John O’Neill in 1971 hated Kerry then, hates him now
HoustonChronicle.com – Witness breaks silence – backs Kerry’s story. Why is all this old material suddenly news.
This seems to have gone on long enough. The whole thing stinks of Richard Nixon’s use of a dirty tricks squad headed by Donald Segretti and modelled after the fabled trickster Dick Tuck — Nixon’s nemesis. If you didn’t know it, John O’Neill of the Swift Boat group was also used by Nixon back then too. If we are going to run the 1968 John Kerry against the 1968 GW Bush this would make more sense. But that’s not who we have and I wonder how the 1968 Bush would fare.
To me this all started before the campaign. It was a known fact that Carl Rove had this Swift Boat group up his sleeve. Its website name was bought back in April. They don’t like Kerry, fine. But this is pure low-life mud-slinging. The problem is the President has zero achievements to run on. He can’t get the economy going and even by starting a war the economy won’t budge. That’s a first! His administration is promoting offshoring jobs and promoting illegal aliens to citizenship. Maybe that’s part of the problem. The deficit is a disaster and I just don’t see how he can win re-election. Since when does “stay the course” really mean anything to fickle Americans? And what course are we talking about?
Meanwhile, the entire anti-Kerry smear campaign goes back to 1971 when current Swift boat honcho John O’Neill actually got into a nasty debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavette show. Kerry was an young protestor and O’Neill hated him for it. According to these reports O’Neill has been trotted out at least once before as a pro-war foil by the Nixon Whitehouse.
It is not the first time that Kerry has been criticised by veterans who resented his role in speaking out against the Vietnam war. Writing in The New Yorker, Joe Klein reported that Nixon’s chief counsel, Charles Colson formed the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace featuring John E. O’Neill to attack Kerry.
Klein recounted a conversation with Colson years later in which Colson said of Kerry “He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O’Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O’Neill meet the President [Nixon], and we did everything we could do to boost his group.” [3]
Also read this entry on O’Neill.
So the Swift Boat stuff starts to appear. This particular post got my attention. It uses the old bromides. Drudge rolls out a teaser then the right wing media jumps all over it all bemoaning the fact that the “mainstream” news is ignoring it. They still say this. Personally I think it’s over-covered. What the media is ignoring are the claims that don’t seem to add up. Then the counter claims appear. My fav is posted below.
Capitol Hill Blue: Anti-Kerry Ad Laced With Distortions, Inaccuracies
McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.
What made this interesting was the reaction to John McCains assertions that this appears to be a bunch of dirty tricks and propaganda. Suddenly the radio talk show hosts — who were all huge McCain fans — went ballistic. McCain is now an idiot — a stooge. A stooge for who?
That said you can read one website that lists a bunch of disgruntled Vets against Kerry. If you read between the lines you find that this is all about Kerrys 1971 anti-war attitude AFTER his tour(s) of duty. Theyre blaming him for what? Complaining 33 years ago about a controverisial war in which he took part? Hm. I guess he wont get their vote. A lot of people are not going to vote for Kerry, but mostly because of current events, not Viet Nam era grudges.
related link:
National Review article on the O’Neill-Kerry grudge
By this time, O’Neill had been star-spotted by President Nixon, and he met the president at the White House. (The sunny atmosphere turned a little frostier when O’Neill confided that he’d voted for Hubert Humphrey in ’68: “The people all around me were shocked” when he told Nixon he was a Democrat.) He was also introduced to several Democratic congressmen and senators who didn’t like Kerry’s slanderous grandstanding.
A great summary of the dirty tricks, John. I’ve linked back to you on this and the earlier cliche posting. Aloha!
The attacks on Kerry don’t make any sense for the Republicans. It is the type of thing that the right-wing base loves, but turns off the critical swing voters. Why would they do this? They hate the idea that a democratic can be making points with veterans and pro-defense voters. I honestly believe this has created an irrational response from the Republicans. Imagine how democrats might respond if liberal, social science professors started considering voting for George W and you might be able to imagine the Republicans response.
Actually the economy is doing quite well. Given that the end of the 90’s was bloated with inflated numbers by both corporations and government agencies, unemployment was unhealthily too low, and we were hit by the hardest act of violence on our soil in over a decade, I think it is pretty amazing that we aren’t sitting here with rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a much high crime rate.
Let’s look at it this way: People are still buying new computers yet 99% of the software out there runs just fine on machines with 1/4 the capacity. Here in Raleigh it is hard to get a table in a $15 a person restaurant on Tuesday night. Auto sales are going strong. How many cars do you see in a day that are over 7 years old? Home ownership is oustanding compared to history. There are plenty of good signals out there. Maybe you aren’t seeing them. It is hard to believe anyone who bemoans this economy.
Why hasn’t Kerry mentioned any of his achievements in Washington as a 20-year U.S. Senator? Why does he insist that we keep hearing about Viet Nam?
Yeah, that article at the Washington Dispatch was kind of spooky.
Especially when it says “Arizona Senator John McCain tried, immediately coming out and releasing a statement calling the ad “dishonest and dishonorable” even though there is no way he could have know whether it was or not.”
Didn’t the author read McCain’s statement? (which John quotes, in his post).
A new twist on that Clinton joke – it depends on what your definition of “served with” is. On the boat Kerry commanded? On a similar boat? Had friends on similar boats? 🙁
It was strange to see a site, who’s masthead states “An objective source for social and political commentary” – use the term “old media”, repeatedly.
The next to last paragraph says a lot about their objectivity: “Expect the old media to get involved this week, but not in a favorable way. They will likely take a long hard look at the members of the Swift Vets and look for anything they can exploit in a negative manner. They have failed their consumers of news, ignoring a growing story because of what many believe is a built in bias. It has mattered little–yet. The incredible power of The Drudge Report gave this story life. Talk radio and the Internet blogosphere have given it legs.”
..the incredible power of The Druge Report… yeah, right.
Talk radio and the Internet blogoshere… I can only assume this is the “New Media”.
Also on their site – an Opinion piece on how Kerry’s “fate” could be sealed by the GOP convention. Since Kerry got no “bounce” after the Dem’s convention, and the race is close, Dubya could pull ahead if he gets a “bounce” from his upcoming convention.
Am I supposed to be happy that the deciding factor, in the selection of leadership for this great country, may be who does/doesn’t get “bounce” after their convention? 🙁
Kerry brought this upon himself in a sense, why didnt he call up his Senate record? Errr, good reason, nothing there. Why relive Vietnam? And unlike most ranting and commenting upon this, I have actually READ the book, quite compelling, however not taking sides, but it is rather interesting when 527s like MoveOn, The Media Fund, and America Coming Together and other wackos like Moore are given a total free pass, and Kerry goes rampant hog-wild, wounded victim, filing a FEC complaint over a 527 on the other side (McCain created the 527 problem too, ironically). And Kerrys ever-changing flip-flopping Christmas in Cambodia type of stories, dont help matters. In Kerrys supposed defense: Larry Thurlow report of constant enemy small arms fire — only problem being Kerry himself wrote the citation for Thurlow, that was a big media hit for a bit, quietly dismissed when William B. Rood broke his silence all so-suddenly. The William B. Rood story now all the play, but then Rood contradicts Tom Bellodeau and a small army of witnesses. And now the blogosphere goes Nixon-era conspiracy-theories, all Bush-Nixon-Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, wheels within wheels, eh? Please. I dont think it is any big secret that many vets do not like Kerry. Regardless, the longer this goes on the worse it gets for Kerry. He wants it both ways, Statesman, and a firm resolve, but the anti-war kick and flexibility. He has no framework for anything really, it is all just anti-Bush. No one will vote FOR Kerry, per se. And now even the ulitmate arch-Democrat, Helen Thomas, is decrying Kerry. This is just the snowball at the top of the hill. Something to be said for a contrast to Bush, but I think everyone knows, at least privately, that Kerry is not it.
As WC Fields once said when asked who is was voting for he said he didn’t know. But he knew who he was voting against!!!
North Korea called President Bush an “imbecile” and “a tyrant that puts Hitler into the shade” in a vituperative stream of insults today. They better hope W don’t get stupid and just order airstrikes for the fun of it. This could be material for a whole new MMoore film. Are the North Koreans showing F\9/11? Do they even have movie theaters? Roll the footage.
In other news Greek officials are not real pleased with the prospects of having Bush show up to watch some of the Olympic Games. Have you seen the crowds? Half the venues are half empty. The Greeks should want anybody to visit. The games that people play.
An oh, about Kerry. A poll of Illinois voters indicates Democrat Sen. John Kerry leading President Bush by 14 percentage points, the Chicago Tribune reported Monday. W might want to skip Greece and get to Chicago instead. Although Chicago officials might not be real pleased with the prospects of having W show up either. Maybe Kerry could go to Greece. He has his own jet and there are TV cameras all over the place. I’d take my bike if I was going. Can I hope a ride on your jet?
Well, I’m ashamed to say I’ve lived 20 years abroad and have not bothered voting in all that time, but I’ve still got US citizenship and so I’ll be voting this time round. I’ve already sent in my absentee ballot request form. There are, incidentally, more than 20,000 of us living in SE England, and every American I know here (only about twenty, to be honest) is doing as I am.
Bush is just too much of a bad joke, and after this last stunt we’re too offended to do anything BUT vote against him. And that means Kerry is getting our support, for good or for ill.
If it was just a choice between Kerry and Bush – I’m not sure how I would vote.
But voting for Bush is also voting for Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. – and I just don’t like the way they’ve run things – on the whole.
“Better the devil you know!” – just doesn’t work for me, in this case. 🙂
Back on topic: If Kerry is a liar, why do his accusers need a partisan-funded 527-group with an unassailable-sounding name to run advertisments during a campaign – in selected markets? Aren’t the Moore-haters becoming what they hate?
And then Dole comes out with “There must be something to this, they can’t all be lying.” HaHaHaHa…
The Swift Boat vets are funded by Republicans as much as MoveOn.org and Moore are funded by the Democrats. While we are at it, we should also agree that Fox has unabashedly sided with Bush while the rest of the main stream media (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) have sided with Democrats for the past 20+ years.
All that being true points to the same problem: only two choices. We have the choice a bold faced liar and a guy thats slow on the draw.
With regards to Kerrys Vietnam experience, the impression I get is this. Kerry was probably not well liked in Vietnam but his troops put up with him. In other words, he wasnt hated either. He was probably a center of attention kind of guy. After a couple of tough/questionable (depending on your point of view) outings and the nonsense Purple Hearts, he was shipped home. When he got home, the country was in the middle of the free love movement as well as the anti-war movement. I suspect Kerry blended in to get laid. He was in his twenties after all and there were women everywhere. One thing led to another and he gets on stage and in the heat of the moment and pressure of the stage he throws his medals out and makes all kinds of statements (probably rehashes of stuff he heard when he got back) about atrocities he witnessed. Congress, hearing about this, surprisingly brings him up to testify as to these atrocities. At this point in Kerrys life, he was two choices: tell the truth and probably be dishonorably discharged at best or lie to Congress and hope they wont find out or even look into it because of his medals. He chose the later. Again, I like to remember that he was in his twenties and being grilled by Congress. Thats a lot of pressure.
That tells me that the odds are that some of Kerrys heroics are authentic. Some of them are probably gross embellishments.
To be honest, Id be happy re-running both primaries to get two different candidates.
(BTW, the GOP promoting the Swift Boat vets is no different than the Democrats promoting Fahrenheit 9/11).
BTW, John your comment
>They are blaming him for what?
>Complaining 33 years ago about a
> controversal war in which he took part?
No John. At the very least they are blaming Kerry for accusing the men with which he served of committing atrocities against the Vietnamese which never happened. Kerry was in Vietnam for a relatively short period of time. AFAIK, no one that worked with Kerry has corroborated his claims.
Thomas
I’m quite disappointed in many of these posts. Once you look into it most of what Kerry testified to was actually his reading of other people’s documents. And since this was a Congressional testimony what was he supposed to do?..lie about these notes? Lie to Congress? The same people who condemn this testimony largely promoted the various HUAC investigations where anyone who failed to spew all they knew were condemned.. You can’t have it both ways. And I’m unhappy with so much of this taken out of context and parroted as gospel. I listen to the top four right-wing radio talk show guys and they are seriously panicking and promoting all sorts of weird nonsense. None of this, as another poster mentioned, is flying with the swing voters — of which I am a member. I’ll vote for both Democrats and Republicans. I voted for Bush the first time because I didn’t think much of Gore. But I’m not walking over the cliff for this guy. You can if you want to. He’s looking more and more like Herbert Hoover to me. Plenty of people voted to re-elect Hoover and plenty will vote for Bush. It has nothing to do with Kerry either. Their mind is pre-made up by others. It doesn’t matter. Bush can’t win. Wait until the August job numbers appear. The job losses by the election will be stunning. This is going to be the issue, not Swift boats or Iraq or terrorists or WMD’s. Four years an no movement (except overseas). This isn’t rocket science when you screw up at this level.
The President really likes cheese sandwiches. I found it out on the Internet. The President likes Cheeze Whiz too, I found out. President Hoovers favorite foods were sweet potatoes with toasted marshmallows. I wonder if he liked cheese sandwiches.
> Im quite disappointed in many of these posts. Once you
> look into it most of what Kerry testified to was actually
> his reading of other peoples documents. And since this was
> a Congressional testimony what was he supposed to do?..lie
> about these notes? Lie to Congress?
Uh, no, he was supposed to tell the truth, which, Im unconvinced he did. Like I said, Im more convinced that he lied to cover his previous lies. Granted, I cant blame him too much in that testifying before Congress is the ultimate in pressure. Still, he made a choice to bullshit on stage and then bullshit Congress.
You sound like the Democrats that think that Clinton was impeached because he got a blow job. No, he was impeached because he lied to the Grand Jury. We can talk all day long about whether the Grand Jury had the authority to ask the questions they did (I dont think they did), or whether Clinton had any reason to answer those questions (Again, I feel he had no reason). Instead, Clinton chose to lie to the Grand Jury.
There is no gray area in Kerrys testimony to Congress. Either he was being completely honest or he wasnt. Either he actually saw the things he claimed, or he didnt. There is no gray. There is no maybe. So, has anyone that actually served with Kerry in Vietnam corroborated his atrocity claims? AFAIK, no one has. So, at the moment, without contrary evidence, I chose to believe he lied to Congress.
> The same people who
> condemn this testimony largely promoted the various HUAC
> investigations where anyone who failed to spew all they
> knew were condemned.. You cant have it both ways.
Yes, John, you cant have it both ways. You cant on one hand claim that he told the truth to Congress and on other hand claim that they grilled him to give them whatever story they wanted regardless of the truth.
> And Im
> unhappy with so much of this taken out of context and
> parroted as gospel.
Yes, on both sides.
>Hes looking
> more and more like Herbert Hoover to me. Plenty of people
> voted to re-elect Hoover and plenty will vote for Bush. It
> has nothing to do with Kerry either. Their mind is pre-made
> up by others. It doesnt matter. Bush cant win.
Perhaps. I think that both parties are ripe for replacement. The Republicans need to dish the fanatically religious right. The Democrats need to dish the tax-and-spend bozos.
It is fascinating to watch those issues that people latch onto the most with respect to the two parties. I look for character which is why I side (a little more) with Bush. A friend of mine sides with those that are against tax increases. Another friend of mine sides with those against the war (hes SOL this time). Another friend sides with those that plan on doing something about health care (hes siding with Kerry obviously).
I think the swing will find those issues they care about most and see how media has portrayed the various party and candidate stances and make their decisions on those few issues.
> Wait until
> the August job numbers appear. The job losses by the
> election will be stunning. This is going to be the issue,
> not Swift boats or Iraq or terrorists or WMDs. Four years
> an no movement (except overseas). This isnt rocket science
> when you screw up at this level.
Perhaps. It is believed that the economy will pickup in the third quarter. So I ask you John, if the economy is going strong, if the jobs are being created, who will you vote for or have you already made up your mind and are just toying with us?
Thomas
I don’t understand how I “sound like Democrats” who thought Clinton got impeached because of blow jobs. We all know why he got impeached, but looking back on it , the whole thing still looks like a political make-good after the Dems tried to screw over Reagan with Iran-Contra.
I’m not worried about the economy picking up. It doesn’t happen overnight and these jokers have been wrong month after month. If a small blip occurs even that would actually surprise me. I won’t argue with you about the problems with these parties. They both indeed suck. I’ve been a member of both and now have gone independent with all the other smart money. The way I see it, the parties take their own folks for granted and appeal to the independents. In the process they never ask the independents for money. PERFECT!
No matter what you think of Bush, the voting public must now decide whether Kerry is a delusional narcissist — like so many of the Internet Bubble scamsters who blew hundreds of other people’s $millions chasing ‘e-commerce’ dreams.
1) Where was GI John during Xmas 1968? Cambodia or Vietnam?
2) Was the (unreleased) paperwork for his first Purple Heart forged? (His commander told him “Forget it!” when approached about Purple Hearting a mere scratch, and says he never signed the paperwork.)
Kerry can put it all to bed by signing a Form 180 to allow the Navy to release all of his records.
We endured months of haranguing about Bush’s military records, and Bush being called a liar.
Let’s see what Kerry’s military records really say … in order to determine if the potential Commander-in-Chief is mentally qualified for the job … or if, believing the X-Files to be a documentary, he has confused himself with Martin Sheen, cruising up the river to terminate Colonel Kurtz in Cambodia!!
*ignores Thomas’ bullshit pop-psychoanalysis of Kerry 33 years after the fact*
Thomas said:
There is no gray area in Kerry’s testimony to Congress. Either he was being completely honest or he wasn’t. Either he actually saw the things he claimed, or he didn’t. There is no gray. There is no maybe. So, has anyone that actually served with Kerry in Vietnam corroborated his atrocity claims?
Thomas, you really don’t have a clue about what Kerry said. Stop relying on the very-right-wing media and actually read what Kerry said. He never said HE saw the atrocities, as Dvorak was trying to explain to you. He was talking about the investigation in Detroit and things OTHER people saw. To wit:
John Kerry, April 1971
Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington and Senator Pell.
I would like to say for the record, and also for the men sitting 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 a group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table, they would be here and have the same kind of testimony. I would simply like to speak in general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification [only] yesterday that 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.
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. These were 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, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside 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’s in 1776, when he spoke of the “sunshine patriots,” 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, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.
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 felt this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used it 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 cannot 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 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 us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.
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 Viet Cong, 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 monies from American taxes were 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 the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search-and-destroy missions as well as by Viet Cong terrorism, – and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.
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 United States 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. 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 hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant 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 81s and Fire Base 6s, 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, 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 die 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 you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? We are here in Washington 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, such as the use of weapons: the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at 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; all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.
An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz 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.
We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We’re here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They’ve left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country….
We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away 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 barbaric war; to pacify our own hearts; to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so, when, thirty 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 where America finally turned, and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
This whole thing makes me sick. My father, who passed away from a heart attack in 1996 served in Vietnam in 1968. As I write this, I have his citation for the Bronze Star with combat “V” sitting in front of me. It is signed by the then Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral John J. Hyland. It says above the signature “For the President”. I have always assumed that this was awarded to him after carefull investigation with many witnesses, but if you believe this “Swift Boat” group, apparently this document is worthless, and the Admiral who signed it didn’t know what he was doing. I’m sure Senator McCain understands my point.
I am a happy warrior.
Next thing you know some group will be calling Kerry a terrorist. I’m sure they are in some quarters, but I’m not looking there. The problem becomes, you have a problem communicating because you start breathing your own exhaust. People write and talk about things they don’t or can’t understand, create problems for themselves by doing this and then blame somebody else for the results. A little research goes along way, but people can be lazy. Sorry for the bad news!
Now for the good news.
It’s funny how people don’t get it, because they think they have got it. You could have a problem you don’t know about and a solution you can’t find out about. This is when you know you are in Cloudcuckooland and resort to comedy as a solution for being an idiot. The problem isn’t that we have too many happy idiots, the real problem is that they think they are funny idiots. Have a little charity, it helps create moral clarity. As Bob Hope said, “The good news is that Jesus is coming back. The bad news is that he’s really pissed off.” Amen. The new bad news is that once we get pissed off, you aren’t ever coming back. That’s life in the big city. Who did they call a terrorist again?
Thanks JC and the crew over at HQ for help on this post.
Mr. Cook-Lefty-Anonymous. You looked through the window but missed the house.
Firstly, there is quite a bit of testimony missing from this. This was simply Kerrys statement which is about six pages long. There are about 26 more pages of testimony to that appearance.
These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
That is a hell of a claim. Where is the evidence for this? You cannot just dismiss this one as someone told me. The crux of his testimony rests on this statement. Is it true, a lie or pure hearsay? The left of course will use their typical weasel tactics to claim this is hearsay. Of course, this brings up the point of why he mentioned it in the first place if there is no evidence to establish its veracity. Oh, thats right, a litte bird at the Winter Soldier Investigation told him. Keep in mind that Kerrys list of horrors pulls from the VVAWs Winter Soldier Investigation which was later discredited.
Kerry was wrong on his evaluation of the Communist threat as well as the casualties among the South Vietnamese. Historian Guenter Lewy said, …the number of civilians killed deliberately by the VC is appallingly high. No counterpart to this death toll caused by communist terror tactics exists on the allied side. After Saigon fell, 2 million Cambodians and tens of thousands of Vietnamese were killed. But wrong is not a lie.
That he was spewing the exact disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietname era (Ion Pacepa, former Romanian spy chief. the highest ranking intelligence office ever to defect) shouldnt bother any of course and it is not a lie.
So, where does that leave us? It all rests on the day-to-day statement. If you believe he made it up, then clearly he lied to Congress. If you believe that he was being accurate, then he clearly did not lie to Congress. If you believe it is pure hearsay, the although he didnt lie to Congress, he didnt exactly tell the whole truth.
Thomas
I love looking at all these goofy screen names. It makes you wonder why people get online and write this crap. It’s like half the country has turned into unobombers or something and the they’re trying to make a nervous wreck out of the other half. I guess they’re all looking for the little terrorist within themselves. Go see a shrink, get some help. If your rightwing crazy, have your medication adjusted. Go write a manifesto blog or something. Just leave us out of it.
You have people writing here about how irresponsible or bad Kerry or Bush or both are, but the same people won’t take responsibility for what the hell they write. Then they expect people to take them seriously. What’s this, a big joke with no punchline? So, where does that leave us? John, you have more nuts here than a a right wing talk radio show. I don’t know if that was your goal with this blog, but if it was you’ve exceeded it. If you give anonymous enough rope and column inches, he hangs himself 100% of the time. What is this, some kind of new intellectual spam? Return to sender. Why post this stuff? It’s a waste of your time. It’s a waste of time writing it. It’s a waste of electricity keeping this crap on a server.
Actually, Mr. Anonymous that was supposed to be “Kook”. (Although, who know he might be a chef too. ;->)
Thomas
The biggest chuckle is, somehow, where Kerry spent Xmas 1968 is supposed to decide your vote!
Well, George W. spent his Xmas 1968 on a bar stool in Texas. There’s a hell of a recommendation!
Actually, Mr. Simpleton, I know exactly how hearsay is used in court, which makes Kerrys testimony rather troublesome. In essence, he made claims and then hid behind hearsay. There is a reason hearsay is not allowed court: It impedes the ability to find truth.
A bunch of guys told him all these things which he conveniently never bothered to verify. Verifying your facts means more than, Hey Bob, did your commander order you to rape some women? He is clearly suggesting that the statements and claims, conveniently made by other people, are true. In other words, hiding behind hearsay does not obviate his obligation to verify their stories which he clearly did not do.
RE: Day-to-day statement
Of course you will say that it is hearsay. Someone told me that you are a complete imbecile, thus it must be true.
150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia.
Many of those claims were completely false. Would you like to try again? Oh, thats right, you are going to whip up the hearsay argument again. These other soldiers told me this that Im going to tell you without any fact checking. Im not suggesting its true, but Ill say it anyway. Weak.
His claim is a huge statement and cannot simply be thrown out there as I heard it from a couple of guys. That is like someone getting up in front of Congress and saying, A bunch of guys told me that the President raped his staff. You have to be able to back that statement and simply hiding behind hearsay doesnt cut it.
Actually, I have a couple of problems with Kerrys testimony. Firstly, while he did not lie, clearly he was intentionally deceptive (Perfect makings for a politician). He made some profound statements with no facts to back them up. Secondly, what he did state was flatly wrong in many cases. Lastly, the impact of those mistakes had far reaching implications. Ask the families of the South Vietnamese what they think of Kerry.
Clearly reading is not one of your strong suits. Interpretations of the day-to-day statement aside, I have already stated that, according to Clintonian standards, Kerry did not lie to Congress. However, I believe he was full of shit on the day-to-day comment, which is by far the most damning statement he made. I find it reprehensible to protect someone that throws out that kind of statement without verifying the facts. Yes, **verifying** the facts. I have no idea whether his statements accurately reflect what he thinks he heard from Winter Soldier Investigation, but I do know that stating that the military is giving written orders to that fact is something that cannot be dismissed. Using your hearsay argument, he would have been completely justified in saying anything by simply stating he heard from some other veterans.
So, lets recap:
Did he lie or not to Congress in 1971? Technically, no.
Did he act honorably? No, IMO. He parroted statements from sources that we now know embellished their accounts.
My original question was just that. (You see, when the statement ends with a ? it is called a question. Thus, I was calling for additional information. Should I type it slower for you?) Thus, I have my answer. Do I think that Kerry is any more honest that I did before your record babble? Barely. His Christmas in Cambodia really shot any hope believing hes honest, but at least he didnt lie to the government. That puts him one up on Clinton.
Ed, I ate a cheese sandwich on Christmas Eve in 1988. That’s why I’m voting for John Kerry. He like cheese sandwiches. President Bush like Cheeze Whiz on his steak sandwich. Cheeze Whiz is good, for on crackers. I can’t vote for somebody who puts it on a steak sandwich. Too weird!
> The biggest chuckle is, somehow, where Kerry spent Xmas
> 1968 is supposed to decide your vote!
Let me guess, you think Clinton was impeached because he got a blow job in the White House? The Christmas in Cambodia was nothing less than a bold faced lie. By that I mean, he made that statement knowing it was false and used it to try to persuade the Senate. That doesn’t seem to disturb people, but then again the left has never been disturbed by dishonesty.
O’Neill is certainly a willing tool for the Republicans. In fact, he actually voted for Al Gore In 2000. If that isn’t evidence of a conspiracy, why, I never…
And Reagan voted for Roosevelt!!