August 27, 2004

Clips from "Stolen Honor"
Posted by McQ

There is a film currently in production called "Stolen Honor" which bills itself as "a documentary exposing John Kerry's record of betrayal". Obviously it has an agenda. But there is a portion of the web site which has some sample clips of interviews with Former POW's which I found to be very powerful and very damning.

The three who speak in these 3 to 4 minute clips are Ralph Gaither (7 years as a POW), Robinson Risner (7 years as a POW) and James Warner (6+ years as a POW). Pay particular attention to the Warner clip as he directly ties Kerry into the North Vietnamese using anti war activities against the POWs. Gaither is also compelling. He is of the opinion that had the war ended 6 months earlier, one of his fellow POWs (who died 6 months prior to the war's end) would have survived, but because of the anti-war movement extending the war, he didn't.

As mentioned below when I talked about phase two, this is part where the real anger with Kerry is found. As I've pointed out before, this isn't about duty, its about honor. And it appears "Stolen Honor" is going to address that point rather vividly if these clips are any indication.

TrackBack

Comments

Warner's testimony is the most damning. The other two object to Kerry for policy reasons, but Warner had a personal experience where Kerry's anti-Vietnam crusades were used to justify abuses by the NV.

I transcribed the relevant parts of his testimony and posted it here. Talk about damning.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 27, 2004 12:08 PM

Yes! I posted this here yesterday and in the first thread before I read this one. I am sending Stolen Honor to everyone I know.

Please join me. This message must be heard.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 27, 2004 12:50 PM

I just found this quote from John Kerry. Is there any way to verify that he actually did go to Saigon to meet with Geneal Abrams? Also, you will see he includes himself in the "atrocities".

We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam.

-- John Kerry in the Washington Star, June 6, 1971

Posted by: Kathy at August 27, 2004 03:07 PM

Kathy,

Kerry did go to meet with the General but the Swifties dispute Kerry's claims about the meeting:

"Contrary to Kerry's claim, our consistent policy was to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians. On many occasions we did this at the cost of suffering additional casualties ourselves. We have interviewed hundreds of veterans who served on the Swift Boats or supported them, and there is simply no justification for Kerry's statement. Several members of our organization addressed the issue of atrocities during our May 4 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"John Kerry also completely misrepresented our meeting with General Abrams and Admiral Zumwalt. Far from being a pep talk for officers distressed by their butchery of civilians, the purpose of this conference with the two highest-ranking American officers in Vietnam was to announce a new Swift boat mission: to drive the Vietcong out of the Ca Mau Peninsula. The goal of Operation SeaLords was to dominate the rivers in this area, and to eventually establish a permanent presence in the Cua Lon River, an effort later named Operation SeaFloat. This was to be done publicly, with the full participation of the media, to negate the claim of North Vietnamese negotiator Lee Duc Tho that Henry Kissinger could not legitimately represent South Vietnam because the U.S. did not control these areas.

"We succeeded in that mission. We returned to Anthoi and drove the Vietcong out of the region, and soon the North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives in Paris returned to the negotiating tables."

quote is from Swifties' site:

http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=WarCrimes

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at August 27, 2004 06:37 PM

I am a Democrat and the more I hear about Kerry(Not from GOP 'attack dogs'), but from Kerry's own mouth during the 70s the more I know I would never vote for him. Kerry, in my opinion, is a straight up TRAITOR!

First of all he did a disservice to all those POWs that were in prisons in Vietnam by labeling ALL veterens in a negative light.

Secondly didn't they just put a solider away for mistreating prisoners at Abu Graib. Didn't Kerry admit to WORSE war crimes in Vietnam?

Should he NOT be put in prison for his actions. How can Liberals VOTE for a self described WAR CRIMINAL???

Posted by: Jose Vega at September 11, 2004 06:32 AM