You might want to post it on the discussion group at:
http://www.swiftvets.com
bump for followup
Ping
It*s 2nd and 31
Forward these on in emails -
Put it in the end zone now:
http://pro.lookingat.us/POW.html
http://pro.lookingat.us/4-DAYS-NOV.html
http://pro.lookingat.us/TheMission.html
http://pro.lookingat.us/FakeIrish.html
http://pro.lookingat.us/ThisOldDump.html
http://pro.lookingat.us/GW.html
http://pro.lookingat.us/KerryWendys.html
http://pro.lookingat.us/TeresaWendys.html
http://pro.lookingat.us/ShoveIt.html
does this help?
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/smith.html
Check out:
When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A.
by Sydney H. Schanberg
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php
I've been hoping that the Swift Boat Vets, or some other group, would make this an issue before the election.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about Hanoi's efforts to fully disclose relevant information about our unaccounted for POWs and MIAs from the war. Many of you may not recall this, but in the Trade Act of 1974, the very next section following freedom of emigration as a condition for trade credits, is a section with a similar condition on trade credits for countries based on their cooperation on the POW/MIA issue.
As you know, I co-chaired the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and wrote the legislation that established that Committee. I worked closely with you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, Senators Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, John McCain, and Jesse Helms, among others. I know all of us are sensitive to this issue, and we've wrestled with the facts and tried to separate out the emotions. Last December, when Jackson-Vanik first surfaced as an issue for Vietnam, Senator McCain stated to the Washington Post that, "as usual, we'll have a fight. Vietnam will always be an emotional issue. Any issue involved with it will always turn out to be very emotional," he said. I'm still trying to separate out the emotions, and stick to the facts, Mr. Chairman, because I think everyone agrees that facts should drive our drive our policy toward Vietnam, not emotions.
To those who say that for 20 years, we didn't engage Vietnam on the POW/MIA issue and that they gave us nothing even when we held firm, the facts show this is simply not true. While I have criticized both Republican and Democrat Administrations for their handling of this issue, I at least recognize that President Reagan engaged Vietnam on the POW/MIA issue, and used both carrots and sticks, not just carrots, and his carrots consisted of humanitarian aid, not economic aid. He appointed a Special Emissary to Hanoi, General Vessey, and during both Reagan Administrations, we saw Vietnam return nearly 200 sets of remains which were identified, many of which were found to have been stored in a warehouse since the war. So to say Vietnam gave us nothing during that period is simply not true.
With regard to the 2,087 Americans still unaccounted for from the war, I noted that Senator Kerry stated two and a half weeks ago on June 18, 1998, that as of that day, "fate has been determined for all but 43 last known alive discrepancy cases... in other words, all but 43 POW/MIA families now know what happened to their loved ones, and that is progress by any measure," he said. I found that interesting, Mr. Chairman, because on August 4, 1992, nearly six years ago, Senator Kerry, as Chairman of our Select Committee, stated that "the number 43 is simply the universe of people about whom there remain valid questions, whether because they were once listed as having been taken prisoner or because they were otherwise known or thought to have survived their incident." So, in six years, we've gone from 43 to 43. I don't see how that represents "progress by any measure."
Senator Kerry and I have differed over the universe of numbers for many years now, and I don't think we're going to resolve it here, but I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, to simply look at the data from the Department of Defense on the breakdown of POW/MIA and so-called KIA/BNR cases by service and country, and then determine for yourself how much progress has really been made. I'd be happy to provide that data for the record.
Getting aside from the confusion we get about POW/MIA statistics, I think it's more relevant, Mr. Chairman, to look at the concerns you yourself raised on the Senate floor during the trade embargo debate in January, 1994 -- again, that was the last time the Senate was put on record on trade issues with Vietnam -- 4 1/2 year ago. At that time, you said:
"Why would we lift the embargo now before we get Vietnam's central-committee level documents which contain in essence Vietnam's wartime national secrets on U.S. prisoner activity and information thereto? This information would tell us what happened to our prisoners and to our missing... Furthermore, if we move ahead with lifting the embargo, without full disclosure by Vietnam, we will be rewarding Vietnam, while ignoring their human rights abuses... Our Secretary of State has been talking to the Chinese about improving their record if they want this body to keep most-favored nation status going. Why that concern about China? Why not the concern about human rights in Vietnam? I do not know."
I do not know, either, Mr. Chairman. But I'll tell you what I do know. First, as I mentioned earlier, waiving Jackson-Vanik does not signal Vietnam that we're seriously concerned about their restrictions on basic freedoms for their people, like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to emigrate, and freedom to worship. For goodness sake, I am told the Vietnamese Government even expelled nuns from Mother Teresa's order a few months ago, the only country ever to have done so.
Second, concerning the POW/MIA concerns you expressed in 1994, Mr. Chairman, Vietnam has still not opened their Central-Committee level documents on POWs to the United States, and they have not been fully forthcoming. Most of the progress that has been made has been due to the investigative work done by our Joint Task Force in Vietnam as opposed to unilateral disclosures by the central Government in Hanoi.
Senator Kerry claims we have a "full-time archive process in Hanoi" and passing my bill is somehow going to "threaten shutting down" our people working in those archives, even though Ambassador Peterson testified Vietnam would continue to cooperate even if Congress did rescind the waiver. However, I am told we no longer have any full-time presence in the archives in Hanoi, and we certainly don't have full-time access to central level Community Party records on the POW/MIA issue.
Moreover, much of the Joint Task Force investigative work has focused on recovering the remains of our troops who we know died during the war, as opposed to making substantial progress on cases of unaccounted for American personnel listed as prisoner or missing in action when the war ended in 1973.
Since the waiver of Jackson-Vanik, by law, deals solely with emigration, I was prepared not to dwell on the POW/MIA aspects until I received a letter from the President this past February telling me that his waiver of Jackson-Vanik waiver was somehow also going to build on the momentum of POW/MIA accounting. One week after I received that letter, he certified to Congress that Vietnam was "fully cooperating in full faith" on the POW/MIA issue, leading me to really wonder what incentive Hanoi now had to pick up its momentum on POW/MIA accounting. If everything is fine, why is there a need to build on momentum in POW/MIA accounting?
This is no small issue, Mr. Chairman, and I would encourage your Members to obtain a copy of the classified National Intelligence Estimate on the Vietnam POW/MIA issue which has recently been completed. While I do have some very serious concerns about that Estimate, there are, nonetheless, some interesting points that are worth your reading.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the debate on passing S.J. Res. 47 is not about turning back the clock or choosing isolationism over engagement with Vietnam. Frankly, those arguments simply do not have merit because we have engagement with Vietnam, and that fact won't change if we pass S.J. Res. 47.
Nothing in my resolution requires us to recall our Ambassador, scale back our diplomatic relations, or reimpose the trade embargo. We've already taken those steps forward in the normalization process. My bill doesn't change that one iota. My resolution is about looking toward the future, and using both carrots and sticks in our negotiating policy with Vietnam, not just carrots alone.
While I'm not one to often quote our President, I was struck by something he said last week in China about societies going forward into the 21st century. He said, "the forces of history have brought us to a new age of human possibility, but our dreams can only be recognized by nations whose citizens are both responsible and free... if you are so afraid of personal freedom that you limit people's freedom too much, then you pay, I believe, an even greater price in a world where the whole economy is based on ideas and information and exchange and debate, and children everywhere dreaming dreams and feeling they can live their dreams out."
Mr. Chairman, Senate Joint Resolution 47 puts moral principles over dwindling profits in Vietnam, not the other way around, and it will send the strongest possible message to Hanoi that we do care about people being able to live out their dreams.
This resolution is supported by several key Members from the House on both sides of the aisle, and it has widespread support from all major Vietnamese-American organizations, Refugee Assistance organizations, POW/MIA family groups, and many former POWs and national veterans organizations, including our nation's largest, The American Legion. With your permission, I would like to enter their statements into the record, and I would note that many of the leaders of these organizations are in the audience today.
http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/WF980707/epf209.htm
There is some interesting stuff about Jonn Kerry in there especially this
Second, concerning the POW/MIA concerns you expressed in 1994, Mr. Chairman, Vietnam has still not opened their Central-Committee level documents on POWs to the United States, and they have not been fully forthcoming. Most of the progress that has been made has been due to the investigative work done by our Joint Task Force in Vietnam as opposed to unilateral disclosures by the central Government in Hanoi.
Senator Kerry claims we have a "full-time archive process in Hanoi" and passing my bill is somehow going to "threaten shutting down" our people working in those archives, even though Ambassador Peterson testified Vietnam would continue to cooperate even if Congress did rescind the waiver. However, I am told we no longer have any full-time presence in the archives in Hanoi, and we certainly don't have full-time access to central level Community Party records on the POW/MIA issue.
bump