Replies

This is sloppy, dishonest reporting. First of all, no Swift vets were at the conference. Captain Larry Bailey's display of irritation at the woman claiming to be the daughter of a Vietnam KIA occurred after she filibustered for about 90 seconds on why it was wrong and hurtful for the vets who opposed Kerry (but not, of course, for the VVAW) to express their views at the symposium. Dr. Reckner's remarks are disappointing, assuming he was accurately quoted, since we had answered at least 4 questions from the VVAW contingent before Larry Bailey refused to call on one loud guy who was standing up and insisting to be heard.

My favorite exchange came when a VVAW guy raised his hand, identified himself as Scott Camil, and asked a question of B.G. Burkett.

Burkett: "You're the guy who wanted to kill half a dozen U.S. Senators, right?"

Camil: "Uh, yeah..."

"The VVAW backers asserted that Kerry and other anti-war veterans
never criticized U.S. troops or called them war criminals."

Col. Geo. "Bud" Day Medal of Honor Vietnam POW 1967-1973 USMC - USA Attorney 1949-2004-

Dear Joe: The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been,
what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam.

Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies.. fabrications.. perjury.. fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and gave "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies..the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left..McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers".
A returned war hero said so.

Kerry cut a dashing figure as a war hero, lots of medals, and returned home because of multiple war wounds..even a silver star. His Senate testimony confirmed what every hippie had been chanting on the streets.."Hey hey LBJ..How many kids did you kill today"?????
He obviously was running for political office in 1971.

Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swifboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies.

I was a POW of the Vietnamese in Hanoi in 1971, and I am aware that the testimony of John Kerry, the actions of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and the radical left; all caused the commies to conclude that if they hung on..they would win. North Vietnamese General Bui Tin commented that every day the Communist leadership listened to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark gave them confidence to hold in the face of battlefield reverses.
The guts of it was that propaganda from the anti-war group was part of their combat strategy.

While the Commies were hanging on, innumerable U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Foce members were being killed in combat.

Every battle wound to Americans after Kerry's misdirected testimony is related to Kerry's untruthfulness.

John Kerry contributed to every one of these deaths with his lies about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam.

He likewise defamed the U.S. with our allies and supporters.

His conduct also extended the imprisonment of the Vietnam Prisoners of War, of which I was one.

I am certain of at least one POW death after his testimony,
which might have been prevented with an earlier release of the POWs.

I draw a direct comparison of General Benedict Arnold of the Revolutionary War, to Lieutenant John Kerry. Both went off to war, fought, and then turned against their country. General Arnold crossed over to the British for money and position. John Kerry crossed over to the Vietnamese with his assistance to the anti-war movement, and his direct liason with the Vietnamese diplomats in Paris.
His reward. Political gain. Senator..United States.

“Without question,
we were held captive longer
because of the anti-war people,
the Kerrys, the Fondas and Haydens,
the names we knew over there -
they encouraged the enemy to hang on.”
Excerpt from “Stolen Honor” website
- Leo Thorsness
Former Vietnam POW

Here's Larry Bailey's letter to Chris Vaughn, author of this article.

-----

Chris,

Regarding your article yesterday, do you know why I interrupted the lady? Of COURSE you do! It was a Q & A session, and my entire presentation (including Q & A) was only twelve minutes, and that woman, whose personal efforts to honor mothers I applaud and whom I was trying to help, WOULD NOT ASK A QUESTION, even after I asked her what her question was. She just kept ranting about our inability to forgive and forget. Then I called on a personal friend who started preaching his own sermon without asking a question, and I cut him off, too. I was aware of the VVAW guy holding his hand up and was just about to call on him when he stood up and started shouting out his comment without being called on. Of COURSE I refused to recognize him! What sort of masochist do you think I am?

I find it ironic that DuBose could express himself as discourteously as he pleased, but when I responded forcefully, I'm the bad guy. I was very disappointed in Dr. Reckner's comments at the time and in your characterization of the event. Civil is as civil does, and DuBose and the lady refused to play by civil rules and suffered the consequences. I am a person who believes in courtesy, and I expect others to abide by certain standards of courtesy. You saw what happened, and that's why I'm disappointed that you chose to end your otherwise-well-written piece with an inaccurate twist. You saw, if you were paying attention, DuBose leaping to his feet and heard him shouting out his commentary. What you reported was my response to two initiating events--hardly an even-handed journalistic approach. But I'm used to that...

And I'd like to make a point--there wasn't a single Swift Boat person at the meeting. Even Jerry Corsi, who was the telephone speaker, was not a part of that organization.

Further, considering the numbers of VVAW people in the audience, they had more than their fair share of Q & A recognition. Scott Swett and Jug Burkett called on several of them.

Regards,
Larry Bailey

Burkett: "You're the guy who wanted to kill half a dozen U.S. Senators, right?"

Camil: "Uh, yeah..."

Gas Station Attendant: [in New England accent] Sure, I remember Stutts. He was a loner, but a real hard worker. I mean, he pumped the gas, he checked the oil, he washed the windows. Nice kid.

Ted Koppel: Do you believe he killed Buckwheat?

Man: Oh, yes, definitely. That’s all he talked about. I remember one day I says, uh, “Stutts, why are you working so hard?” He says, “’Cause I’m saving up to buy a gun, so I can kill Buckwheat.” [shrugs]

[CUT to a tailor hemming the cuffs on a pair of slacks.]

Tailor: John was a quiet boy, a kind of a loner. But real polite. He always stood still when I hemmed his cuffs. Nice kid.

Ted Koppel: Do you believe he killed Buckwheat?

Tailor: Oh, yes, definitely. That’s all he ever talked about. . .

---

So who was the VVAW member claiming the information about him in the FBI files had been quoted selectively?

[Burkett] blamed Kerry and the VVAW for bringing an end to a war that could have been won

I dunno. I can't claim anything approaching the expertise and experience of Mr. Burkett, but my judgment at this point is that Kennedy made a huge strategic error, circa 1960, when he decided to limit the fight to South Vietnam. Once North Vietnamese forces were ensconced in Laos and Cambodia they could supply South Vietnamese insurgents, or insert their own forces, virtually at will almost anywhere along the long Western border of South Vietnam. This made the war nearly impossible to win (with the level of forces it would be politically possible for America to contribute).

The correct strategy, IMHO, was to have fought the North Vietnamese in Laos. The Laotions hated the North Vietnamese, there was no analog to the significant ethnic North Vietnamese populations that existed in South Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese wouldn't have been able to sustain an insurgency as they did in South Vietnam. Thailand almost certainly could have been persuaded to support this effort. The necessary commitment of U.S. forces for this strategy would have been drastically lower than required for the strategy of defending South Vietnam from within.

As to the anti-war movement, as seditious as most of those bastards were during the phase of American involvement in Indochina, I personally think their most atrocious, shameful betrayals -- and those most damaging in the long term to American foreign policy -- came after:

Nixon came to office realizing that the country was indeed deeply divided about Vietnam, and that the well of political support for our efforts there would soon run dry. Therefore Nixon promised to extricate U.S. forces after concluding an honorable and sustainable peace agreement. This was basically a "deal" that was struck between the "hawks" and the "doves". The hawks in effect agreed to bring the troops home, and the doves in exchange agreed that this would satisfy them and in exchange they would support our allies and enforce a peace agreement (if it did not require recommitting U.S. ground troops).

In short Nixon and the hawks lived up to their end of the deal, and the doves utterly (and maliciously) failed to uphold their end. Nixon did bring the troops home, he did secure a peace agreement that if enforced would have allowed South Vietnam to survive, and Nixon (and later Ford) made every effort to secure the necessary aid to our allies in Indochina.

The doves claimed they only wanted to bring the troops home, but that was a lie. After every American soldier was safe they aggressively and gratuitously strong-armed through Congress cut after cut to aid, and restriction after restriction on operations necessary to enforce the peace. In the end aid to Cambodia was slashed to nothing, and even reconnaissance flights there were rendered illegal, and aid to South Vietnam was reduced to as near to nothing as made little difference. The South Vietnamese were rationing artillery shells even before they faced North Vietnamese regulars alone, and one of their main forces literally ran out of bullets during North Vietnam's final offensive.

This willful betrayal of an ally with a just claim on our support, let alone one two million American boys had fought for, and without being motivated by any countervailing American interest whatsoever, was monstrous. And what is worse it is portrayed as "honorable" even to this very day.