a person who has recieved Three Purple hearts a ticket home. Walking I should add!
His fellow soldiers didn’t object as they had already labeled him a Purple Heart hunter and self serving and In combat that is the worst label that one can recieve.
Kerry went home and immediately helped form the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War). He was very active in his protests and you’re right Kevin “there is nothing wrong with having a voice”.
He made serious claims of brutal atrocities that he had witnessed while serving. He also IMHO endangered the lives of American soldiers who were engadged in battle or were prisoners of war.
Our enemies exploit civil unrest, They see it as a tool to help their cause. The Vietnamese government atribute the peace movement to the sucess of what they call the War of the Americans.
Next Kerry meets with the North Vietnamese government accidently while vacationing in Paris. This stuff is not made up and is well know unless you factor in the Non-existant MSM. By Kerry meeting with the enemy in Paris, He gave aid and comfort to the enemy and should have been arrested and jailed under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Kerry was still in the military.
These are simply my views and about 600,000 other veterans of military service.
I think Kerry is a coward because he ran from the Pentagon like a scared little girl while others stood and became heroes.
I think he is a coward because he refuses to release all of his military records.
I think Kerry is a coward because he left his fellow soldiers after only four months.
I think he is a coward because he has exploited medals that me and all veterans hold sacred.
BTW, I was deployed as a unit and returned with my unit when I served!
His senate record sucks IMHO
He has no plan for Iraq IMHO
He has flipped on every issue imaginable.
He allowed or didn’t object to protesters swarming the Republican Nation Convention. He campaigned during the Republican Nation Convention, all of which is a violation and a disregard to Democracy as a whole.
The protesters by the way (IMHO) endangered homeland security by extending the resources of our military and police forces. It must be remembered that we are at war.
Again this disregard for public safety tells me that he is only thinking of himself.
He shifts blame on Bush when the Swiftboat vets arrive and claims there is a Republican conspiracy against him, But yet he never condems Michael Moore and the Smear Campaign that Moore waged against Bush. He is self-serving !
Anyway Kevin, I don’t see any reason to continue the personal bashing so your next post will dictate where this goes. Please remember that I do not endorse Bush, Kerry, Swiftvets for truth, or my favorite Football players for truth. Although I do endorse the ShrimpboatVeterans for truth.

 
 

It looks like Kevn isn’t here any more. Let me jump in:

Irrelevant Items
================
John Kerry was sent to Vietnam during the war. A combat tour consists of usually 11 months on the ground although most are dedicated to staying with the unit and wind up extending. (“Usually” 11 months…”most” stay with the unit. That’s accurate.)

They give people the Purple Heart when they are wounded in combat. They usually pin this on the pillow of the soldier, as it is usally at the hospital where this is presented. The Purple Heart is a revered medal and in most cases is presented after the person has died. (OK. But those “usually” cases you mention above are far from any sort of requirement. Your implication is that John Kerry wasn’t injured “enough”. That’s just wrong.)

The only reason that any of this is an issue is because Kerry used it as his platform. All of his bids for office, going all the way back to the seventies. (OK. I would too.)

Back to our story: Now Kerry is deployed and while in Vietnam, He is put into a Swiftboat unit. They patroled the rivers and deltas. While there He is awarded Three Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star, All this in four months. (Sounds like an active, engaged, soldier to me. The awards, which I’ll point out here are not awarded by John Kerry to himself, but by superiors that probably don’t have any vested interest in his decorations, appear to be fairly impressive.)

Next he uses a military provision that allows a person who has recieved Three Purple hearts a ticket home. Walking I should add! (Three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors though so too. You are correct, however. He could have volunteered for more action.)

Kerry went home and immediately helped form the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War). He was very active in his protests and you’re right Kevin “there is nothing wrong with having a voice”. (That’s right)

Opinion-Only Items
==================
His fellow soldiers didn’t object as they had already labeled him a Purple Heart hunter and self serving and In combat that is the worst label that one can recieve. (Some soldiers may have thought this. Others may have not. A few may have even been envious. What others might think now is perhaps different than what they thought then while they were all getting shot at.)

He made serious claims of brutal atrocities that he had witnessed while serving. (Brutal atrocities are part of the legacy of Vietnam, unfortunately.)

He also IMHO endangered the lives of American soldiers who were engadged in battle or were prisoners of war. (In your opinion, OK. It may even be true. The peace movement may also have saved thousands of lives. Impossible to know.)

Our enemies exploit civil unrest, They see it as a tool to help their cause. (That makes sense, sure.)

The Vietnamese government atribute the peace movement to the sucess of what they call the War of the Americans. (The Vietnamese government may think this although I’m sure they are much more likely to give the “victory” to their people and their military rather than to American peace protesters. Additionally, I don’t understand it to be the view of military experts, historians, active participants, etc. I prefer a studied interpretation of the war to one which has a purely political/nationalistic purpose to it.)

Next Kerry meets with the North Vietnamese government accidently while vacationing in Paris. This stuff is not made up and is well know unless you factor in the Non-existant MSM. By Kerry meeting with the enemy in Paris, He gave aid and comfort to the enemy and should have been arrested and jailed under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Kerry was still in the military. (Yes, this is well documented, even in the “MSM”. It hasn’t been very notable because, well, it’s not all that notable. If his actions were as extreme as you point out and he gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy, he would have been arrested. He wasn’t.)

These are simply my views and about 600,000 other veterans of military service. (Actually, they are simply your views. The other 600,000 can speak for themselves, I’m sure. A few might even disagree with you.)

I think Kerry is a coward because he ran from the Pentagon like a scared little girl while others stood and became heroes. (Earning Three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star, or even just one minor decoration, or nothing at all; while actually standing on the ground in combat shooting at the enemy and being shot at, for four months, or even for four minutes, is not a coward in my book. Sounds like you would categorize a fair number of our soldiers would qualify as cowards!)

I think he is a coward because he refuses to release all of his military records. (OK.)

I think Kerry is a coward because he left his fellow soldiers after only four months. (You keep repeating this one point, but as before, three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors though so too.)

I think he is a coward because he has exploited medals that me and all veterans hold sacred. (I’m not sure what you mean by “exploited medals.”)

BTW, I was deployed as a unit and returned with my unit when I served! (I thank you for your service to my country.)

His senate record sucks IMHO (OK)

He has no plan for Iraq IMHO (OK)

He has flipped on every issue imaginable. (OK)

Delusional Paranoid Items
=========================
He allowed or didn’t object to protesters swarming the Republican Nation Convention. He campaigned during the Republican Nation Convention, all of which is a violation and a disregard to Democracy as a whole. (Campaigning at any time is not illegal in any way whatsoever. Even if it were, calling it a disregard to democracy would be quite a stretch.)

The protesters by the way (IMHO) endangered homeland security by extending the resources of our military and police forces. It must be remembered that we are at war. (For one thing, the protestors are not John Kerry. As Benjamin Franklin said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Whether you agree with them or not, and whether you understand it or not, those protests are precisely what Franklin would have considered “essential liberty”.)

Again this disregard for public safety tells me that he is only thinking of himself. (Again, the protestors are not John Kerry. In fact, the protestors of which you spoke were protesting against George Bush much more than they are clamoring for John Kerry.)

He shifts blame on Bush when the Swiftboat vets arrive and claims there is a Republican conspiracy against him, But yet he never condems Michael Moore and the Smear Campaign that Moore waged against Bush. He is self-serving ! (Yes, of course.)

Attempted Humour But Not Funny Items
====================================
Anyway Kevin, I don’t see any reason to continue the personal bashing so your next post will dictate where this goes. Please remember that I do not endorse Bush, Kerry, Swiftvets for truth, or my favorite Football players for truth. Although I do endorse the ShrimpboatVeterans for truth. (At the very minimum, you did directly endorse the Swiftvets for Truth and I am quite sure that you would/do endorse George Bush for President.)

I feel the same way that most of the people that you have been arguing with do. This issue is (a) one that has either a lot evidence on either side, or little evidence on either side and therefore cannot be easily resolved and (b) is unimportant in the whole scheme of the election, especially when compared to George Bush’s military record.

What is much nmore important are the actual issues (in no particular order):

Stem Cell Research
Patriotism and Freedom of Speech
Women’s Rights
The Economy
The War on Terror
The War in Iraq
Homeland Security
The Environment
International Relations
Energy Policy
Health Care

Those are the things that will affect my children, and what I will be voting on.

 
 

Irrelevant Items ? Your opinion
================
John Kerry was sent to Vietnam during the war. A combat tour consists of usually 11 months on the ground although most are dedicated to staying with the unit and wind up extending. (“Usually” 11 months…”most” stay with the unit. That’s accurate.)

They give people the Purple Heart when they are wounded in combat. They usually pin this on the pillow of the soldier, as it is usually at the hospital where this is presented. The Purple Heart is a revered medal and in most cases is presented after the person has died. (OK. But those “usually” cases you mention above are far from any sort of requirement. Your implication is that John Kerry wasn’t injured “enough”. That’s just wrong.)– {My position is that John Kerry admitted to getting the First Purple Heart as a result of his own actions and not from enemy fire. #2 and #3 have also been questioned although the First is the only one that Kerry has admitted was obtained fraudulently!}

The only reason that any of this is an issue is because Kerry used it as his platform. All of his bids for office, going all the way back to the seventies. (OK. I would too.){Maybe it would work for you although all the Veterans that I know, Do Not wear there military service on their sleeve. Most vets are humble and unless in the company of other Veterans will avoid the topic altogether. I?m not saying that one should be ashamed of his/her service but am saying that it is not flaunted. It always looks bad in the presence of Veterans as they are well aware of what duty and service to country means. We are the fortunate ones who made it home to our families and now we have an obligation to those that did not. It would be disrespectful to their memory to boast about such things as Medals and Getting shot at On Christmas Eve in Cambodia. My suggestion is to go visit your local Veterans Hospital and ask questions. These are the unsung heroes who are just grunts and cooks and mechanics. They have stories of valor and honor and as I stated earlier in this thread that when you are in combat it becomes about only getting yourself and your fellow soldiers home alive.}

Back to our story: Now Kerry is deployed and while in Vietnam, He is put into a Swiftboat unit. They patrolled the rivers and deltas. While there He is awarded Three Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star, All this in four months. (Sounds like an active, engaged, soldier to me. The awards, which I’ll point out here are not awarded by John Kerry to himself, but by superiors that probably don’t have any vested interest in his decorations, appear to be fairly impressive.) {It?s funny that you point out, ?were not awarded by John Kerry to himself?, although he was the author of all of the After Action Reports that led to his awards. You hit the nail on the head as the awards that we speak of are still under question and the commanders who authorized these awards are saying that they did not.}

Next he uses a military provision that allows a person who has received Three Purple hearts a ticket home. Walking I should add! (Three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors thought so too. You are correct, however. He could have volunteered for more action.) {I pointed out earlier that his fellow soldiers had labeled him a ?Purple Heart Hunter? and thought that he was of no use to anyone but himself. Please read O?neill?s ?Unfit For Command? if you haven?t already done so. I?m not going to beg you to read this although I feel it is necessary reading to create an informed decision on the upcoming election.}

Kerry went home and immediately helped form the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War). He was very active in his protests and you’re right Kevin “there is nothing wrong with having a voice”. (That’s right)

Opinion-Only Items
==================
His fellow soldiers didn’t object as they had already labeled him a Purple Heart hunter and self serving and In combat that is the worst label that one can receive. (Some soldiers may have thought this. Others may have not. A few may have even been envious. What others might think now is perhaps different than what they thought then while they were all getting shot at.) {Reference: ?Unfit for command?}
He made serious claims of brutal atrocities that he had witnessed while serving. (Brutal atrocities are part of the legacy of Vietnam, unfortunately.) You are correct. The problem is that John Kerry generalized and said all soldiers in Nam were guilty, Including himself. Could I say that Detroit has a high murder rate? Yes! Could I say that all Detroiters are murderers? No!
He also IMHO endangered the lives of American soldiers who were engaged in battle or were prisoners of war. (In your opinion, OK. It may even be true. The peace movement may also have saved thousands of lives. Impossible to know.) {This is not just my opinion but also the thoughts of quite a few historians and military strategists as well as POW?s that were tortured because of Kerry?s statements. It is also know that Ho Chi Mihn has made statements that the war was drug out for years because of his hopes that the peace movement in the states would explode into civil war. Also as you agree with in the next statement! }
Our enemies exploit civil unrest, They see it as a tool to help their cause. (That makes sense, sure.)

The Vietnamese government attribute the peace movement to the success of what they call the War of the Americans. (The Vietnamese government may think this although I’m sure they are much more likely to give the “victory” to their people and their military rather than to American peace protesters. Additionally, I don’t understand it to be the view of military experts, historians, active participants, etc. I prefer a studied interpretation of the war to one which has a purely political/nationalistic purpose to it.)
{Again I find it ironic that you use the word ?victory? as there was never a battle lost to American troops in Vietnam. The war was lost here at home and yes it was the peace movement that can take the bow for handing over our allies to be slaughtered like lamb. Kerry was instrumental in negotiating our ?surrender? not our withdrawal as some would suggest. He also negotiated prisoner of war exchanges and is directly responsible for the loss of an unknown amount of POW?s that the NV intentionally withheld to guarantee the terms of our surrender!}

Next Kerry meets with the North Vietnamese government accidentally while vacationing in Paris. This stuff is not made up and is well know unless you factor in the Non-existent MSM. By Kerry meeting with the enemy in Paris, He gave aid and comfort to the enemy and should have been arrested and jailed under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Kerry was still in the military. (Yes, this is well documented, even in the “MSM”. It hasn’t been very notable because, well, it’s not all that notable. If his actions were as extreme as you point out and he gave “aid and comfort” to the enemy, he would have been arrested. He wasn’t.) {I should point out that there is speculation that Kerry?s actions in Paris did have some ill effects on his military career although because John Kerry refuses to sign his SF 180 form allowing public access to his military records we may never know. It is know that Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge from active duty until years later although this may be a result of the terms of his Naval contract. Regardless I see this as being treason, many agree.}

These are simply my views and about 600,000 other veterans of military service. (Actually, they are simply your views. The other 600,000 can speak for themselves, I’m sure. A few might even disagree with you.) {This should read 60,000 and not 600,000 and the number has grown to 76,000 and they are all members of Vets4Bush so it would be safe to assume that some would agree with me.
http://vets4bush.com
I think Kerry is a coward because he ran from the Pentagon like a scared little girl while others stood and became heroes. (Earning Three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star, or even just one minor decoration, or nothing at all; while actually standing on the ground in combat shooting at the enemy and being shot at, for four months, or even for four minutes, is not a coward in my book. Sounds like you would categorize a fair number of our soldiers would qualify as cowards!) {Just my humble opinion based on the information above. And please, Let?s not generalize and put words in my mouth. I think Kerry is a coward ! If ?In your Book? you draw different opinions of him then please feel free to. This is America and I respect your opinion, I don?t always agree but I do respect it.
I think he is a coward because he refuses to release all of his military records. (OK.)
I think Kerry is a coward because he left his fellow soldiers after only four months. (You keep repeating this one point, but as before, three Purple Hearts sounds like a legitimate reason to go home, and it seems as though his superiors though so too.) {Covered Above:}
I think he is a coward because he has exploited medals that me and all veterans hold sacred. (I’m not sure what you mean by “exploited medals.”) {Covered Above: Purple Heart Hunter, Lied about injuries, etc???..}
BTW, I was deployed as a unit and returned with my unit when I served! (I thank you for your service to my country.){Your welcome !}
His senate record sucks IMHO (OK)
He has no plan for Iraq IMHO (OK)
He has flipped on every issue imaginable. (OK)

Delusional Paranoid Items
=========================
He allowed or didn’t object to protesters swarming the Republican Nation Convention. He campaigned during the Republican Nation Convention, all of which is a violation and a disregard to Democracy as a whole. (Campaigning at any time is not illegal in any way whatsoever. Even if it were, calling it a disregard to democracy would be quite a stretch.) {There is unwritten rules that most abide by. For example: usually during the Party of the opposition the other party avoids making political statements and usually does not campaign. This again is unwritten and simply a respect given to the other to demonstrate the respect that we give to the process as a whole. By the way during the Democratic National Convention George W Bush was at Camp David and never once made any statements during the opposition?s nomination of the Democratic Candidate for President. Also he condemned any type of protesting on his behalf and has adamantly condemned the ad?s run by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I can quote him as saying ?This is not good for the process?! Yeah! I stand by calling it a disregard to Democracy, although that is what I arrived at. Again I respect what conclusion you come to.}

The protesters by the way (IMHO) endangered homeland security by extending the resources of our military and police forces. It must be remembered that we are at war. (For one thing, the protestors are not John Kerry. As Benjamin Franklin said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Whether you agree with them or not, and whether you understand it or not, those protests are precisely what Franklin would have considered “essential liberty”.){I disagree with your interpretation of Franklins meaning here, I think he was referring to our right to freedom of speech and not so much our right to cause chaos and civil unrest. And if I?m Delusional and Paranoid at least I?m in good company as NY mayor Petacki and former mayor Guiliani And also every member of our Homeland Security would agree that it was a total disregard to America?s safety. Actually I think that of all the things you have said here this is the most important.
Do you believe that we are safe from terrorists?
Next: Do you believe that anything productive arose from this kind of behavior? And I should also add that this was headline news on Al Jezera news! Do you think that this motivated the terrorists? Do you believe that the media here influences attacks on American soldiers? Do you believe that American Soldiers will die because of our upcoming election ? Is it alright to burn a likeness of our president?
Is it alright for someone to knock down my Bush lawn sign ? Do you feel alright with people burn the flag in protest? At what point would you say that your freedoms are being exploited or mocked?}

Again this disregard for public safety tells me that he is only thinking of himself. (Again, the protestors are not John Kerry. In fact, the protestors of which you spoke were protesting against George Bush much more than they are clamoring for John Kerry.) Being the democratic choice for the election, It was Kerry?s responsibility to condemn this type of behavior. I?m not saying that the protesters have to listen but he should be responsible enough to understand that this created a safety issue for New York although I believe that it was the protests that have almost assured Bush a victory in November. I do know that all of the NYPD are now decided voters! And yes I can generalize here! Again, There is unwritten etiquette that gentleman and Americans follow, Then there is Kerry !

He shifts blame on Bush when the Swiftboat vets arrive and claims there is a Republican conspiracy against him, But yet he never condemns Michael Moore and the Smear Campaign that Moore waged against Bush. He is self-serving ! (Yes, of course.) Also Bush has never attacked Kerry?s military service and has condemned any attacks or smear campaigns that have arisen ! The Bottom line is that Bush has class and Kerry is a bottom feeder. This is of course just my humble opinion.

Attempted Humor But Not Funny Items I resent that ! Did you go to: http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/ Come on, Where is your sense of humor?

http://www.wjbo.com/shrimpboatvets.html

====================================
Anyway Kevin, I don’t see any reason to continue the personal bashing so your next post will dictate where this goes. Please remember that I do not endorse Bush, Kerry, Swiftvets for truth, or my favorite Football players for truth. Although I do endorse the ShrimpboatVeterans for truth. (At the very minimum, you did directly endorse the Swiftvets for Truth and I am quite sure that you would/do endorse George Bush for President.) {I stand corrected ! Bush is the only choice ! Kerry is ?Unfit?}

I feel the same way that most of the people that you have been arguing with do. This issue is (a) one that has either a lot evidence on either side, or little evidence on either side and therefore cannot be easily resolved and (b) is unimportant in the whole scheme of the election, especially when compared to George Bush’s military record. The value if any that you place on this topic is your opinion. I don?t and have not tried to pawn my ideas onto anyone. Read back on this thread and you will note that ! I must say that you are a refreshing change from the others I?ve encountered here! When John arrived and asked me to comment on the Senate hearings, I simply was after some give and take. John was not interested in investing anything into the conversation and I?m thinking has his own ideas although he never shared them. I did take the time to read the Senate Hearings and can only derive that John wanted me to see Kerry as a hero for his protesting the war. That is not going to happen and It must be noted that If a person lies or embellishes the truth to reach his desired point, Well he is still a liar and the point gets lost behind that fact ! Kevin?s attacks were a little abrasive as was Bill?s, Both couldn?t make an argument so they decided to take the low road. When I get writing it is usually written as it would be in my usual chat mode ! I?m embarrassed to say that spelling and structure sometimes falls to the whey side! I do think that I?m understood and I know for a fact that the comments that Bill made were out of spite. Kevin, Well Hee hee What ???enough said.
What is much more important are the actual issues (in no particular order):
Stem Cell Research
Patriotism and Freedom of Speech
Women’s Rights
The Economy
The War on Terror
The War in Iraq
Homeland Security
The Environment
International Relations
Energy Policy
Health Care
Those are the things that will affect my children, and what I will be voting on.

Kudos Ron, I agree 100% ! I hope that our children never see the likes of
September 11th. I hope that they never have to go to war ! I hope that they have a life without fear of being blown up by terrorists and I hope that they understand that the freedom that they enjoy was not free ! ?God Bless? and it has been a pleasure talking with you !}

I should also add that
The war on terror is being fought in Iraq !
The activist is the one cleaning up the polluted river and not the one crying that It?s dirty!

Dean

 
 

1. If you agree that Kerry cannot award himself medals and claim that his commanders did not award them, can you explain just how he got them? Are you suggesting that they are not actual military honors (whether you think he should have them or not is a separate question)? I find this very puzzling.

2. Look up what treason is.

3. Answers to your questions about the Republican National Convention:

Do you believe that we are safe from terrorists? No.

Do you believe that anything productive arose from this kind of behavior? Yes.

And I should also add that this was headline news on Al Jezera news! Do you think that this motivated the terrorists? No.

Do you believe that the media here influences attacks on American soldiers? No.

Do you believe that American Soldiers will die because of our upcoming election? No.

Is it alright to burn a likeness of our president? Yes.

Is it alright for someone to knock down my Bush lawn sign? No.

Do you feel alright with people burn the flag in protest? Yes.

At what point would you say that your freedoms are being exploited or mocked? The moment that Federal or State government attempt to limit my freedoms in any way, even when done so with the best of intentions.

4. Your claim that American soldiers/POWs died because of something John Kerry said or did, instead of at the hands of enemy combatants is shameful. Combined with your suggestion that U.S. citizens, news reports and elections cause terrorist and military attacks, this is akin to blaming the United States for the attack by Al Qaida on September 11, 2001.

 
 

John O’Neill was recruited by Nixon and Haldeman to create the big lie about John Kerry thirty years ago. His rambling book is no more accurate now.

 
 

“John O’Neill was recruited by Nixon and Haldeman to create the big lie about John Kerry thirty years ago. His rambling book is no more accurate now.”

Ahhhhh yes! The vast right-wing conspiracy thickens……………Another good quote I can use now is from Homer Simpson. “D’ohhhh”

 
 

No vast right-wing conspiracy (screaming that phrase is just how the right wing tries to distract from any real issue…like saying “liberal media”).

Just one guy (O’Neill) telling stories to destroy the competition. In Kerry’s case, those stories started with Nixon during his presidency. Your “conspiracy” phrase suggests that it’s made up. However, this stuff is on tape, the transcripts of which are readily available.

 
 

Please provide a source Artie ! Also I should add that O?Neill never ran for the Senate, and I don’t believe he is running for the Presidency. What competition are you referring? What does O’neill have to gain by writing this book and how has he influenced all of the other Swiftboat vets that have spoken out against Kerry? If all this is made up then surly you would agree that it is a Conspiracy. All the hoopla can be put to rest by John Kerry signing his 180 form and making the records available. Another good point I can make is, Kerry is running with Edwards who is a Lawyer! Why doesn’t JFK sue the Swiftboat Veterans for Slander? Liable, Defamation of Character? The Answer is that then JFK would have to release his military records to debunk the issues that the Swiftvets have raised. JFK wrote up his own awards, He lied about injuries sustained, he abandoned his fellow Swiftvets, and to add insult to injury, He spewed lies about his fellow soldiers! If you were in John O?Neill?s shoes you would defend yourself against these allegations. O’neill does not have an agenda aimed at the Democratic party, John Edwards, or anybody other then Kerry. Not today, Not 30 years ago! He is a man scorned ! The book is interesting, short and very easy reading. Educate yourself, refer sources for your claims and for god sake Don?t vote for Kerry just because you don?t like Bush, Vote for Kerry because he is the better choice! If your reasoning for voting for Kerry is that you simply hate Bush, then you are an idiot. Honestly; Dean/Edwards Edwards/Dean either choice probably would have won the election. Regardless Veterans day will be on November 2nd. This year !
One Vietnam veteran said that it will be like getting the parade that they never got. ? Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans ?!

Also I should add that ?His rambling book? Yeah that is the one there on the NY Times Best Seller list !

Also is this your post from October 4 ?????? Up 4 or 5 posts ?

John Kerry, War Hero? Guess again.
John O?Neill was the naval officer who took over John Kerry?s swift boat in the muddy waters of Vietnam. What he learned convinced him?and convinced the majority of veterans who served directly with Kerry?that John Kerry was and is unfit for command at the lowliest rank in the Navy, let alone as commander in chief of the United States.
In this stunning new book, John O?Neill and his coauthor Dr. Jerome Corsi (an expert on the anti-Vietnam War movement) have interviewed dozens of veterans who served with Kerry and have meticulously documented a shameful record of betrayal and deception on the part of John Kerry.
In Unfit for Command you?ll learn:
How two of John Kerry?s three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire
Why John Kerry?s third Purple Heart ?fanny wound? was the highlight of his much touted ?no man left behind? Bronze Star
How John Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of ?heroism? by filing a false report on the incident.
How John Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter
How John Kerry?s reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go?becoming the only swift boat veteran to serve only four-months in Vietnam
How as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, John Kerry attended a meeting where plans were discussed to assassinate prominent United States Senators who supported the war
How Kerry met secretly with communist delegates at the Paris Peace Conference during the Vietnam War, and why some believe he violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and federal law
Based on detailed interviews with Swift Boat veterans who served in Vietnam with John Kerry and on recently released FBI surveillance reports of John Kerry?s anti-war activities, Unfit for Command is a shocking indictment of a politician who slandered his fellow veterans, danced on the edge of treason, and has shamelessly exaggerated his own war service for political ends.

 
 

O’Neill has a very specific agenda aimed at Kerry. It is not possible to separate Kerry from (big D) Democrats from Liberals in this political environment. To suggest that O’Neill does not have an agenda is naive. It may not be his only agenda, or even his primary one, but it’s there.

The transcripts are all over the Internet. Here’s just a brief sample that indicate meetings with Nixon/Haldeman, Nixon/O’Neill.

June 2, 1971: Oval Office meeting with Bob Haldeman
Haldeman: We got these guys now forming this Veterans for a ? Peace with Justice, or uh ? the veterans ?
Nixon: They came in to see me? Are they here?
Haldeman: No we don?t want them to be able to see you yet. We don?t want to ?
Nixon: Who are they?
Haldeman: Well, it?s this guy, uh, he?s got a beard, one of ?em, and there?s this Navy officer [John O’Neill], just got out yesterday ?
President: Yeah.
Haldeman: — crew cut, real sharp looking guy who is more articulate than Kerry. He?s not as eloquent; he isn?t the ham that Kerry is. But he?s more believable.

[edit]

Haldeman: Colson put this together.

[edit]

Haldeman: This guy now [O?Neill], is gonna, he?s gonna move on Kerry. He?s gonna move around the country.

June 16, 1971: Oval Office meeting with John O?Neill
Nixon: I really feel that what you?re doing, you?ll take brickbats, you go on some of these TV shows like the Cavett thing, you?re gonna get banged, but ? you?ll get terribly discouraged and say the whole country?s ? and so forth. But I think ya gotta remember, uh, you have to remember, that uh, that uh, now {unintelligible] in Vietnam should be enough, that now you would have the [unint] to get back and reassure people that those few that come back ? like Kerry and the rest ? don?t speak for all.

[edit]

Nixon: That?s great. Give it to him, give it to him. And you can do it, because you have a pleasant manner, too, because you?ve got ? and I think it?s a great service to the country.

[edit]

Nixon: You fellows have been out there. You?ve got to know, seeing the barbarians that we?re up against, you?ve got to know what we?re doing in that horrible swamp that North Vietnam is. 33:40 You?ve got to know from all our faults of what we have in this country that, that what we?re doing is right. You?ve got to know too, people are critics. Critics of the war, critics of [unint], run America down. Those that are, uh ? well in every respect, either get out of Vietnam, get out of [unint], get out of the world, etcetera etcetera. You?ve gotta know that you?re on the winning s?that, that you?re on the right side.

As to your other points, no, I’m not an idiot. And I don’t hate Bush. I also don’t care one bit whether Kerry or Bush served or showed up or won medals or did anything else thirty years ago. Both of these guys were from wealthy, powerful backgrounds and were (arguably) on a track to the Presidency, the Senate or some other significant position. It appears that neither of these guys have been completely forthright about their service and neither of them is Audie Murphy, now are they? For both candidates, military service is a one or two line item on their resumes, tops.

I do, however, think that this administration has made a huge error in taking us to war with Iraq. Not a lie, not a conspiracy, not as bad as it feels sometimes. But Iraq was clearly not the “right” target at the “right” time in a war on terror. This administration had preconceived notions about the world stage and in their arrogance (and I’ll note here that arrogance is not all bad), they made poor decisions.

I think that the administration mismanaged the intelligence they received before the war, severely hampered our international relationships (which, despite the spin, are critically important to us militarily, diplomatically and economically) and were unwilling or unable to be straightforward and consistent with the American public which served to alienate a very many people. These egregious errors have continued “since” the war. Perhaps not as bad as it sometimes looks or is sometimes reported, but the war effort has been mismanaged in many ways and divisive rhetoric has continued to divide. I do appreciate that Bush may have unwittingly worked his way into a corner and now has limited options for communicating, and certainly the need to campaign further divides us (from both directions).

Bottom line with that war effort, for me, is that (a) management has been sorely lacking and (b) communication has been sorely lacking. This is all the more astonishing because most of Bush’s group is damn smart (here I think of Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney). I cannot know for sure, but this indicates to me some serious, fundamental, flaw that is “poisoning” the entire effort.

I disagree with Bush on many other topics as well. I do not think that he is committed to defending the Constitution to the degree that I want to see. I’m not sure he is interested in defending it all, to be quite honest. This also relates to his desire to impress his ideological beliefs on the country at large, which is troublesome in part, as people used to point out with Clinton, because he does not have any clear “mandate” from the American people on these topics to support that effort.

I like Bush’s commitment to a plan, his consistency (except that he is consistent even when wrong). I like his tax cuts. I think I like his educational reforms to date. I like a number of things on the record. I voted for him in 2000 on the basis of the things I did like but considered voting for Gore, in part, based on the things I was unhappy with about Bush.

Despite his flaws (in my view), I would vote for George W. Bush because I think that national security is the most important issue facing this country (although I would probably define that more broadly than most). Unfortunately, I don’t think that this administration is up to the task. It’s odd, because under different circumstances, these guys would be perfect (it would be difficult to imagine a better handling of the time immediately following 9/11 and our invasion into Afghanistan, for example). But I do not see any reason to believe that there will be an improvement in the problems I enumerated above, and the current performance is substandard.

At worse, Kerry will do no worse of a job and offers a possibility for much more. Simply changing horses (yes, in midstream) may be the approach that is needed.

On top of that, for me, I think that Kerry is the better choice on most of the topics that were listed in a post above.

As for O’Neill’s book being on the best seller list, I’d point out that a lot of dreck sells a lot, and that selling a lot of books doesn’t mean it is good. One list I looked at puts “Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung” as the number two selling book of all time, behind the Bible. I suspect you would not be happy with this and would think that it’s a bad book. A book by Bob Woodward (critical of the Bush administration) and a Michael Moore thome are on the current NY Times Best Seller List. So if “Unfit” is good because it sold, then these must be as well. I assume you get the point. There’s a lot of chest thumping nowadays about how the “public” should ignore the “main stream media” and make their own decisions. More generally stated, this means basing your decisions not on any single book (whose view you probably agreed with wholeheartedly before you even read it) but rather on a more personal, broad-based basis.

Oh…by the way, Kerry wouldn’t sue the swift boat group or others because (a) he is in the middle of a campaign, (b) slander is extraordinarily difficult to prove or disprove (when’s the last time you heard of a slander case going to trial?) and (c) having Edwards as his running mate would have absolutely nothing to do with him suing anyone.

 
 

Kerry’s Home Town Newspaper Endorses Bush

Below is an endorsement of President Bush by the Lowell Sun in Lowell, Massachusetts.
This is the same congressional district where John Kerry first ran
for Congress in 1972.
Endorsement: George W. Bush for president
Sunday, October 03, 2004 – It’s about national security.
That’s the key issue on the minds of Americans planning
to vote in the Nov. 2 presidential election.
They must decide whether Republican President George W. Bush
or Sen. John F. Kerry, a Democrat, can provide the leadership to safeguard America from foreign terrorism.

Americans aren’t fools. They know that without safe cities and towns,
America will lose its greatness. Our cherished freedoms and sacred liberties
will be diminished, along with our opportunities for economic prosperity and our basic pursuit of happiness.
Our children and their children will live vastly different lives if we fail
to guarantee a future free of turmoil.
Islamic extremists, both here and abroad, have one purpose:
To destroy America and halt the spread of democracy and religious tolerance around the globe.

They’d like to be plotting in our streets right now. They’d like to be
sowing murder and mayhem with suicide bombers and hostage-takings, and spreading fear in the heartland
and everywhere else.
They’d like to be wearing us down
and bringing our nation to its knees.
Since the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
one American leader has maintained an unbending resolve to protect
our homeland and interest against Islamic savages and those foreign governments appeasing them.

That leader is President Bush.
While out-of-touch U.S. politicians and world leaders have attacked
President Bush’s tactics, they can’t question his steely commitment to keep America safe.
In the ashes of ground zero, where nearly 3,000 innocent
Americans perished,
President Bush vowed to find the perpetrators, in domestic cells and distant lands,
and bring them to justice.
He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists
never strike again on U.S. soil.

Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered?
America the terrorists’ No. 1 target has recovered from its
tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day.
What might a lesser leader have done, faced with the daunting
task of deciding America’s course against withering, partisan
attacks from Democrats, media propagandists, disingenuous
U.N. officials and disloyal White House
operatives selling their souls for profit during a time of war?
A lesser leader might have caved in. President Bush has stood his ground.
In this year’s election, the question isn’t whether we are safer
now than we were four years ago. We already know the answer.
Sure we are and that’s because of President Bush.
The critical question is: Four years from now, will
America be safer than it is today?
In our book, Americans have to place their trust in President Bush.
He’s proven to be as sturdy as a mighty oak when it comes to
saying what he means, meaning what he says and acting decisively.
When it comes to the war on terror, President Bush means to
keep our military strong and our country secure.
John Kerry, on the other hand,
has all the attributes of the shape of water when it comes
to telling us what he believes and what
he’d do for America.
Like incoming and outgoing tides, Kerry is content to go with the flow.
In a dangerous world infested with sharks, Kerry would be chum at America’s expense.

We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of
politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.
In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero,
hasn’t risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He’s been inconsistent on major issues.
First he’s for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he
opposes it. First he’s for the war in Iraq, then he’s against it.
First he’s for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs.
First he’s for the U.S. Patriot Act, then he opposes it.
Kerry’s solution to stop terrorism? He’d go to the U.N. and build a
consensus. How naive. France’s Jacques Chirac, Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder,
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don’t want America to succeed.
They want us brought down to their level.
And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said
America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country,
but we believe he’s the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Americans should think back three years ago to the
smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center.
There among the mist lay the images and memories of
fallen firefighters, police, a Catholic chaplain and ordinary working citizens moms, dads, sons, daughters.
President Bush, through heartfelt tears, told us never to forget the twisted carnage and the massacre of the innocents.
Yet some of us are forgetting.
President Bush told us the attacks must never happen again.
Yet some of us are wavering because of the brave
sacrifice of soldiers that our nation’s security demands.
Well, President Bush hasn’t forgotten.
Nor has he lost the courage and
conviction to do what is right for America.
We know if there is one thing the enemy fears above all else,
it is that George Bush’s iron will is stronger than his iron won’t.

The Sun proudly endorses the re-election of President George W. Bush.

 
 

That must be the liberal, mainstream media we hear so much about…

 
 

The Lowell Sun?!!?!?!?

Now that’s a powerhouse of journalism. I get the Sun News too…every Thursday. I usually take a gander at the garage sales that are going on. Amazingly, I don’t pay much attention to the editorial page when it strays past the topic of local roads….

It doesn’t make them wrong on this, of course, but it certainly doesn’t figure into much. If it does, you’re really searching for something to support the position you’ve already ended up at!

Where do you live, Dean? I live in Ohio…Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is. The poorest city in the nation.

As for this opinion article:

1. How does the Lowell Sun know what’s top on my list?

2. Yes, in one sense, one leader has protected. George W. Bush. Of course, he is the only person in the entire world that has that opportunity. He has done a good job, but that does not mean that the more honest John Kerry will not match or supersede his efforts.

3. I had planned on addressing more of this article, but as I re-read it, I cannot find anything worthwhile to talk about. Certainly there is a better position supporting Bush out there than this drivel?

With respect for your beliefs…but not not much for the position…I sign off…

 
 

RE: the editorial above. GWB and his administration did a spectacular job after 9/11. Since then, however…crap.

Think through the reality of that. Ignore John Kerry for a moment. The real question is this: Has GWB earned another four years based on his performance?

Consider first the war on Terrorism. Second the war with Iraq, third onternational pursuits and fourth domestic issues. Can you type into this forum reasons why GWB deserves your vote based on those issues, or other issues which you identify as important? I’ve read back a few weeks here and see no reason to vote for GWB except that a group of swiftboat veterans (whose service is appreciated and applauded) think that JFK did not do good enough of a job.

Somebody tell me why to vote FOR GWB and I will. Really…I will. I may question your response, but don’t be scared. I want to know!!!

 
 

Artie: You sir are not an idiot ! My statement was meant to imply that you should have an educated idea of who you are voting for. You do have that insight and there was no disrespect intended!

Both John O?neill and John Kerry requested to have a meeting with President Nixon and while O?neill was granted that opportunity, It must be noted that Kerry was not afforded that opportunity because of the way he presented himself. His physical appearance showed a total lack of respect for the military and his blanket statements about the soldiers in Vietnam left that administration with the impression that nothing good would come from any such meeting. It should be noted that Kerry was still serving in a military capacity!
O?neill was praised by Nixon for speaking out against the Vietnam Veterans Against The War , but also warned of the persecution that doing so would incite. I think it is a bit much to try to say that O?neill was working for or working with that administration and furthermore nothing at that time or in O?neill?s then future would indicate so. Again I would suggest that you read ?Unfit for Command? and base that on my own experience reading it.

With that said I would like to say that I have a different perspective on Iraq and the ongoing war as I was deployed during the First Gulf War! I witnessed first hand the devastation from the Oil well fires that were set in the Yarmadi Oil fields. I witnessed the total disregard for life and hope that I never see another disaster as the one I saw in Kuwait. I?m including a link to the National Geographic article written just after Operation Desert Storm/Shield.
Most people believe that the worst oil spill in history was the Exxon Valdez but the truth is that it was the intentional spill ordered by Saddam as they were leaving Kuwait. I would like to agree with you that the war is unjust and we should pull our troops but I believe that the U.S??No I believe that the World is a better place today. Saddam thumbed his nose at us and would only cave in as a last resort. He was making a mockery of us and the U.N. I will include a link to the 13 U.N. resolutions created after the 1st. Gulf war, each one was created after his relentless disregard to the conditions of ending the 1st. Gulf War.

It is alarming that people don?t remember the ?No-Fly Zones and the reason for the creation of these areas! We had to bomb their Nuclear facility because of the lack of cooperation by Saddam. They were constantly targeting coalition planes and lets not forget the hell that they put the weapons inspectors through, to include kicking them out of their country. Now I should add that each one of these violations was a green light for combat operations to resume in Iraq ! Saddam was paying for suicide bombers and had placed a bounty on U.S soldiers. After September 11th. Bush, Myself, You, John Kerry, and the rest of the world believed that Iraq was sponsoring terror and was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction ! Should
we have disregarded that information? Regardless I could care less about the Weapons I wanted him removed at all cost and will not be swayed to believe different.

Kerry (IMHO) is bad news, his Senate presence is deplorable, He flips on every issue, and he undermines operations in Iraq. He says that ?He can separate the war from the soldier? But as he stated it is a mistake and therefore lowers troop morale. Can you imagine being on the ground in Iraq and hearing that you are there for nothing. You are risking your life for nothing, you are sacrificing everything you own and will ever own?.For nothing ! My God , WTF should we just pull our troops out, apologize and maybe pay the Iraqi?s some reparations? He could probably talk to the insurgents and work out a good plan for our surrender. Do you see where I?m going with this ? John Forbes Kerry is a self serving piece of crap and has a long history of betraying America. He is a pussy and a sellout and I hope he rots in hell for the paths that he?s chosen. Bush has a plan, VICTORY. Kerry also has a plan , Becoming the President ! I like Bush?s plan .

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/storyD_story.html

http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Teasers/ChemIraq.html

 
 

Here is the reality check George.
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January….. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

FDR… led us into World War II. Germany never! attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman… finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy… started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson… turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton… went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but…

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

I should also add that I really don’t give a fuck who you vote for George.

 
 

1. Everybody, left and right, agrees that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power. The argument about the war in Iraq has little, if anything, to do with that . If Bush had been more straightforward about the reasons for going, he would have avoided most of his “political” problems since.

2. “It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.” Really? On what basis do you say that we have taken Iraq? Do you really believe the war is over? Here’s a little bit of trivia that highlights this. After an end to hostilities were declared in Germany in World War II, do you know how many American soldiers were killed? Not a single one.

3. I am doubly amused by the complaints about the “liberal media” that permeate this page and the fact that the “liberal media” in the form of the Lowell Sun is then used to support a position on John Kerry’s election. That was a truly embarrassing move on someone’s part.

I get a kick out of reading posts like that last one above. If only people like that could put as much energy into actually thinking for themselves and understanding what is important and relevant, we’d all be so much better off. But alas, the right wing is mired in hatred and even jealousy of the left in this country, and around the world. Constantly confused by why the conservative viewpoint seldom seems to make headway in the world (when, almost by definition, it’s a losing proposition), the right invents conspiracy theories, and sticks with them, no matter what, to explain their failures over decades of American history. It’s the liberal media’s fault! That’s why we’re losing! The UN restrains us and that’s why things don’t work! The French…it’s the fault of the French! Clinton! Reno! Kennedy! Those bastards have ruined everything.

The right is so focused on what is wrong in the world and in the country and with defending the little patch they’ve staked out, no matter what (“It’s hard work! It’s hard work!), there is no room for joy, for love, for compassion, for understanding the world at large, for honoring the history and strengths of this country, for realizing that “the war and the warrior” are two different entities. No room for good, common, sense and certainly no room for improvement. I guess it’s OK that 39 soldiers died last month to the dillweed above. What a sick view of the world that is! Maybe you should send a note to the families “hey, don’t worry that you’re son was blown to bits, happens all the time in Detroit. No big deal.”

For liberals and the rest of the thinking world, That’s not acceptable. I want to live in a world without terror, without war, with a healthy economy, without 40 homicides per month in any city. One where the word “liberal” (or any other political position) is not made to be a pejorative (I’ll wait here while you go look that up) and where the right wing disavows the conspiracies and complaints, sheds the close-minded, arrogant celebrities that lead the charge and come back to the fold to be a part of this great experiment called the United States to help build it up instead of continually tearing it down. I know that won’t happen today, but we are here for you.

 
 

George,
You have pleanty of hostility pent up. You should put you’re pocket protector down and go talk to an Army recruiter. Don’t be afraid, they will make you a man and you will become a productive element in society. It teaches you a little about sacrifice, and duty and honor. I’m guessing that all this is simply to justify your fears of fighting for your country. Your country is at war and you are a weak little coward that has nothing to contribute. You probably wouldn’t pass the piss test to get in, so you can hide behind your computer all you want and criticize the administration because that’s what pissy little bitches like you do. What is worse George, not having a backbone or not having balls? Make a difference George, contribute, be an American, We have a long history of brave soldiers who have sacrificed so that you can cowardly go out at night and spraypaint a swastika on my GWB sign. Real fucking American of you! You act like you are undecided but in reality you are just an antagonist and a coward and you totaly missed the point of someone posting those statistics above. Granted some are more moot then others but I was left with the idea that they were saying that Freedom sometimes comes at a cost. Are you a person of color George? Are you Jewish, are you a Muslim? War is only acceptable if it is a benefit to you? What the hell? You don’t understand and probably never will. Some people understand that defending this nation requires some sacrifice at times, to include the ultimate sacrifice. Do you really believe that if we sit on our asses and do nothing that terrorism will just dissolve? Climb out of your bubble George. 3000 people died because of a history of us ignoring this shit, This time 3000, the next 30,000 and the next time 300,000. At what point do you feel you should set your bong down and pick up arms? Now is the time George step up and earn your voice.

 
 

I am in the Navy right now, serving on the Lake Champlain as part of the Stennis strike group.

Thank you.

George (not my real first name, for obvious reasons)

 
 

I doubt it George! If you are an American I’d be suprised. Actually I’d be surprised if your finished with the 6th. grade ! People who have served in any capacity have an understanding of Duty, and honor and sacrifice! You George don’t have the sense that God give to a pecker-gnat.

 
 

Perhaps only a serviceman would really know another serviceman, so I can understand why you would suggest I’m lying, Dean. Do you really think I’d stoop so low as to make that claim? I not only finished sixth grade, I did so at the top of my class. I then continued on through majors in mathematics, economics and a major in American history then completed a Masters degree in mathematics at one of the top engineering schools in the country. After leaving school and traveling with friends for a year through Europe, Asia, Israel and then across the US on my bike, I decided to follow in my father’s footsteps and joined the Navy in 2001. I’ve been here since and will likely re-up one more time before I re-join the civilian world.

I was suprised that you would suggest that I do not have an understanding of duty, honor and sacrifice for what appears to be absolutely no reason at all. Nothing I’ve written even mentions those things, or my “position” on them (of course, who ISN’T for “duty, honor and sacrifice?), and I didn’t give anyone a clue as to who I really am. So, the attack is baseless and unimportant. Apparently, you just don’t like those that are different than you.

By the way, if you had ever served you would know that military personnel, like the country at large, is somewhat evenly divided between liberal and conservative, left and right, Democrat and Republican, Kerry and Bush. Certainly the right carries a majority, and it’s definitely the stereotype, but it’s closer than most think. Duty, honor and sacrifice are not ideals that belong to any political party.

 
 

Nope, The military is 100% Republicans. You are pissing in the wind ! Democrats will Draft you, They will cut spending, they will ill equip you and will drag out deplomacy to the point of 13 UN resolutions. WTF, You should research the history of The Stennis Group and explain who voted against your Ageis system, Hello dumbass ! The very ship you claim to serve is sporting a defense system that Kerry voted against! The USS Stennis’s motto is something like Peace through Superior Firepower. Not Peace through defense department budget cuts! You cheapen the efforts and the sacrifice of those that have been killed in this war by making your comments about the numbers above. You mentioned Germany…Yeah..It was fucking leveled….Job done…..Different War, Different time, Same concept. I’m all for dropping a Nuke on the place but that’s not going to happen. Anyway this is getting old so…………………………………………………………………………

 
 

(comments are closed)