BACKGROUND: As someone who worked diligently to help expose John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 2004, I became somewhat knowledgeable regarding the entire fraudulent, Winter Soldier affair—an unquestionably, disgraceful chapter in our history.
At that time, I came to realize that what we Vets underwent as a result of this charade, (including the possibility of exacerbating the conditions of those suffering from PTSD) was probably not even recognized or appreciated to the degree it had affected us.
After returning from Nam, most of us chose to deliberately ignore any media references (in fact, stopped reading or listening to accounts related) to Vietnam or anything else associated therewith.
Thus while most of us recognized (even though for many, it was subconscious) that we had been maligned, impugned, denigrated and even shunned by a large segment of society—and sometimes even by family and friends—simply for having had the “privilege” of serving our country, the majority simply blocked it out, carried on and persevered, all the while, carrying this baggage and guilt for decades—both unnecessarily and unwarranted.
Small wonder that most of us not only declined to discuss our service in Vietnam (other than occasionally with a brother) we even went so far to disavow our having served there—it was as if we had a scarlet letter “V” burned onto our psyche.
Consequently, there are many who vowed that if possible, we would never permit this injustice to be imposed on our brave military men and women in the future.
Thus when I read 2 articles within the same week in the Burlington Free Press, referencing the Winter Soldier Investigation, I called the Executive Editor and asked for permission to submit a rebuttal.
He informed me to submit my commentary, which I did on Friday, March 7, 2008.
Thereafter, several days later I received several emails from the Editorial Page Editor asking me to shorten the length (which I did); and because I had “questioned the record of others,” requesting that I verify my service in Vietnam (which I did); and further advising me that the Free Press “fact checks all letters to ensure accuracy of verifiable facts.” Therefore, I provided him with some links to facilitate same.
Not surprising, the Free Press, (an Oxymoron)—which is the only state-wide periodical in Vermont (owned by Gannet and as part of the Main Stream Media has a definite liberal-leaning bent)—chose not to publish my opinion.
As it now Sunday, March 16, (the last day of the Winter Soldier Investigation II and 10 days since my submission) I decided to post it here, where the readership is more enlightened, informed, intelligent, unbiased and assuredly, more knowledgeable than that of most subscribers to the Free Press.
HEREIN WAS MY COMMENTARY: WILL THE WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION (II) BE A SHAM —And Intentionally Indict Military Veterans Absent Any Credible Evidence?
“The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars to be treated and appreciated by their nation.”—George Washington.
I read with interest the two Anti-War articles appearing in last week’s Free Press, referencing the Winter Soldier Investigation (WSI) and the upcoming WSI (II) including comments by Matt Howard accusing his fellow veterans of “atrocities” as a matter of “policy.”
The allegations Howard is making, are much the same as those advanced by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in 1971.
Not ONE of those charges was ever substantiated in the least.
As a Vietnam Veteran who is familiar with the WSI, I am compelled to address this issue. Much of what we were exposed to in Vietnam, pales in comparison to what we experienced after the war.
WSI was financed partly by pro-Hanoi radicals such as Jane Fonda who hoped to undermine American support for the war by framing all American soldiers as mass murderers. With the present anti-war fervor, I can only wonder if this is history repeating itself.
The VVAW was a radical and probable violent organization that (according to FBI Files) formally contemplated assassinating well-known supporters of the war.
During a November, 1971, meeting in Kansas City (attended by John Kerry) the VVAW leadership resisted a proposed plot (specifically by Scott Camil) to assassinate several U.S. Senators, including John Tower, John Stennis, and Strom Thurmond
This same VVAW, was instrumental in helping organize—and continues to support—the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and both organizations are participating in the upcoming WSI (II).
The highly publicized appearance before the U.S. Senate, as a narrator for the VVAW, not only helped propel John Kerry's political career but was instrumental in creating an extremely negative, mythical image of Vietnam Veterans and thereafter, stereotyped ALL of us (including the 58,193 who made the ultimate sacrifice) as psychotic, drug-using, baby-killing, rapist, torturers, murderous psychopaths, and much too damaged, to function normally in our society.
Kerry stated in his testimony relating “to war crimes” that they were “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....”
Kerry: "They 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."
All of those unsubstantiated and fallacious charges were reported far and wide as gospel, and was the basis by which millions of Vietnam Veterans were painted with a broad brush and had to endure for decades, the shame and degradation associated therewith; having had their character impugned; their morals questioned; their integrity doubted; their sanity suspected and most notably, their dignity defied, disparaged and destroyed—simply, for having served their country honorably.
It was subsequently found through investigations that many of the “witnesses” had not only not served in Vietnam, but many had never served in the military period, and some had even gone so far as to appropriate identities of other “real” veterans.
One such former member of the VVAW, Steve Pitkin, signed an affidavit in 2004 charging that John Kerry and other VVAW leaders had “coerced him into making a false statement.”
Another was none other than VVAW’s National Leader, Al Hubbard, who claimed he had been a wounded, decorated, Air Force Captain and Pilot, but in fact, was a Sergeant, and records reflect he had never been assigned to Vietnam.
Of course none of the information relating to the fictitious atrocities, fraudulent testimony or phony “witnesses,” was ever reported and no attempt to vindicate us was initiated nor any apology forthcoming; by then, the damage had been done.
Small wonder that most of us were not only reticent to discuss our wartime experiences, but went so far as to disavow our service in Vietnam. Of the many inequities we encountered, an important aspect soon became apparent: when applying for employment, it was prudent to omit our service on one’s resume.
The decades-long, irreparable and permanent psychological and sociological harm resultant there from, for millions, is incalculable, and worst of all, was a travesty which was based on deliberate misrepresentations, intentional fabrications, and perpetrated with malice and forethought.
Members of the military with actual knowledge of crimes committed by US Military in Iraq or Afghanistan have a legal and moral duty to report them to the authorities.
Interestingly, will it be uncovered (as with the WSI) that the activists, who will declare in Washington, that they saw or participated in crimes and atrocities, have in fact, failed to report same? If so, their rationale for not informing the proper authorities, must be challenged.
How much credence should be given to "witnesses" who ignore crimes while in the field, but later make allegations in a venue designed to smear the military and its mission?
Perhaps this time, we should presume that the troops who defend us be held harmless when they are accused of unsubstantiated "crimes" by a radical movement with an agenda, and a history of deceit, as opposed to finding them “guilty until proven innocent.”
