I can certainly understand Kerry's judgments about the war. War is terrible and brutal; good men die. Those of us who served in Vietnam lost friends and men we led — men for whom we were responsible. I don't know of a single Vietnam veteran who doesn't believe that in some way, the war was a terrible waste. But what Kerry did after leaving the Navy constituted a breach of trust with his fellow veterans, because, to protest the war, he cast aspersions upon their conduct. He joined VVAW and participated in two events that went a long way toward cementing in the public mind the image of Vietnam as one big atrocity.

The first of these was the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 1971) organized by such antiwar celebrities as Jane Fonda and conspiracy theorist Mark Lane. At this event, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities: burning villages, using prisoners for target practice, and gang-raping women as a matter of course. The second event was "Dewey Canyon III," from April 19 to 23. It was during this VVAW "operation" that Kerry first came to public attention. The group marched on Congress to deliver petitions, and went on to the White House. The highlight was when veterans threw their medals over a fence in front of the Capitol, symbolizing a rebuke to the government that they claimed had betrayed them. One of the veterans flinging medals back in the face of their government was John Kerry (although it turns out they were not his medals, but someone else's).

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. . . . 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 a fashion reminiscent of Genghis 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.

Kerry's testimony didn't merely lend credibility to these atrocity stories; it also validated in the public mind the second major left-wing cliché about Vietnam, i.e., that it scarred an entire generation of young men. The media have been peddling this "Vietnam vet goes berserk" angle for a very long time. A milestone of sorts was the 1988 CBS documentary The Wall Within, which caricatured Vietnam veterans: They routinely committed war crimes; they came home from an immoral war traumatized; were vilified, then pitied; jobless, homeless, addicted, suicidal, they remain afflicted, stranded on the fringes of society.

And yet . . . a comprehensive 1980 survey reported that 91 percent of those who had seen combat in Vietnam were "glad they had served their country"; 80 percent disagreed with the statement that "the U.S. took advantage of me"; and nearly two out of three would go to Vietnam again, even knowing how the war would end.

From a standpoint of "Did he believe what he was saying?" I would say yes. I don't think he lied; I think he testified consistent with what he believed. However, with regard to war crimes, his testimony speaks little to his own personal observations and experiences in Vietnam; instead, he repeated the testimony of others, and incorporated those testimonies into something more like a speech alleging that attrocities and war crimes had taken place.

Unfortunately, its very difficult to truly ascertain whether these things happened to the extent they were alleged to happen, or not. I think its obvious that things did happen... the massacre at My Lai is an fact, beyond any reasonable dispute. Rapes and murders were committed by soldiers in Vietnam, just as they have been by soldiers in almost every war the world has ever seen. But its very difficult for anyone to ascertain exactly how much of that happened. Anyone trying to examine the issue has to deal with their own biases and predispositions... are you more inclined to accept or reject the testimonies, based on your own beliefs or views?

To help underscore that point, I note that as a source article for this debate thread, the National Review has a strong conservative political agenda.

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

Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.

From a standpoint of "Did he believe what he was saying?" I would say yes. I don't think he lied; I think he testified consistent with what he believed. However, with regard to war crimes, his testimony speaks little to his own personal observations and experiences in Vietnam; instead, he repeated the testimony of others, and incorporated those testimonies into something more like a speech alleging that attrocities and war crimes had taken place.

Unfortunately, its very difficult to truly ascertain whether these things happened to the extent they were alleged to happen, or not. I think its obvious that things did happen... the massacre at My Lai is an fact, beyond any reasonable dispute. Rapes and murders were committed by soldiers in Vietnam, just as they have been by soldiers in almost every war the world has ever seen. But its very difficult for anyone to ascertain exactly how much of that happened. Anyone trying to examine the issue has to deal with their own biases and predispositions... are you more inclined to accept or reject the testimonies, based on your own beliefs or views?  Azure-Citizen

I think it's rather ignorant to get angry at a soldier that protests a war he's served in if he in fact has taken part or witnessed war atrocities.

Another notable image is the man that is shot in the head by the soldier.

I don't think the Democrats politicized Bush's service to the extent the Republicans are with Kerry's.

I think these veterans actions towards Senator Kerry are starting to get on my nerves because they're trying to equate their service with valor.

It was the first war where soldiers weren't greeted with great parades and I still think a lot of veterans from that war are trying to recapture that spirit.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Colonel Bud Day, former Vietnam prisoner of war for over 6 years, recalls in his book on how Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, and JOHN KERRY energized the enemy through their accusations and hurt them as prisoners of war.

   Mr. Speaker, I was shot down over North Vietnam at that time. I can remember the anger and the disparaging remarks that JOHN KERRY made about our service. I remember the rage in all of us from his slander.

   I am proud of the men and women that I served with in Vietnam and those that are serving us at great risk today in Iraq and Afghanistan and all over the world.

   Even today, JOHN KERRY votes against defense, the military, veterans, and intelligence bills that would enforce the safe return of our men and women. We do not need someone that would vote like a Jane Fonda as commander in chief.

For Mr. Cleland, the political world is divided into two types of people: those who served in combat, and those who did not. On the campaign trail, he takes jabs at President Bush's National Guard service, and repeatedly refers to Mr. Kerry as "an authentic hero."

   In 1966, at the age of 25, Cunningham joined the U.S. Navy and became one of the most highly decorated pilots in the Vietnam War. As the first fighter ace of the war, Cunningham was nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations.

   Duke's experience in Vietnam and his background as an educator prepared him well to train fighter pilots at the Navy Fighter Weapons School -- the famed "Top Gun" program at Miramar Naval Air Station. As Commanding Officer of the elite Navy Adversary Squadron, Cunningham flew Russian tactics and formations against America's best combat fighter pilots. Many of his real-life experiences as a Navy aviator and fighter pilot instructor were depicted in the popular movie "Top Gun."

Congressman Cunningham is just a "chickenhawk" according to Cleland

Did John Kerry's testimony and actions in the early 1970s contribute to the stereotypes surrounding Vietnam vets and the war in general?

Was his testimony regarding war crimes accurate?

Was Kerry's testimony in 1971 a ploy to get elected, or serious testimony?

What effect (if any) should these statements by Kerry have on the current campaign?

I wasn't aware Cleland had called Cunningham a chickenhawk. Would you mind posting a link to that story? I'd like to read up on the details.

Constituents from one end of Rep. Sam Johnson's district to the other contacted this column yesterday (not too surprising, considering the popular congressman captured 74 percent of the most recent vote.)
    Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, we'd written yesterday, labeled six Republican lawmaker-veterans who are critical of prospective Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry "a bunch of chicken hawks who never went to war, never felt a wound, but are so quick to criticize a man who went to war and got wounded doing it."
    We drew attention yesterday to the distinguished war record of one of those six congressmen — Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham — but overlooked the fact that Mr. Johnson, Texas Republican, served in the Air Force for 29 years, flew 62 combat missions in Korea, and survived two tours of duty in Vietnam. He earned more medals than we can possibly list here, including two Purple Hearts. But most noteworthy, he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Kerry, a Navy officer who became a leader in the anti-war movement, accused U.S. troops of a myriad of atrocities. Many of his statements turned out to be untrue, Wilson said.

The Lexington County Republican began his floor speech: “Mr. Speaker, 33 years ago today, John Kerry appeared before the Senate to talk about Vietnam. Many veterans, including myself as a veteran, view John Kerry’s testimony that day as one of the worst public slanders ever against the valor and character of the American military.”

Former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., a Kerry supporter who lost an arm and both legs in Vietnam, lumped Wilson in with a group of “ultimate hypocrites” who dare criticize Kerry.

“All these are a bunch of chickenhawks who never went to war, never felt a wound, but are so quick to criticize a man who went to war and got wounded doing it,” Cleland said.

Wilson said he is proud of the more than 30 years he spent in the Army Reserves and the S.C. National Guard. He remained within the United States during his service, most of which involved his legal skills.

Sure, the quote first appeared in the 27Apr2004 edition of the Washington Times in the "Inside the Beltway" column.  Unfortunately, I haven't found a way to get there without a registration since their 28Apr2004 edition is already posted.       However, in today's (28Apr) edition, they reference it and I'll cite the portion of the column that's relevant......

I think the people in this country had better start focusing on the here and now. Vietnam is so much hindsight, and we will never reach full consensus on it.  In the meantime, we have soldiers putting their lives on the line in another foreign war, and it is imperative for them and for us that we make some informed decisions about what kind of leadership this country needs now.  [Emphasis Added] 

Kerry supporters pose a grave danger to this country. They signal the enemy that continued terror attacks might be successful in achieving their goals. Along with their 'leader' they tell the world that we are today engaged in a conflict that we will lose, as we did in Vietnam.

I personally viewed slides of the ears of "dead gooks" and of the bodies of Viet Cong that a Baptist soldier who served in Vietnam had brought back. I saw the slides in 1976. They seemed pretty grisly to me, but the former Marine and the former Army infantryman were commenting about it rather matter-of-factly.

There was also the much-publicized My Lai massacre and the photographs of Pol Pot shooting a man in the head.



I think he seriously believed in what he was doing; I do not think it was a ploy. In Nixon's America, there was also some risk in opposing the administration.

The Pentagon Papers also bore out that officials knew the U.S. was losing the war and yet they continued sending more and more soldiers to fight.

To be fair, however, I think that a lot of the atrocities committed had to do with drug use among the troops, and not necessarily orders the troops received. Something lowered the inhibitions of the soldiers and/or heightened the fear. I don't think that these people otherwise would have done so much killing.

Also, there were accounts of troops killing their commanding officers. Again, perhaps it was drug use. And perhaps it was the fact that many of the soldiers were drafted and went there unwillingly.



I think the people in this country had better start focusing on the here and now. Vietnam is so much hindsight, and we will never reach full consensus on it. In the meantime, we have soldiers putting their lives on the line in another foreign war, and it is imperative for them and for us that we make some informed decisions about what kind of leadership this country needs now.

In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection.
    The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely.
    We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." And on strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.... it was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units .... our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom .... if all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest was damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us. And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.
    Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor." Bui Tin went on to serve as the editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Disillusioned with the reality of Vietnamese communism Bui Tin now lives in Paris.

"The resistance movement [against the U.S. in Iraq] may not be able to remove the U.S. from Iraq within a year, but it will be able to remove Bush, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [National Security Adviser] Condoleezza Rice, together with their Zionist friends, from the White House."

-Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, at an August 2003 rally where he urged his terrorists to attack Americans in Iraq. Hezbollah is the Syrian-supported terrorist organization that has murdered hundreds of Americans and is currently attacking American soldiers in Iraq.

"God willing Bush will fall down by the hands of Fallujah. . . . If John Kerry wins the election and withdraws the Americans troops from Iraq, and maybe just leaves a few in bases, then we will not fight. But Bush we will always fight."

-Iraqi terrorist "Ahmed", April 12, 2004, discussing terrorist operations he claimed in Fallujah, Iraq. "Ahmed" also discussed his operations in Fallujah on behalf of Syrians who may have been members of Hassan Nasrallah's Hezbollah.

I think you misinterpreted the quote of the former poster: it isn't being held that it was the policy, but these atrocities DID occur, however infrequent or not.

As for the latter pieces, envision a scenario:

I am your neighbor, and you don't like me. I want you to take your trash to the road, as if you don't, it will start stinking. You want to take your trash to the road, as if you don't, it will start stinking. Do you take the trash to the road because I want you to do it, or because you want to do it anyway?

To equate anti-war protestors as working with the enemy is fallacious. I have never received funding from, nor have I ever spoken to, any terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, etc. I remain firmly against the Iraqi war, entirely. To say that I am working to further the cause of terrorists by protesting the war is frankly, offensive.

Note the end of the quote, it's a tactic being used today by terrorist leaders:



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...sID=0&listSrc=Y



http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040412-031514-2639r

I noticed that your quotes contain text that was not in the cited links. Are those your comments? If so, you might want to type them underneath, outside the quote boxes, to make that clear.

The text under them were just summaries of the people saying these things.

I was just drawing your attention to the fact that you were including your own comments within the quotes. I'm sure you wouldn't want to deliberately mislead people.

When you write a summary, you have to remember its your summary, and that when you enclose it within the quotes, people can be led to believe the summary comes from the quoted source. I was, until I read the full text of the articles.

I found the full text of the 2nd quoted article very interesting by the way - I recommend that anyone else who didn't read it to take a look.

What is misleading about either of these summaries?

Is Hassan Nasrallah not a leader of Hezbollah?

Did he not say these things at at a 2003 rally?

Did he not urge attacks in Iraq on Americans?

Is Hezbollah not a Syrian backed organization?

Or how about Ahmed... he not one of the fighters in Fallujah? Does the article say otherwise?

Does he not aid Syrian fighters in Fallujah?

Where exactly is the misdirection or as I said, you've nothing better to refute what these people say, come on and name one thing misleading, or just throwing out the word to bolster your argument...

No one accused you of misdirection. I said I was sure you weren't trying to deliberately mislead people, remember?

By your reponse, it seems to me you thought I was attacking the substance of your quotes, or debating whether or not they were accurate summaries. That was not the issue of my post, and I did not post anything arguing with you over that. Re-read both my posts in that perspective and you'll see the point I was trying to get across was that if your own comments are placed within the quote boxes, people might think that the comments are part of the quoted source (be it a newspaper, URL, media, etc).

You mentioned that nothing within the quotes is anything you wrote - I know you mean the "quote marks." I'm talking about the quote boxes. See my first post again. Make sense now?

However, in my neighborhood in Puerto Rico, Tillman would have been called a "EDIT*," an idiot. Tillman, in the absurd belief that he was defending or serving his all-powerful country from a seventh-rate, Third World nation devastated by the previous conflicts it had endured, decided to give up a comfortable life to place himself in a combat situation that cost him his life. This was not "Ramon or Tyrone," who joined the military out of financial necessity, or to have a chance at education. This was a "G.I. Joe" guy who got what was coming to him. That was not heroism, it was prophetic idiocy.

Tillman, probably acting out his nationalist-patriotic fantasies forged in years of exposure to Clint Eastwood and Rambo movies, decided to insert himself into a conflict he didn't need to insert himself into. It wasn't like he was defending the East coast from an invasion of a foreign power. THAT would have been heroic and laudable. What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his "service" was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in.

What effect (if any) should these statements by Kerry have on the current campaign?


I'd like to re-address this question in the context of some of the things that are happening today.   In the Pat Tillman RIP thread I referenced an opinion piece from The Massachusetts Daily Collegian entitled "Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him ".  This opinion mocks the service of Pat Tillman to this country, makes fun of his death as just another Rambo movie and I believe shows a hatred towards those who choose to serve in the military.



This is the kind of genuine hatred that we saw in the 60's and 70's from people who were associated with the same groups that John Kerry was associated with. That's not to say that John Kerry agreed with them entirely, I don't believe he did, nor did he share that hatred entirely. However, I believe it does call into question his judgement in choosing his associations and that is a critical issue for a potential President. By constantly bringing up his Vietnam record, John Kerry has opened Pandora's Box and re-opened the painful wounds that happened during Vietnam and it's aftermath. The visceral hatred and anger of those days has surfaced again as we can all see in the editorial cited in this post.

I am not saying that all Kerry supporters would agree with the opinion expressed by this person, I think that the ones here I know the best would most certainly comdemn it and feel the same sense of anger towards it that I do. But for those of you who weren't around during Vietnam, it might enlighten you on some of the things that happened back then. Perhaps you will then understand the basis for the strong passions over John Kerry's actions and the actions of groups like the VVAW that we hear voiced from some of his detractors.

Of course, the real idiot is the author of that piece. However, I don't think your point about associations is really apt. There are wackos in every organization. If you run for president, should I bring up the fact that you are a member of the same organization as David Duke, or the members of the CCC? Your best response would be to ignore such accusations. Kerry should do the same. He is not (and you are not, and I am not) responsible for the thoughts and words of others who happened to be part of the same organization or movement.

Heck, I know I don't hold you to the standard set by Ann Coulter.

*(it does not mean idiot). Please don't bypass the profanity filter in foreign languages.

The partisan bashing of John Kerry on this board finds new depths to plumb and much to my surprise Aquilla you've joined some of the more extreme advocates in trying to link Kerry's actions 30 years ago to some punk kid disrespecting Pat Tillman today.

How about showing these slides, or pointing to pictures on the internet?

I somehow doubt your claims considering the overwhelming testimony from Vietnam vets that have never witnessed these atrocities that were so-called policy(not any of the four I personally know, all of whom condemn My Lai but maintain it was the exception and not policy, as well as the various interviews given).

For seven months, Tiger Force soldiers moved across the Central Highlands, killing scores of unarmed civilians - in some cases torturing and mutilating them - in a spate of violence never revealed to the American public.

They dropped grenades into underground bunkers where women and children were hiding - creating mass graves - and shot unarmed civilians, in some cases as they begged for their lives.

They frequently tortured and shot prisoners, severing ears and scalps for souvenirs.

The official inquiry found 27 soldiers in the 45-man paratrooper unit who said the severing of ears from dead Vietnamese was routine. "There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears," said Larry Cottingham, the platoon medic.

Was his testimony regarding war crimes accurate?

He wants to be labeled a "war hero" at the same time he labeled everyone else serving in Vietnam "war criminals"

Aquilla


Once again to buck the status quo and possibly disappoint my liberal friends, I have to agree that this is hypocritical showmanship on Kerrys' part.

IMO, you cant protest a war, (rightly so) then try to run so vehemently on your war record. I am sick to the gills of hearing Kerrys' crap about being a vet and therefore seeming to know 'more about it'. I truly wish Kerry would drop this line of reasoning and start looking towards the future and running on that premise.

Clinton had no problem with his anti-Vietnam war stance. I have no problem with anyone who was anti-vietnam, I was also. I DO have a problem with utter hypocrisy, as in, 'its prudent to be pro-war now, so Ill tout my vet record, even if I renounced it back then.'

Kerry has something going for him, that he put his life on the line when GWB and everyone else in this admin didnt. He has war medals, when GWB and everyone else in this admin have not a one. Kerry should have kept silent about it and let it just come out by itself, as a positive, not a negative.

Kerry sickens me with his continual touting of his war record. Its as if its the only important thing hes done in his life, yet he was a protestor in the end. I understand the turn-around, then. What I dont get is the recent unearthing of a dead and buried philosophy for current political gain.

I see Bush/Kerry as a heads/tails personage of the exact same coin (both Skull and bones elistists), the only difference for us is Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice and having a President who conceptually has the power to think enough to inform himself and can speak english. (Kerry speaks both english and french) I know , thats bad!. ???

I would like to add that Bush was raised by a patrician (well spoken and educated New England) family, while born in Midland TX went to high school in Mass. and afterwards to Harvard and Yale. His good ole boy persona, as well the falsification of the Texan pronunciation of 'nucular' and other Texan attributes are a lie from start to finish, affectations, a false identity, he is an imposter. It is extremely convenient, after all. Hey if you dont have a successful career, claim you are a 'regular guy' , being a Texan 'good ole boy' goes much farther than just being dumb. But Bush is not a regular guy, nor a Texan hes a yankee by all standards. He is as much an elitist as is Kerry, both same schooling, both long time 'East Coast' political families, both Skull and Bones. Both liars and corrupt as they come.