Mackubin Thomas Owens column sets it straight about Kerry's anti-war testimony

bamaslammer · Apr 26, 2004

This is from February and I believe that Owens hits the nail squarely on the head. But what do expect from a Marine?

But Was It True?
What John Kerry said about the Vietnam War and the men who served in it.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article appeared in the February 23, 2004, issue of National Review.

In New Hampshire, Sen. John Kerry claimed victory before a crowd of enthusiastic supporters. Prominently arrayed on the stage with him were veterans, including former Georgia senator Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, and James Rassmann, an Army Special Forces officer in Vietnam whose life Kerry saved. At one point, Kerry thanked his "band of brothers" for supporting him in New Hampshire as they had more than 30 years ago in Vietnam. We proved, he said, that "we still know how to fight for our country."

Kerry served with distinction in Vietnam, as a swift-boat commander; he earned a Silver Star (America's third-highest award for gallantry), a Bronze Star for valor, and three Purple Hearts for combat wounds. But as I heard him invoke the support of veterans in his quest for the White House, I couldn't help cringing. And if the sentiment expressed in the large number of e-mails I received shortly after I wrote an earlier piece about Kerry is any indication, my reaction was far from unique among Vietnam veterans. One correspondent, the 29-year-old son of a Marine veteran of the war, described watching Kerry's speech with his father: "The look on his face was one I hadn't seen since he picked me up from the Boston police station ten years ago."

No doubt there are many Vietnam veterans who will support Kerry for president because they believe, correctly, that he stepped up to the plate at a time when it was easy to pass, especially if one had Kerry's background. They will support him because he demonstrated immense courage under fire, and many believe that the crucible of war goes a long way toward shaping character. But those who might be otherwise inclined to support him should ask themselves if they appreciate being portrayed as war criminals: murderers, rapists, men capable of committing the most heinous atrocities. This is how Kerry did, in fact, portray them, when he was a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW).

SLANDER AGAINST A GENERATION
The flap over Kerry's Vietnam service is a manifestation of an ongoing culture war. On one side are those who believe that Vietnam wasn't that different from other wars: The cause was just, but — like any other war — touched by ambiguities. Those who fought it were doing their duty as they saw it, just as their fathers and grandfathers had done. On the other side are those for whom the Vietnam war represented the very essence of evil. It was not like other wars: It was one continuous atrocity, in which war crimes were normal. Moreover, Americans who fought in it were radically different from earlier U.S. soldiers: They came home psychologically if not physically crippled — homeless, drug-addicted, and likely to commit suicide.

In his antiwar activism, John Kerry gave credence to the latter view — and thereby helped to slander a generation of soldiers who had done their duty with honor and restraint. Why did he do it? Some of the answers can be found in Douglas Brinkley's new biography of Kerry, Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War; but, ultimately, it is Kerry himself who will have to explain to his fellow veterans why he chose a path that dishonors their service.

In Brinkley's account, Kerry — like many other vets — was disillusioned by the war, but did not return home as a radical antiwar activist. According to Detroit News reporter Jerald ter Horst, friends of Kerry said that when he first began talking about running for office, he was not visibly agitated about Vietnam. "I thought of him as a rather normal vet," a friend told ter Horst, "glad to be out but not terribly uptight about the war." Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his political ambitions called him a "very charismatic fellow looking for a good issue."

Kerry was entitled to leave Vietnam after receiving his third Purple Heart. He petitioned to do so and was assigned as a special assistant to Adm. Walter Schlech Jr., commander of the Military Sea Transport Service, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, headquartered in Brooklyn. According to Brinkley, Kerry was outraged to hear of the death of one of his swift-boat comrades: "What was happening to the Swifties in the Mekong Delta was, to [Kerry's] mind, a grave government mistake." He was proud of his service and grateful to be alive, "but due to his firsthand experience in Vietnam, his head told him that the Nixon administration's foreign policy was dangerously wrongheaded. Everyday good sailors . . . were being sacrificed for Nixon's ego trip that he would not be the first president to lose a war."

Like most of those who returned from Vietnam, Kerry was also upset with his countrymen — who treated returning soldiers with indifference at best, and hostility at worst. He was moved to anger by the often inadequate treatment of wounded veterans in the VA hospital system. In October 1969, Kerry's sister Peggy, an antiwar activist, introduced him to Adam Walinsky, a former speechwriter for Robert Kennedy. Inspired by Walinsky's antiwar beliefs and the Moratorium Day demonstrations of October 15, Kerry decided he had to speak out against the war. According to Brinkley, Kerry said that "if you loved America, you knew we had to extricate ourselves from Vietnam at once." Kerry petitioned Admiral Schlech for an early release from the Navy so he could protest the war — and run for Congress. The admiral approved his request, and Kerry received an honorable discharge. (Kerry ended up dropping out of the 1970 congressional race in favor of the famed antiwar Jesuit priest, Robert Drinan.)

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).

Several days later Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His speech, touted as a spontaneous rhetorical endeavor, was a tour de force, convincing many Americans that their country had indeed waged an immoral war. It was particularly powerful because Kerry did not fit the war-protester mold: He was no scruffy, wide-eyed hippie, but the best America had to offer. He was, according to B. G. "Jug" Burkett and Glenna Whitley in their indispensable book, Stolen Valor, the "All-American boy, mentally twisted by being asked to do terrible things, then abandoned by his government."

Kerry began by invoking the Winter Soldiers Investigation. There, he claimed,

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.
This is quite a bill of particulars to lay at the feet of the U.S. military. Kerry in essence claimed that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course; indeed, that it was U.S. policy to commit such atrocities. Kerry's 1971 testimony includes every left-wing cliché about Vietnam and the men who served there. It is part of the reason that, even today, people who are too young to remember Vietnam are predisposed to believe the worst about that conflict and those who fought it.

TRUTH CHECK
The first major cliché was that atrocities were widespread in Vietnam. Atrocities did occur in Vietnam, as they have in all wars; the most notorious was the 1968 My Lai massacre, in which hundreds of civilians were killed. But despite the accepted image of the Vietnam war as particularly brutal, atrocities were fairly infrequent. Between 1965 and 1973, 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. (Needless to say, the fact that many crimes, in war as in peace, go unreported, combined with the particular difficulties encountered by Americans fighting in Vietnam, suggest that more such acts were committed than reported.) The late Ron Ridenour, the soldier who publicized the My Lai massacre, has been quoted as saying, "There were plenty of My Lais" — but this claim is simply false. Even Daniel Ellsberg, a severe critic of U.S. policy in Vietnam, rejected the argument that My Lai was in any way a normal event: "My Lai was beyond the bounds of permissible behavior, and that is recognizable by virtually every soldier in Vietnam. They know it was wrong. . . . The men who were at My Lai knew there were aspects out of the ordinary. That is why they tried to hide the event, talked about it to no one, discussed it very little even among themselves."

So how does one account for the testimony of the veterans that Kerry cited in his address to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? My own belief is that it was part of a ritual. To the antiwar Left, atrocities revealed the Nazi-like character of "Amerika." But, unlike their Nazi counterparts, U.S. soldiers could be redeemed: By confessing that they had indeed committed widespread atrocities, the Vietnam veterans were able to receive absolution for their sins from the antiwar Left, and were accordingly transmuted into innocent victims of a brutal war.

Understandably, most veterans take these confessions with a grain of salt. When I read Mark Lane's 1970 book, Conversations with Americans, and the transcripts of the Winter Soldiers Investigation, I was struck by how implausible most of the atrocity claims were. I was apparently not alone. Lane's book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as war supporters; Sheehan demonstrated that many of Lane's "eyewitnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacities they claimed.

In a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, author Gerald Nicosia alleged that no impostor veterans were ever found to have taken part in the Winter Soldiers Investigation — but that's not what government investigators discovered. When Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record, he asked the commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) attempted to interview those who allegedly had witnessed atrocities, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they committed personally. Those who 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 story in his book America in Vietnam.

The same thing happened with Army investigators. As Lewy wrote, "The refusal of [those alleging atrocities] to give substantiating factual information . . . created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them." Lewy concluded that there was another reason to be wary of such allegations: They were retrospective reports and therefore subject to distortion, "created by the veterans' perception of the interviewers and organizers of the hearings, by their attitudes toward the military and by their difficulties in adjusting to civilian life after discharge."

THE CRAZED-VET SMEAR
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.

For years, those of us who served in Vietnam have tried to make the case that this popular image of the Vietnam vet as maladjusted loser was at odds with reality. Indeed, it was our experience that those who had served in Vietnam generally did so with honor, decency, and restraint; that despite often being viewed with distrust or opprobrium at home, most had asked for nothing but to be left alone to make the transition back to civilian life; and that most had in fact made that transition — if not always smoothly, at least successfully.

But the press always found the stereotypical traumatized vet who could be counted on to tell the most harrowing Vietnam stories, often involving atrocities — the sort of stories Kerry gave credence to in his 1971 testimony. As noted earlier, many of the stories were wildly implausible to anyone who had been in Vietnam, but credulous journalists, most of whom had no military experience, uncritically passed their reports along to the public.

I had always agreed with the observation of the late Harry Summers, a well-known military commentator who served as an infantryman in Korea and Vietnam, that the storyteller's distance from the battle zone was directly proportional to the gruesomeness of his atrocity story. But until the publication of the Burkett/Whitley book, Stolen Valor, I had no idea just how true that observation was. In the course of trying to raise money for a Texas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Burkett discovered that reporters were interested only in homeless, drug-abusing veterans, and that the corporate leaders he approached had also bought into the stereotype: Vietnam veterans were not honorable men who took pride in their service, but welfare cases bellyaching about their grievances. Fed up, Burkett did something any reporter could have done: He used the Freedom of Information Act to check the actual records of the "image makers" used by reporters to flesh out their stories on troubled vets. What he found was astounding: More often than not, the showcase "veteran" who cried on camera about his dead buddies, about committing or witnessing atrocities, or about some heroic action in combat that led him to the current dead end in his life, was an impostor. Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some 1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent examples of the Vietnam veteran as dysfunctional loser, had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been in the service. Others had been, but had never been in Vietnam.

The story of Joe Yandle is a case in point. Yandle had admitted to being the getaway driver during a 1972 liquor-store holdup in Medford, Mass., that resulted in the murder of the store manager. Under Massachusetts law, even though Yandle did not pull the trigger, he was as complicit as the gunman. Convicted of the crime and sentenced to life in prison without parole, Yandle never claimed to be innocent, but contended that Vietnam had driven him to drugs and crime. 60 Minutes did a segment in which Mike Wallace told viewers that Yandle did two tours in Vietnam, and survived the 77-day siege of Khe Sanh; and that he then "came home with a Bronze Star for valor, two Purple Hearts, and something else — a heroin habit." The 60 Minutes report was instrumental in convincing then-governor William Weld to commute Yandle's life sentence to time served — 23 years. But Burkett discovered that although Yandle had indeed served in the Marines and had been honorably discharged, he had never set foot in Vietnam at all.

Thanks to Burkett's work, Yandle is now back in prison. But what is striking about his case is the predisposition of journalists to accept uncritically the claim that service in Vietnam is an explanation for criminal activity at home. How could the hard-nosed Mike Wallace and others like him be so easily taken in? Burkett's answer to this question stands as a rebuke to American journalism. It is also a rebuke to John Kerry.

MORE LIES
Kerry gave credence to other falsehoods about Americans who served in Vietnam. According to the conventional wisdom, those who served in Vietnam were largely young and poor, and minorities were disproportionately represented. These men suffered unspeakable trauma; the horrors of the war led many to turn to drugs and crime. As many as half of those who served in Vietnam suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and, as a result, more Vietnam veterans have committed suicide than died in the war. Vietnam veterans are disproportionately represented among the homeless and the incarcerated. The Vietnam veteran was, and is, a ticking time bomb.

The problem is, there is no scientific evidence to support these assertions. Take the claim about minorities. The record actually shows that 86 percent of those who died were white and 12.5 percent black, from an age group in which blacks made up 13.1 percent of the population. Two-thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and volunteers accounted for 77 percent of combat deaths. As for PTSD, it is a real phenomenon, but not nearly as widespread as the press portrays it. For instance, the claim that PTSD continues to affect nearly one half of the 3.3 million men who served in Vietnam is implausible, especially given that fewer than 15 percent of those who served there were assigned to combat units. A study by the Centers for Disease Control reported that 15 percent of Vietnam veterans experienced some symptoms of combat-related PTSD at some time during or after military service, but that only 2.2 percent exhibited symptoms at the time of the study. (One study reported that 25 percent of WWII veterans suffered from psychological symptoms similar to those ascribed to PTSD.) The suicide claim, too, is preposterous. In fact, the suicide rate for Vietnam veterans is no higher than for non-veterans. The same is true for rates of drug abuse, homelessness, and incarceration. And while many Vietnam veterans believe their health problems are the result of Agent Orange, there are simply no epidemiological studies that support this belief. According to Jon Franklin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer for the Baltimore Evening Sun, "The Agent Orange story was a myth created by a group of Vietnam-era protesters, seized upon by Vietnam vets, and disseminated by the press."

In his 1971 testimony, Kerry portrayed the Vietnam veteran as ashamed of his service:

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more . . . And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say 'Vietnam' and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
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.

THE REAL QUESTIONS
Concerning the war itself, count me as one who believes that it was worth fighting and that abandoning Vietnam was a tragedy. The cost of U.S. defeat was high, especially to the South Vietnamese and Cambodians: The Communist "liberation" of South Vietnam cost, in addition to Saigon's war dead, a minimum of 100,000 summary executions at the hands of the Communist liberators, about a million "boat people," and a like number of individuals sentenced to "reeducation camps." Other consequences included genocide in Cambodia and a perceived shift in the "correlation of forces" that encouraged Soviet adventurism throughout the 1970s.

While reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of the war, they can't gainsay the commitment of those who fought it. I think of the platoon I led from September 1968 until May 1969. The men of that platoon would all have preferred to be somewhere other than Vietnam's northern Quang Tri province, but they were doing their duty as it was understood at the time. In those days, men built their lives around their military obligation, and if a war happened on their watch, fighting was part of the obligation. For the most part, they were barely out of high school, but they became skillful, steady warriors, who, with only a few exceptions, returned home with little bitterness about the war.

They were the best men I have ever known. I would put them up against any other generation of warriors. I trusted them with my life and they trusted me with theirs. Of course, as in all wars, there were the occasional cowards, laggards, and chronic complainers. But overall, those who fought in Vietnam were the real "best and brightest" of the Baby Boomer generation.

Today, Senator Kerry appeals to veterans in his quest for the White House. He invokes his Vietnam service at every turn. But . . . how can he? If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theater that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a "good issue." If the latter is true, he should apologize to all the men who served in that war, for slandering them to advance his political fortunes.

— Mackubin Thomas Owens, a contributing editor to National Review Online, is a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-69.
Click to expand...

link

bamaslammer · Apr 26, 2004

More from Owens:

Vietnam is the war that just won't go away. And for many Americans, especially those in the media, nothing says "Vietnam" quite like "atrocity" and "war crime." Indeed, it is the conventional wisdom that My Lai, the darkest chapter of America's war effort, was merely a microcosm of the war.

This belief that Vietnam was one big atrocity explains why most reporters, even those too young to remember it, are predisposed to believe the worst about America's role in Indochina. As everyone now knows, a young John Kerry, testifying before the Senate in April 1971, gave credence to the charge that U.S. policy in Vietnam violated the laws of war and that individual service members routinely committed war crimes and atrocities. Some have defended Kerry by arguing that only a small part of his testimony dealt with atrocities and war crimes; unfortunately for them, there is something called the Internet that permits people to read Kerry's testimony in full, and to see that that characterization is wrong. Others have embraced Kerry as a hero for refusing to accept what former anti-war activist Tom Hayden called the "fabrications, delusions, and fantasies" Americans had embraced to assuage their guilt about Vietnam. In a touching defense of his ex-wife in The Nation, Hayden wrote: "It will be easier, I am afraid, for those Americans to believe that Jane Fonda helped torture our POWs than to accept the testimony by American GIs that they sliced ears, burned hooches, raped women, and poisoned Vietnam's children with deadly chemicals." And Lawrence O'Donnell said, on MSNBC on February 11, that "everything that John Kerry has said about the Vietnam War was true. It was an unjust war for American interests. . . . There was not a worthy moment of American military intervention in Vietnam."

With all due respect, these people have no idea what they are talking about. There are two issues here. The first is the broad claim that the U.S. conducted the Vietnam War in violation of international law. The second is that U.S. servicemen committed atrocities regularly. The evidence doesn't support either claim. As Guenter Lewy observed in his indispensable book America in Vietnam, these charges for the most part were "based on a distorted picture of the actual battlefield situation, on ignorance of existing rules of engagement, and on a tendency to construe every mistake of judgment as a wanton breach of the law. Further, many . . . critics had only the most rudimentary understanding of international law and freely indulged in fanciful interpretations of conventions and treaties so as to make the American record look as bad as possible."
Click to expand...

link

bamaslammer · Apr 26, 2004

John Kerry's testimony from the Hill about Vietnam.

April 23, 2004, 10:47 a.m.
Kerry’s Testimony
What he said.

An NRO Primary Document

EDITOR'S NOTE: Below is the text of John F. Kerry's testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971.

The Chairman: The committee will come to order.

OPENING STATEMENT
The committee is continuing this morning its hearing on proposals relating to the ending of the war in Southeast Asia. This morning the committee will hear testimony from Mr. John Kerry and, if he has any associates, we will be glad to hear from them. These are men who have fought in this unfortunate war in Vietnam. I believe they deserve to be heard and listened to by the Congress and by the officials in the executive branch and by the public generally. You have a perspective that those in the Government who make our Nation's policy do no always have and I am sure that your testimony today will be helpful to the committee in its consideration of the proposals before us.
I would like to add simply on my own account that I regret very much the action of the Supreme Court in denying the veterans the right to use the Mall. (Applause)

I regret that. It seems to me to be but another instance of an insensitivity of our Government to the tragic effects of this war upon our people.

I want also to congratulate Mr. Kerry, you, and your associates upon the restraint that you have shown, certainly in the hearing the other day when there were a great many of your people here. I think you conducted yourselves in a most commendable manner throughout this week. Whenever people gather there is always a tendency for some of the more emotional ones to do things which are even against their own interests. I think you deserve much of the credit because I understand you are one of the leaders of this group.

I have joined with some of my colleagues, specifically Senator Hart, in an effort to try to change the attitude of our Government toward your efforts in bringing to this committee and to the country your views about the war.

I personally don't know of any group which would have both a greater justification for doing it and also a more accurate view of the effect of the war. As you know, there has grown up in this town a feeling that it is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the war and I don't know a better source than you and your associates. So we are very please to have you and your associate, Mr. Kerry

At the beginning if you would give to the reporter your full name and a brief biography so that the record will show who you are.

Senator Javits: Mr. Chairman, I was down there to the veterans' camp yesterday and saw the New York group and I would like to say I am very proud of the deportment and general attitude of the group.

I hope it continues. I have joined in the Hart resolution, too. As a lawyer I hope you will find it possible to comply with the order even though, like the chairman, I am unhappy about it. I think it is our job to see that you are suitably set up as an alternative so that you can do what you came here to do. I welcome the fact that you came and what you are doing. (Applause.)

The Chairman: You may proceed, Mr. Kerry

STATEMENT OF JOHN KERRY, VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR
Mr. Kerry: Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

Winter soldier Investigation
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape 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 country side 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.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

Feelings of Men Coming Back from Vietnam
I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

In 1970 at West Point, Vice President Agnew said "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse" and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.

But for us, as boys in Asia, whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dated to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we can not consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.
Click to expand...

link

bamaslammer · Apr 26, 2004

If you want to read the rest, follow the link. Part two:

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We are probably much more angry than that and I don't want to go into the foreign policy aspects because I am outclassed here. I know that all of you talk about every possible alternative of getting out of Vietnam. We understand that. We know you have considered the seriousness of the aspects to the utmost level and I am not going to try to dwell on that, but I want to relate to you the feeling that many of the men who have returned to this country express because we are probably angriest about all that we were told about Vietnam and about the mystical war against communism.

What Was Found and Learned in Vietnam
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals.

We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings," with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881's and Fire Base 6's and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese. Each day- (Applause)

The Chairman: I hope you won't interrupt. He is making a very significant statement. Let him proceed.

Mr. Kerry: Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to dies so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to dies in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President's last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says, and says clearly: But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.

But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.

Returning Veterans Are Not Really Wanted
But the problem of veterans goes beyond this personal problem, because you think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says "I want you." And a young man comes out of high school and says, "That is fine. I am going to serve my country." And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn't really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.

The hospitals across the country won't, or can't meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don't have the appropriations. A man recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the operation but because there weren't enough personnel to clean the mucous out of his tube and he suffocated to death.

Another young man just died in a New York VA hospital the other day. A friend of mine was lying in a bed two beds away and tried to help him, but he couldn't. He rang a bell and there was nobody there to service that man and so he died of convulsions.

I understand 57 percent of all those entering the VA hospitals talk about suicide. Some 27 percent have tried, and they try because they come back to this country and they have to face what they did in Vietnam, and then they come back and find the indifference of a country that doesn't really care, that doesn't really care.

Lack of Moral Indignation in United States
Suddenly we are faced with a very sickening situation in this country, because there is no moral indignation and, if there is, it comes from people who are almost exhausted by their past indignations, and I know that may of them are sitting in front of me. The country seems to have lain down and shrugged off something as serious as Laos, just as we calmly shrugged off the loss of 700,000 lives in Pakistan, the so-called greatest disaster of all times.

But we are here as veterans to say we think we are in the midst of the greatest disaster of all times now because they are still dying over there, and not just Americans, Vietnamese, and we are rationalizing leaving that country so that those people can go on killing each other for years to come.

Americans seems to have accepted the idea that the war is winding down, at least for Americans, and they have also allowed the bodies which were once used by a President for statistics to prove that we were winning that war, to be used as evidence against a man who followed orders and who interpreted those orders no differently than hundreds of other men in Vietnam.

We veterans can only look with amazement on the fact that this country has been unable to see there is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter crew, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration.

No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control. But believe me the helicopter crews fill the same body bags and they wreak the same kind of damage on the Vietnamese and Laotian countryside as anybody else, and the President is talking about allowing that to go on for many years to come. One can only ask if we will really be satisfied only when the troops march into Hanoi.

Request for Action by Congress
We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America which has the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war.

We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now.

Extent of Problem of Vietnam War
We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation al Alcataz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said "My God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people." And he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

Where is the Leadership?
We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.

The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.

Administration's Attempt to Disown Veterans
Finally, this administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifice we made for this country. In their blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam. We do not need their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of limbs are witnesses enough for others and for ourselves.

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbarous war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last 10 years and more and so when, in 30 years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory but mean instead the pace where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

Thank you. (Applause.)

The Chairman: Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you properly said in the beginning.

You said you wished to communicate. I can't imagine anyone communicating more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and beneficial to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.

You said you had been awake all night. I can see that you spent that time very well indeed. (Laughter)

Perhaps that was the better part, better that you should be awake than otherwise.

PROPOSALS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
You have said that the question before this committee and the Congress is really how to end the war. The resolutions about which we have been hearing testimony during the past several days, the sponsors of which are some members of this committee, are seeking the most practical way that we can find and, I believe, to do it at the earliest opportunity that we can. That is the purpose of these hearing and that is why you were brought here.

You have been very eloquent about the reasons why we should proceed as quickly as possible. Are you familiar with some of the proposals before this committee?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I am, Senator.

The Chairman: Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?

Mr. Kerry: My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.

As to the argument concerning the danger to our troops were we to withdraw or state that we would, they have also said many times in conjunction with that statement that all of our troops, the moment we set a date, will be given safe conduct out of Vietnam. The only other important point is that we allow the South Vietnamese people to determine their own figure and that ostensibly is what we have been fighting for anyway.

I would, therefore, submit that the most expedient means of getting out of South Vietnam would be for the President of the United States to declare a cease-fire, to stop this blind commitment to a dictatorial regime, the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime, accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this Government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese.

Desire to Disengage From Vietnam
The Chairman: You seem to feel that there is still some doubt about the desire to disengage. I don't believe that is true. I believe there has been a tremendous change in the attitude of the people. As reflected in the Congress, they do wish to disengage and to bring the war to an end as soon as we can.

Question is How to Disengage
The question before us is how to do it. What is the best means that is most effective, taking into consideration the circumstances with which all governments are burdened? We have a precedent in this same country. The French had an experience, perhaps not traumatic as ours has been, but nevertheless they did make up their minds in the spring of 1954 and within a few weeks did bring it to a close. Some of us have thought that this is a precedent, from which we could learn, for ending such a war. I have personally advocated that this is the best procedure. It is a traditional rather classic procedure of how to end a war that could be called a stalemate, that neither side apparently has the capacity to end by military victory, and which apparently is going to go on for a long time. Speaking only for myself, this seems the more reasonable procedure.

I realize you want it immediately, but I think that procedure was about as immediate as any by which a country has ever succeeded in ending such a conflict or a similar conflict. Would that not appeal to you?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, frankly it does not appeal to me if American men have to continue to die when they don't have to, particularly when it seems the Government of this country is more concerned with the legality of where men sleep than it is with the legality of where they drop bombs. (Applause.)

The Chairman: In the case of the French when they made up their mind to take the matter up at the conference in Geneva, they did. The first thing they did was to arrange a cease-fire and the killing did cease. Then it took only, I think, two or three weeks to tidy up all the details regarding the withdrawal. Actually when they made up their mind to stop the war, they did have a cease-fire which is what you are recommending as the first step.

Mr. Kerry: Yes sir; that is correct.

The Chairman: It did not drag on. They didn't continue to fight. They stopped the fighting by agreement when they went to Geneva and all the countries then directly involved participated in that agreement.

I don't wish to press you on the details. It is for the committee to determine the best means, but you have given most eloquently the reasons why we should proceed as early as we can. That is, of course, the purpose of the hearing.

Mr. Kerry: Senator, if I may interject, I think that what we are trying to say is we do have a method. We believe we do have a plan, and that plan is that if this body were by some means either to permit a special referendum in this country so that the country itself might decide and therefore avoid this recrimination which people constantly refer to or if they couldn't do that, at least do it through immediate legislation which would state there would be an immediate cease-fire and we would be willing to undertake negotiations for a coalition government. But at the present moment that is not going to happen, so we are talking about men continuing to die for nothing and I think there is a tremendous moral question here which the Congress of the United States is ignoring.

The Chairman: The congress cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system we can advice the President. We have to persuade the President of the urgency of taking this action. Now we have certain ways in which to proceed. We can, of course, express ourselves in a resolution or we can pass an act which directly affects appropriations which is the most concrete positive way the Congress can express itself.

But Congress has no capacity under our system to go out and negotiate a cease-fire. We have to persuade the Executive to do this for the country.

Extraordinary Response Demanded by Extraordinary Question
Mr. Kerry: Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and you have been one of the strongest critics of this war for the longest time. But I think if can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for porkbarrell programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country. (Applause.)

And this, Mr. Chairman, is what we are trying to convey.

I understand. I really am aware that there are a tremendous number of difficulties in trying to persuade the Executive to move at this time. I believe they are committed. I don't believe we can. But I hope that we are not going to have to wait until 1972 to have this decision made. And what I am suggesting is that I think this is an extraordinary enough question so that it demands an extraordinary response, and if we can't respond extraordinarily to this problem then I doubt very seriously as men on each that we will be able to respond to the other serious question which face us. I think we have to start to consider that. This is what I am trying to say.

If this body could perhaps call for a referendum in the country or if we could perhaps move now for a vote in 3 weeks, I think the people of this country would rise up and back that. I am not saying a vote nationwide. I am talking about a vote here in Congress to cut off the funds, and a vote to perhaps pass a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the war and to do the things that uphold those things which we pretend to be. That is what we are asking. I don't think we can turn our back on that any longer, Senator.

The Chairman: Senator Symington?

WITNESS SERVICE DECORATIONS
Senator Symington: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kerry, please move your microphone. You have a Silver Star; have you not?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I do.

Senator Symington: And a Purple Heart?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, I do.

Senator Symington: How many clusters?

Mr. Kerry: Two clusters.

Senator Symington: So you have been wounded three times.

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir.

Senator Symington: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Senator Aiken. (Applause.)

NORTH VIETNAMESE AND VC ATTITUDE TOWARD DEFINITE WITHDRAWAL DATE
Senator Aiken: Mr. Kerry, the Defense Department seems to feel that if we set a definite date for withdrawal when our forces get down to a certain level, they would be seriously in danger by the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong. Do you believe that the North Vietnamese would undertake to prevent our withdrawal from the country and attack the troops that remain there?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, if I may answer you directly, I believe we are running that danger with the present course of withdrawal because the President has neglected to state to this country exactly what his response will be when we have reached the point that we do have, let us say, 50,000 support troops in Vietnam.

Senator Aiken: I am not telling you what I think. I am telling what the Department says.

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir; I understand that.

Senator Aiken: Do you believe the North Vietnamese would seriously undertake to impede our complete withdrawal?

Mr. Kerry: No, I do not believe that the North Vietnamese would and it has been clearly indicated at the Paris peace talks they would not.

Senator Aiken: Do you think they might help carry the bags for us? (Laughter)

Mr. Kerry: I would say they would be more prone to do that then the Army of the South Vietnamese. (Laughter) (Applause)

Senator Aiken: I think your answer is ahead of my question. (Laughter)

Saigon Government's Attitude Toward Complete Withdrawal Date
I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government would be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by October 1st, and be completely out of there-air, sea, land- leaving them on their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon government under those circumstances?

Mr. Kerry: Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face his question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country-

Attitude of South Vietnamese Army and People Toward Withdrawal
Senator Aiken: I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam after the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vienamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years.

If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic combing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.

The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can't go around- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capacity. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.

Senator Aiken: I might say I asked those questions several years ago, rather ineffectively. But what I would like to know now is if we, as we complete our withdrawal and, say, get down to 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or even 50,000 troops there, would there be any effort on the part of the South Vietnamese government of the South Vietnamese army, in your opinion, to impede their withdrawal?

Mr. Kerry: No; I don't think so, Senator.

Senator Aiken: I don't see why North Vietnam should object.

Mr. Kerry: I don't for the simple reason, I used to talk with officers about their- we asked them, and one officer took great pleasure in playing with me in the sense that he would say, "Well, you know you American, you come over here for 1 year and you can afford, you know, you go to Hong Kong for R. & R. and if you are a good boy you get another R. & R. or something you know. You can afford to charge bunkers, but I have to try and be here for 30 years and stay alive." And I think that that really is the governing principle by which those people are now living and have been allowed to live because of our mistake. So that when we in fact state, let us say, that we will have a cease-fire or have a coalition government, most of the 2 million men you often hear quoted under arms, most of whom are regional popular reconnaissance forces, which is to say militia, and a very poor militia at that, will simply lay down their arms, if they haven't done so already, and not fight. And I think you will find they will respond to whatever government evolves which answer their needs, and those needs quite simply are to be fed, to bury their dead in plots where their ancestors lived, to be allowed to extend their culture, to try and exist as human beings. And I think that is what will happen.

I can cite many, many instances, sir, as in combat when these men refused to fight with us, when they shot with their guns over tin this area like this and their heads turned facing the other way. When we were taken under fire we Americans, supposedly fighting with them, and pinned down in a ditch, and I was in the Navy and this was pretty unconventional, but when we were pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or something and they refused to come in and help us, point blank refused. I don't believe they want to fight, sir.
Click to expand...

twhy77 · Apr 26, 2004

Yeah my dad was pretty pissed about what he did when he got back to the States.

GladiatoRowdy · Apr 26, 2004

And even if every word is true, Kerry's service was infinitely better than Bush's during the same time. Not only did Kerry serve with honor, receiving multiple awards for valor, but he came home and followed his conscience in fighting against an unjust, insane war.

Bama, did you happen to catch Kerry's interview on Meet the Press last week? Russert came out firing and Kerry was very straight with him. He admitted that youthful exuberance added fire to his words after he got home from Vietnam, but stood by his protests of the war as necessary to put pressure on the government to extricate ourselves from that situation.

Every time I see Kerry speak, he strikes me more and more as the perfect person to heal the wounds that GWB has opened up in this country and worldwide. I know you are too filled with hate for anything or anyone left of Limbaugh, but if you would put aside your prejudices for even a second, you would be able to see how much better for America Kerry is (when compared to Bush).

bamaslammer · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by andymoon
And even if every word is true, Kerry's service was infinitely better than Bush's during the same time. Not only did Kerry serve with honor, receiving multiple awards for valor, but he came home and followed his conscience in fighting against an unjust, insane war.

Bama, did you happen to catch Kerry's interview on Meet the Press last week? Russert came out firing and Kerry was very straight with him. He admitted that youthful exuberance added fire to his words after he got home from Vietnam, but stood by his protests of the war as necessary to put pressure on the government to extricate ourselves from that situation.

Every time I see Kerry speak, he strikes me more and more as the perfect person to heal the wounds that GWB has opened up in this country and worldwide. I know you are too filled with hate for anything or anyone left of Limbaugh, but if you would put aside your prejudices for even a second, you would be able to see how much better for America Kerry is (when compared to Bush).
Click to expand...

Healing the wounds? The only wounds sustained are by Bush-hating whiners who have gone to a full-court press to tar and feather the president. I'm not fond of many of his policies, which I find a unneccessary surrender to the whims of liberals in expanding the powers and scope of the Imperial Federal govt. I'm not happy at having to choose between the lesser of two evils and if not for the war on terror, I'd vote liberatarian as I have done several times in presidential elections.

But Andy, I have kids to think about. I don't want them inheriting a nation with a smoking craters where some major cities were. We've seen what the policy of relying on the flawed international system and a lax approach (in terming terrorism a LE problem rather than a military one) can do.

Bill Clinton did more to weaken this country than any other president in history except maybe for Jimmy Carter. Another four years of that hands-off approach will get us another terror attack and another round of Democrats, whose moronic internationalist views and total distrust of the military make them the cause, trying to pin it on Republicans who have to clean up the mess.

I could not vote for John Kerry if I had a gun to my head. He stands for their very things I've spent my life opposing. He is no friend of liberty or fiscal restraint. He is no protector of this country because he doesn't believe we reserve the right to attack our enemies without the justification and approval from the corrupt United Nations, which is composed of the very states that would love to see us get another come-uppance from terrorists. He uses the terms "top one-percent" when talking about taxation.

He claims to be a man of the people, yet he is a multi-millionare thanks to ability to con rich women. He thrashes Bush on his environmental record and yet, he flies around in a gas-guzzling airplane, is chaffeured in gas-swilling limos and lives in expensive mansions scattered on both coasts.

John Kerry would be a disaster for this country. A vote for him is a vote for all of the negatives I mentioned.

El_Conquistador · Apr 26, 2004

Forbes Kerry got humiliated on Good Morning America this morning. It was hilarious. Now he doesn't know whether he threw away ribbons or medals, or other people's medals or what. Yet another flip flop.

gifford1967 · Apr 26, 2004

Josh Marshall has some good advice for how Kerry should address these attacks-

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Yesterday the president's longtime handler and current campaign advisor Karen Hughes was on CNN attacking John Kerry's military service record and subsequent work as a Vietnam war protester.

But before getting lost in the details of Hughes' attacks, let's draw back and see the big picture -- something the press would do well to consider and try.

What's the signature pattern of the president's life?

When he faces a challenge or a tough scrape, he lets his family and friends bail him out, do his fighting for him. You see it again and again through failed businesses, legal scrapes, the whole matter of ducking service in Vietnam and then getting help cleaning up subsequent unfortunateness while he was serving in the Texas Air National Guard.

It's even come up again and again on the campaign trail. George W. Bush has faced three opponents (McCain, Gore and Kerry) since he came onto the national political stage -- each served in Vietnam, though each under very different circumstances. He's had his lieutenants attack the service of each one.

So here we have the same pattern again -- no different. The president wants to challenge John Kerry's military service. So he gets Karen to do it for him. You can get tripped in the chutzpah of this because this not only throws light on an earlier period when the president couldn't fight his own fights, it repeats the pattern.

But here's some free advice for Kerry.

Don't get mixed up on the details. Take this directly to the president. Tell him to turn over a new leaf in life and stop being a coward. If the president wants to attack or question your war record or what you did after the war, tell him to do it himself. No special deals, no hidden help from family retainers, no hiding behind Karen Hughes. Tell him, for once, to fight his own fights.

-- Josh Marshall

Why is Bush such a wussy?

KingCheetah · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by bamaslammer
This is from February and I believe that Owens hits the nail squarely on the jar head. But what do expect from a Marine?

Click to expand...

GladiatoRowdy · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Healing the wounds? The only wounds sustained are by Bush-hating whiners who have gone to a full-court press to tar and feather the president.
Click to expand...

I remember some much nastier tarring and feathering not too long ago regarding things far less important than unjustified war, felonies being committed by administration officials, and the wholesale gutting of environmental law by administrative fiat.

Originally posted by bamaslammer

I'm not fond of many of his policies, which I find a unneccessary surrender to the whims of liberals in expanding the powers and scope of the Imperial Federal govt.
Click to expand...

How could these policies possibly be a "surrender to the whims of liberals" when the GOP is in control of every facet of the Federal government? Your blind hatred of liberals is seriously clouding your judgement.

Originally posted by bamaslammer

I'm not happy at having to choose between the lesser of two evils and if not for the war on terror, I'd vote liberatarian as I have done several times in presidential elections.
Click to expand...

That is funny. If it were not for the war on terror, I would vote independant or Lib myself, but since I want it done right, I find myself having to support Kerry.

Originally posted by bamaslammer

But Andy, I have kids to think about. I don't want them inheriting a nation with a smoking craters where some major cities were. We've seen what the policy of relying on the flawed international system and a lax approach (in terming terrorism a LE problem rather than a military one) can do.
Click to expand...

You are so over the top it would be funny if I didn't think you were serious. If you were to listen to Kerry rather than the talking heads, you would see that he said specifically that the war on terror is primarily an INTELLIGENCE and LE problem. He is talking about expanding the scope of our intelligence apparatus dramatically and using the military to take out targets we identify through our intelligence network.

Originally posted by bamaslammer
Bill Clinton did more to weaken this country than any other president in history except maybe for Jimmy Carter. Another four years of that hands-off approach will get us another terror attack and another round of Democrats, whose moronic internationalist views and total distrust of the military make them the cause, trying to pin it on Republicans who have to clean up the mess.
Click to expand...

You may be right about Clinton, but even if you are, CLINTON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KERRY.

You are ascribing the worst things you see about Clinton to every single liberal out there. You hate liberals and that is the only thing you can see about them. That is seriously sad.

Originally posted by bamaslammer
I could not vote for John Kerry if I had a gun to my head. He stands for their very things I've spent my life opposing.

Click to expand...

Again, your blind hatred. No analysis, no research, just blind hatred of liberals.

Originally posted by bamaslammer

He is no friend of liberty or fiscal restraint.

Click to expand...

Except that he wants to do away with PATRIOT and reduce the deficit. Oh, that's right, you don't care about facts. Blind hatred.

Originally posted by bamaslammer

He is no protector of this country because he doesn't believe we reserve the right to attack our enemies without the justification and approval from the corrupt United Nations, which is composed of the very states that would love to see us get another come-uppance from terrorists.
Click to expand...

You mean the same UN that overwhelmingly approved our invasion of Afghanistan? If you actually believe that the entire UN wants us to have another 9/11 then you should be in an institution.

Originally posted by bamaslammer

He uses the terms "top one-percent" when talking about taxation.

Click to expand...

Where Bush just gives to them.

Originally posted by bamaslammer

He claims to be a man of the people, yet he is a multi-millionare thanks to ability to con rich women.

Click to expand...

Puh-leeze. Bush is not exactly a man of the people, despite his posturing as a cowboy.

Originally posted by bamaslammer

He thrashes Bush on his environmental record and yet, he flies around in a gas-guzzling airplane, is chaffeured in gas-swilling limos and lives in expensive mansions scattered on both coasts.

Click to expand...

Come on, bama, this is really weak.

Originally posted by bamaslammer

John Kerry would be a disaster for this country. A vote for him is a vote for all of the negatives I mentioned.
Click to expand...

Where Bush is ALREADY a disaster for this country.

Mulder · Apr 26, 2004

Just keep trying to dig up the mud folks because you sure as hell can't run on GWB's record. You better pray that this election is not a referendum on the incumbent president...

bamaslammer · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by andymoon

You are so over the top it would be funny if I didn't think you were serious. If you were to listen to Kerry rather than the talking heads, you would see that he said specifically that the war on terror is primarily an INTELLIGENCE and LE problem. He is talking about expanding the scope of our intelligence apparatus dramatically and using the military to take out targets we identify through our intelligence network.

Click to expand...

What do you think Bush is doing, sitting on his ass? What about the terrorists we took out in Yemen with Predator drones? Our military does things in the war that are never televised because of the need for secrecy, yet they happen. John Kerry, like all pacifist liberals, will not have the balls to do what is neccessary in fear of upsetting his precious little fellow travelers in the Euro-socialist coward "international community." I don't hate liberals since I believe in the biblical adage "love the sinner, hate the sin," but I hate the ideology with a passion. Get it straight.

FranchiseBlade · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by bamaslammer
What do you think Bush is doing, sitting on his ass? What about the terrorists we took out in Yemen with Predator drones? Our military does things in the war that are never televised because of the need for secrecy, yet they happen. John Kerry, like all pacifist liberals, will not have the balls to do what is neccessary in fear of upsetting his precious little fellow travelers in the Euro-socialist coward "international community." I don't hate liberals since I believe in the biblical adage "love the sinner, hate the sin," but I hate the ideology with a passion. Get it straight.
Click to expand...

Liberalism isn't a sin.

Uncle_Tim · Apr 26, 2004

Goodjob FranchiseBlade,

You are one step closer to showing exactly how twisted the liberal mind is. He never said it was a sin.

B-Bob · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Now he doesn't know whether he threw away ribbons or medals, or other people's medals or what.
Click to expand...

Yet another stunning criticism from the Republican play book. Is Rove having a bad year or what? I expected much better.

1. LOOK at his chin! He has FRENCH blood!
2. LOOK at his middle name! He's a snooty, rich Ketchup lover! America doesn't even LIKE ketchup anymore! Yuck!
3. We MUST count his injuries, and see the SCARS that prove the THIRD war injury! Two incidents with enemy shrapnel is not brave! Putting your feet on a desk and harming your own liver for AMERICA is brave!
4. Ribbons! Ribbons, I say! Not medals. He was not specific enough with his statements thirty years ago! We've got him NOW!

Truly seems to be the campaign for lobotomy patients (post-op) only. Maybe Rove is on vacation and Trader_Jorge is running the smear machine.

B-Bob · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by Uncle_Tim
You are one step closer to showing exactly how twisted the liberal mind is. He never said it was a sin.
Click to expand...

Uh, (speaking of post-op lobotomy patients), bama said "love the sinner" when referencing liberals. He obviously implied that being a "liberal" (shudder!) is a "sin."

gifford1967 · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by B-Bob
Uh, (speaking of post-op lobotomy patients), bama said "love the sinner" when referencing liberals. He obviously implied that being a "liberal" (shudder!) is a "sin."
Click to expand...

I don't know about liberalism being a sin, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus was in favor of tax cuts for the rich and preemptive war.

FranchiseBlade · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by Uncle_Tim
Goodjob FranchiseBlade,

You are one step closer to showing exactly how twisted the liberal mind is. He never said it was a sin.
Click to expand...

I don't hate liberals since I believe in the biblical adage "love the sinner, hate the sin," but I hate the ideology with a passion. Get it straight.
Click to expand...

He directly stated that his attitude towards liberals is the biblical adage "love the sinner, hate the sin."

I'm not sure how you misunderstood that part, but that's ok. You can explain yourself or not, I won't hold it against you either way.

B-Bob · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by gifford1967
I don't know about liberalism being a sin, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus was in favor of tax cuts for the rich and preemptive war.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a good point. In my warped, sinful liberal way, I try to ignore those parts of the Bible where Jesus kicked major ass and made a lot of gold coins as a capitalist.

Actually, on a different topic, did you see the letter last week published in the Times (and sent to the president) by that huge group of Christian churches about Bush's environmental record? It was nicely done, and the group includes hundreds of churches.

Forums

Mackubin Thomas Owens column sets it straight about Kerry's anti-war testimony

bamaslammer Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

twhy77 Contributing Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
Supporting Member

gifford1967 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

KingCheetah Contributing Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

Mulder Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Uncle_Tim Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

gifford1967 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Mackubin Thomas Owens column sets it straight about Kerry's anti-war testimony

bamaslammer Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

twhy77 Contributing Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking Supporting Member

gifford1967 Contributing Member Supporting Member

KingCheetah Contributing Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

Mulder Contributing Member

bamaslammer Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member Supporting Member

Uncle_Tim Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

gifford1967 Contributing Member Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member Supporting Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

Share This Page

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
Supporting Member

gifford1967 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

gifford1967 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member