Posted on 08/22/2004 3:08:22 PM PDT by Libloather
Kerry won Vietnam vets' wrath describing what he couldn't see
BY HAROLD W. ANDERSEN
Published Sunday, August 22, 2004
WORLD-HERALD CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
It is one of the bigger gambles of the presidential campaign. But with most of the news media looking the other way, John Kerry has been getting away with it so far.
I refer to Kerry's gamble that the news media won't finally take a hard look at his anti-war activities instead of concentrating on his four-plus months of combat-zone experience as a decorated, wounded veteran of the Vietnam War - experience that Kerry incessantly promotes as qualifying him to be president and commander in chief of the armed forces.
There have been occasional, brief news-media references to, but no details of, Kerry's controversial testimony to a U.S. Senate committee. It took place after he opted out of the customary one-year tour of duty under a Navy policy that allowed such an early out if a serviceman so elected after receiving his third Purple Heart.
(The Marines stopped awarding a Purple Heart for a minor wound, even if the Marine received medical treatment. None of Kerry's wounds was serious enough to require hospitalization.)
Let's take a detailed look at Kerry's Capitol Hill testimony. It will, I think, help explain why many Vietnam veterans oppose Kerry's presidential bid.
On April 23, 1971, John Kerry appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, dressed in what appeared to be military fatigues, displaying the ribbons representing his Vietnam War medals (ribbons which he subsequently said he threw over a wire fence onto the Capitol grounds).
Kerry's testimony, widely publicized at the time, included the following allegations, which he offered as facts:
A "Winter Soldier Investigation" (largely financed by actress Jane Fonda) meeting in Detroit a few months earlier heard statements from men who represented themselves to be Vietnam veterans.
Kerry said that "they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . ."
Kerry described such incidents as "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with a full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Such conduct, he testified, reflected "the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do" and was "accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam."
Kerry's four-plus months of combat-zone experience involved his commanding half a dozen men in a "swift boat" crew as a naval lieutenant, junior grade. Yet, his testimony purported to describe atrocities committed by Army and Marine units serving in the jungles of Vietnam.
"The Army says they never leave their wounded," Kerry said. "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 . . . ."
Is it any wonder that outraged Vietnam veterans have formed organizations like "Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry"?
Kerry could not possibly have seen the things that he repeatedly said "we" had seen. Apparently, he relied on the statements of some of the supposed veterans who attended the "Winter Soldier Investigation" rally in Detroit.
But later research confirmed that in five or more cases, those testifying at the Detroit rally lied about serving in Vietnam and/or about witnessing examples of brutal war crimes.
Enough today about the largely ignored story of John Kerry's testimony to a committee of the U.S. Congress. Next Sunday: the angry reaction of other Vietnam veterans who were as well situated as Kerry, if not better, to know how American forces conducted themselves in the Vietnam War.
There's also POW/MIA Families Against John Kerry. One excerpt that is very damning of F'n in his role as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee:
CLIP . . .Senator Kerry presided as the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee when Joe's case, ("Baron-52"), was discussed in detail. This case, along with several others, were "closed" shortly there after. "Baron -52" was a highly controversial case in as much as there exists strong questions as to the intelligence our government obtained and processed, which ultimately determined the fate of all the crewmembers.
The Senate Select Committee's finding's concluded that this intelligence was apparently NOT associated with Baron 52's shoot down, hence EIGHT POW cases were rendered "solved", and no further investigation was now warranted. (ALL were determined to have perished in this crash when the intelligence in question gave direct indications that four had survived and were captured) Senator Kerry was responsible for these actions as his "chair" position gave him final word on these matters.
CLIP . . .
Senator Kerry further dis-allowed "eyewitness" testimony of the crash site to be heard at these hearings. This eyewitness account was later allowed to give a deposition BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, only after several family members wrote in to request he be heard. This deposition was never made public at the hearings.
CLIP . . .
But Senator Kerry goes out to our unsuspecting public stating that "He has pressed our government for answers concerning the POW issue!" ? He attempts to become our "Commander in Chief"? You call THESE answers?
We're not losing the fight, not by a long shot. The current uproar is proof that the press couldn't bury it. All they can do is lie some more and spin, which they're doing at the moment. Kerry can't come out and face hard questions on this because he's lied so often he can't keep his scorecard straight. As the polls continue to show his downward slide, he'll have to try changing the subject...maybe having Mama T. offer them hush money on the side? Or he could do what Clinton did, threaten them. Neither will work.
And, if the American people heard that Kerry went to Paris and negotiated the surrender of the US to the communists in Vietnam in violation of law, would they view it benignly? Not a chance. As long as Kerry could keep his image as 'war hero,' that could be his platform. But there's a much uglier side at the core that is not as pretty to the public.
Just a thought, what happened to the movie, The Manchurian Candidate, that debuted recently? Sank like a stone. Ha Ha Ha. Another Bush bashing extravaganza bit the dust.
You mean like this?
And then in swoops the Hildebeast to take care of all the unhappy people in the Brave New World Village formerly known as The United States of America. :o)
From "Unfit for Command" p 199:
January 3, 1970 Status changes from "active" duty to "inactive" duty in the Naval Reserves
...
July 1, 1972 Transferred to Standby Reserve, "inactive"
This is the last entry. I have seen reports on FR that his final release from the Reserves didn't occur until sometime in 1978.
Exactively. Only in Russian and about Tsar Nicholas II not Nixon. But similarities are striking.
Two words: John Leo
BUMP FOR THE SUPPORT OF SWIFT VETS HERE... http://www.swiftvets.com/
Wow, another "mainstream" press article questioning the "big" media's refusal to cover Kerry's Vietnam past.
I served my entire one year tour(7 months and 18 days longer than Kerrry) and NEVER once saw anything that resembled an atrocity(and I was on land full time). We made monthly trips to an orphanige and delivered toys and school supplies that were sent to us from the states.
It is being replayed in Iraq now. About all the atrocities that we're committing while destroying their country. It makes me want to scream.
All Kerry has to do is to show us the scars.
Who wants to see the rice that's in sKerry's ass? Besides, it will likely pass as a facial wound.
I think this is what you're looking for:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/Generals/giap.htm
Gen. Giap planned and directed the military operations against the French that culminated in their defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. During the 1960's Giap controlled guerrilla operations against South Vietnam and the United States and planned the Tet Offensive of 1968.
In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.
By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.
At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.
According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.
"Isn't there any old photo of him at the beach with his shirt off? That could be analyzed for proof of his alleged injuries, except for that nasty rice kernal injury on his butt."
Right. I don't want to see his butt, either.
And in his own words he has also disqualified himself from being president..under the law.
This quote from Col Bui Tin... member of the General Staff of the NVA ...man who received SV's surrender at the end of the war...may be of interest:
"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
Thank you for your consideration. We enjoy and rely on your paper!
Respectfully yours,
Me
Please let us know if your local rag decides to print this. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.