QandO

Holy crap! That testimony hurt ME! I would seriously damage anyone who dared to do this to me, whether they meant to hurt me or not. I always found the "omelette without breaking a few eggs" defense disgusting, but this is really wrong.

Posted by: themarkman at August 28, 2004 05:03 PM

Great work.

This would devastate normal human beings.

What does that say about Kerry?

Posted by: Kathy at August 28, 2004 11:11 PM

I'm sorry, however Theresa already DOES know who her husband his. That's the proplem - she approves and endorses it, likely because she has a similar temperment herself. Only Theresa could greet the DNC with French before a national audience, mind you.

Posted by: Jamison Banks at August 28, 2004 11:38 PM

Okay, guys. Could you PLEASE just read the ENTIRE transcript of Kerry's testimony instead of a few random quotes from someone's article?

Kerry emphatically stated, at the beginning of his testimony, "...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger 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...."

He was speaking on behalf of a group of Viet Nam vets he met with in Detroit.

"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..."

Now, before you get all crazy...keep in mind one very important thing. Kerry NEVER blaimed the vets for the atrocities comitted. He blamed our LEADERSHIP. Read the whole thing. Read it 3 times. I read it 5 times.

"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..."

Now we are told that the men and women who are fighting in Iraq must watch quietly while American lives are lost EVERY DAY. Sixty soldiers have died this month in Iraq. Sixty! Sixty sons and daughters, sixty sisters and brothers, sixty wives and husbands, sixty mothers and fathers. Sixty people in less than a month...gave their lives for this country, for what? For the search for WMD's? For the removal of Saddam Hussein? For the liberation of the Iraqi people?

Would you do the same? Give your life for our country for these reasons? How about your child's life? Keep in mind, you must always respect authority, but the day you cease to question it, you give up everything. You give up the very freedom you protest to defend.

Kerry, in 1971, decided it was time to tell the Senate how our returning troops felt about the war they were fighting -- he wanted to tell them it was time to STOP THE INSANITY. These guys bravely and proudly went into that war to defend our country -- to protect our freedoms. Can you imagine how they must've felt (how they still must feel) when they realized that the America they thought they were serving wasn't that America at all?

The atrocities Kerry spoke of are NOT lies. These things happened. THEY HAPPENED! Wake up, folks. Get your head outta the sand and read, research and realize. WE DID THOSE AWFUL THINGS. AND WE ARE STILL DOING THOSE SAME AWFUL THINGS. Kerry and the men and women he spoke for were as appalled in 1971 as Sgt. Joseph Darby was appalled this year. Someone had to speak up....someone had to say something. Who among us could witness what these men witnessed and remain silent? Who? Is Darby a traitor -- a liar?

Kerry said, during his testimony, "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've all grown up with the same rosy picture of how wonderful America is -- how fair and righteous and lucky we are. And we *are* lucky. We live in the best country in the world. America *is* liberty and justice and freedom. I'm proud to be an American.

And, I am thankful we are free to speak up and announce when something is wrong. I'm thankful Kerry had the right to stand before the Senate and tell them what was really going on in Viet Nam -- to try and convince Congress to stop the insanity. I'm thankful for the freedom that allowed Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks and others to defy authority.

I believe so strongly in our country -- for all it stands for, and for the ideals we represent to the rest of the world. So much so, that when my country fails, I am personally ashamed. If we screw up, we need to fix it -- fix it and make it better. Embarrassment, pride, saving face, to think admitting a mistake or a lie is a sign of weakness -- it's all just pure silliness -- and miniscule in comparison to the American ideal of freedom and all it represents. Freedom is meaningless if it is not exercised.

The brutal truth? Our military tortures people --innocent people -- we've killed who knows how many innocent people in the name of freedom in our short history...and I am VERY ashamed. Torture and murder, no matter how you dress it up and define it, no matter if you paint a red, white and blue flag on it...it's still torture and murder.

It's time we all wake up and realize the US isn't about chocolate bars and chewing gum. We REALLY do bad things to innocent people. Dropping Pop Tarts and Jiffy peanut butter on the folks of Afghanistan does not vilify what we did to their country -- it does not excuse the US bombs that killed hundreds of Afghani children -- kids...little kids, just like mine and yours. It doesn't take away an ounce of grief felt by their families. Nothing will ever do that. And don't get me started on women's rights in Afghanistan.

And so goes Iraq. What we have done to the people of this nation is unforgivable. And that we have asked our soldiers to do this in our name is unforgivable. I support our troops. So much so, that I demand we bring them home. Immediately.

My brother just recently returned home from Iraq. He's career Army -- and was deployed to Iraq for 9 months. My mother's friend's son was killed in Najaf last week. He was 22 years old. He was this mother's baby. His memorial is tomorrow. There are no words. There is NO excuse.

I am angry. I am VERY angry. And that you people can sit back and condemn Kerry for speaking out against an unjust war, for bringing to light the atocities of war that our LEADERSHIP condoned in the name of freedom -- in the name of MY country....I have no words for you, either.

Go back to your reality TV, your XBox games, your chocolate and your chewing gum. Rest assured knowing, however, that there remains among you, those that love our country, respect our troops and know what freedom *really* means.

God help us all.

Posted by: Becky at August 29, 2004 12:49 AM

Fantastic catch on the Legion interview!. I did some digging on the origins and organizers of the "Winter Soldier Hearings"

it gets uglier.

Posted by: Arvin Wallace at August 29, 2004 01:55 AM

Becky, we know attrocities happened, but not all of the soldiers were involved like Kerry said. John Kerry stabbed the soldiers in the back with his anti-war activities, just like the democrats did this year to the troops in Iraq by stating the prison abuse was systematic policy being carried out and it's widespread, rather than a small percentage of the troops. Why don't you wake up? America doesn't train it's soldiers to become braindead thugs before they send them around the world. Our troops take many casualties by trying to protect innocent civilian lives in Iraq, just like they did in Vietnam. And John Kerry wouldn't provide any details about specific crimes that he tesitified to. Why not? If he was really concerned about it, he should provide evidence, rather than a bunch of fraudulent veterans who'd never even been in Vietnam. John Kerry wanted to stop the war period. And he was willing to make up any damn lie necessary in order to get his way. It's the same tactics that the anti-war crowd uses today.

Posted by: Gary B. at August 29, 2004 02:17 AM

Becky -

Listen up ...you infer Kerry was "only" blaming the "leadership", eh? Thereby (I assume, and following the line of your reasoning) exonerating the "followers" (i.e., the troops on the ground).

Wrong, lady (and wrong for the same reasons as the major media on Abu Ghraib). Big time wrong.

Why, you ask? - Simple logic, dear.

Kerry's remarks clearly state that he heard, and saw troops that had been "admitting" to the commission of atrocities. War crimes.

You try and shove the responsibility for committing these alleged acts by taking them off the "puir boys" by the artifice of placing the "real" blame on the "leadership" (i.e., the officers commanding those troops).

Umm, ever read any history? Ever? Ever heard of, or know anything about the Nuremburg trials at the end of WWII?

Do you recall from reading or hearing about those trials that almost every culpable SOB Nazi monster that participated in throwing live Jews, Gypsies, and the mentally retarded into the ovens and the lime pits who was dragged kicking & screaming before the judges there, claimed he was "...only acting on orders" from "higher up"?

Listen little one: BEING ORDERED TO COMMIT AN ATROCITY. IS. SIMPLY. NOT. AN. EXCUSE. FOR. COMMITTING. WAR. CRIMES.

So, dearie, Kerry was indeed saying that grunts were committing the atrocities (and in later testimony, he specifically stated the he TOO had committed atrocities).

And the "laws of war" say that grunts who commit atrocities under the direct command of superior officers, are culpable and guilty of war crimes.

"I was only following orders" just don't cut it.

Bush-wah.

So your inferred logic can't stand as some kind of presumed defence of the action of ANY soldier who believes that he is committing an atrocity "due to the direct order of a superior". Uh-uh. Doesn't wash.

(The correct response to such an order by a subordinate to an officer who has given an order to commit an atrocity would be "No sir, I won't do that." I shouldn't have to tell you that; you should be able to figure it out for yourself. Effin' Kerry should have been able to figure it out, too, especially since THE MILITARY TEACHES that to soldiers ...but then, Kerry knew he was lieing ...it was all just politics to him back then ...just a harmless little political calculation to further his career ambitions. And screw everybody else. Now THAT'S presidential material for ya', eh?)

NEXT severe problem with your post: The "military" does NOT torture people, nor does it purposely commit atrocities. Your claim is NOT a brutal truth ...it is a vicious, despicable distortion ...an outright damned lie.

The US military as an institution in particular has a long & honourable history & reputation. Along with the British, they are are the premier fighting force the world has ever seen.

And while there may have been individual soldiers in various wars who - at ANY level of command - MAY have committed atrocities ...any such acts would perforce be the reprehensible acts of individual soldiers.

You can NOT make the blanket statement that war crimes are an institutionalized and accepted act of the US military.

You may NOT accuse the US military of being monsters, lady ...your freedom comes from the young men who have WILLINGLY given their lives throughout our history, so that you can spout idiocy ...but if you yourself have any moral sensibility in you at all, you have a responsibility to honour their memory by taking that damnable lie back.

I want you to consider a little more history on this issue.

Due to the lies of Kerry and his ilk and the major media of that period, we left SE Asia, and in a hurry.

AND THE RESULT OF OUR PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL WAS THAT MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE THERE WERE SLAUGHTERED. AS A RESULT OF OUR TREACHERY ...the "madness" was intensified. Not stopped.

You see, you have it tragically backward ...only a victorious military can stop that kind of madness.

The worst part, from the historical perspective, is that before we failed them, before the lies of Kerry and Left and the major media ...our military was this far from "...stopping the 'madness'".

This isn't some arguable piece of rhetoric; it's black-and-white history. Go. Read.

(General Giap (commander of the NVA) himself, later admitted in his autobiography that the North had "...lost the war", and were considering surrender, but - due in no small part to John F Kerry's effing political ambitions - support for the war in the US faded fast enough for the NVA to regroup, and go on to win.)

Becky? MILLIONS of people died as a direct result of that SOB's lies and the misinformation of the major media. No, Kerry didn't just dishonour his fellow soldiers. Kerry lied. Millions died.

...solid reference-able & footnoted historical fact.

Our being sorry now isn't going to bring back all those innocent people that were subsequently tortured and murdered and slaughtered in the killing fields of SE Asia by the communists because we precipitously abandoned the field, without honour.

But in the meantime, for Kerry, there's the Swifties and their revelations. Payback.

Good for them.

Posted by: brandon davis at August 29, 2004 04:12 AM

I'd echo what Gary B and Brandon Davis wrote, and add this one thing...

Go back to your reality TV, your XBox games, your chocolate and your chewing gum.

So there.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 29, 2004 06:58 AM

Hey Becky .... why not drop James Warner a line and see if he buys into all the spin you have concerning Kerry's intent in 1971. See if he agrees that it was the right thing to do.

As for Sgt. Darby ... he named names. He said this is what's happening and here's who's doing it. he didn't indict the entire military or leadership as John Kerry did. He didn't refuse to name names and give testimony to investigators as Kerry's VVWA did. Even when offered total immunity, that band of liars (and that's what most were found to be) wouldn't cooperate.

They weren't worried about atrocities. They were simply basking in their 15 minutes of fame.

As for Darby,yes, he did the RIGHT THING. And guess what, so did the military. An investigation was immediately launched that is still ongoing and perpetrators are being tried and punished as we speak.

Why don't YOU go back and reread the testimony. I've read it and lived with it for 35 years. More importantly I suffered its consequences. Its really hard to relate then to today. Its hard for people to realize that we were told NOT to wear our uniforms when we traveled, NOT to wear our uniforms off base, NOT to use our military IDs when out among civilians if ID was required, NOT to wear our dog-tags as it would identify us as military and that was just NOT a safe thing to do in this country at that time.

Yeah, Becky ... that's the America John Kerry helped shape back then. And he expolited that for polticial gain. So guess what Becky, I reject your latter-day "interpretation" of what Kerry said. I LIVED with what he said, I SAW what it did to a military I had grown up in (my dad spent 36 years in) and was serving in. I WATCHED and EXPERIENCED first-hand the treatment he helped bring about at that time.

Yes there were atrocities. Yes there were war crimes. But that's not what that asshole said. He said they were a "day to day occurrance" with the full sanction of "all levels of the chain of command".

Well that's a freakin' LIE, Becky. I was a part of that chain of command and it not only wasn't sanctioned, it was considered to be clearly wrong to commit them. As I pointed out in another post, that description would easily fit the Nazi army as it rolled into Poland in WWII. But it was not true of the Allies, although atrocities and war crimes did occur on the Allied side.

The difference was they WEREN'T "day to day occurrances" and they WEREN'T done with the sanction of "all levels of the chain of command" unlike the Nazis. For whatever reason, the defender's of Kerry can't seem to grasp this difference. They also can seem to understand that that particular passage brands ALL of us who were there as war criminals.

Read Warner's statement again. In fact, go LISTEN to this man. His captors sure had no problem intepreting Kerry's statement as a blankent indictment and using it against Warner in order to torture him.

Why is it you have such difficulty in understanding that?

Posted by: McQ at August 29, 2004 10:00 AM

I think the problem veterans have with what Kerry said is not in the strict wording, but in the fact that:

1: He was sufficiently vague that the public made assumptions and indicted others to whom he didn't specifically point:

and, mainly...

2: He never--to this very day--tried to put a stop to that. He didn't come back on the Dick Cavett show and say "well, it's only some few soldiers...not all of them, by any means".

He should have done that. The soldiers are less mad at what he said, in my estimation, than at what he didn't say, and the effect it had.

I think that's understandable.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 29, 2004 11:56 AM

I suppose by Becky's reasoning, since (former) US Representative James Traficante committed crimes and got sent to jail, all Democratic US Representatives are criminals and should go to jail. Maybe she should work on that.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 29, 2004 05:36 PM

George Bush never called me "baby killer".

--==--

Steal this sig:

There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

The Ads: Video links

Posted by: M. Simon at August 29, 2004 09:51 PM

To Gary: Kerry never said ALL soliers were involved. He specifically stated in his testimony he was speaking for those veterans involved in the Winter Soldier Hearings in Detroit.

To Brandon: I considered your admonitions, and I sincerely regret my statement concerning our military. I should have stated that SOME members of our military are known to have tortured and killed innocent civilians. I apologize for the wording of my statement. That was entirely careless and quite frankly, thoughtless on my part. Please know it was not my intent to suggest that torture and murder is a matter of policy in the US military.

However, I am concerned that SOME of our military leadership has not learned from the atrocities committed in My Lai, My Khe 4 and by the Tiger Force in 1967-68. Why are these things still happening?

I disagree that Kerry’s statement to the Senate precipitated the removal of our troops in Vietnam. By that time, the Paris peace talks had already begun, Nixon had started removing the ground troops 1969, and the "Vietnamization" policy had been announced by his administration. Anti-war protests were at an all time high (i.e., protest in Washington DC, Kent State and others). And shortly after Kerry’s appearance, the Pentagon Papers were published. Yes, millions died...due to the poor judgment, bad decisions and flawed policies of our LEADERSHIP (not the military leadership – our country’s leadership).

To McQ: I owe you the biggest apology of all. Mostly for my careless misstatement (see my comments to Brandon above). I DO know that most American soldiers served with honor, valor and courage in Vietnam. I DO know that most American soldiers did not commit war crimes. And DO I know that most American soldiers did not deserve to be treated as they were when they returned home.

The actions of our nation against our returning Vietnam vets are deplorable and inexcusable. For this, I am most sorry. I’m sorry you had to live through it then...and I can only guess that the recent Swift Boat controversy has opened many old wounds for you now.

I must disagree, however, that Kerry lied during his testimony to the Senate in 1971. There were atrocities committed during the war – some we know about...and many of which, I’m certain, we will never know. Kerry spoke against the policy of free fire zones...something he experienced first hand. Along with the other members of his division and one other, he did speak out while he was in Vietnam, refused to participate and the crews began to mutiny. His immediate commander was relieved of duty because he also spoke against the policy. Kerry flew to Saigon with others from the two divisions to be briefed by General Abrams regarding their objections to the free fire zones. Abrams reply was, basically, "that’s the way it is...do what you’re told."

This policy, I believe, is what he condemns when he refers to, "...crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command..."

In his testimony, he also complained about the poor health care given to returning vets, noted the high suicide rates and spoke of the indifference of our country that, by all accounts, did not really care about the returning vets. Mostly, he spoke against the policies fomented by our LEADERSHIP (our country’s leadership) regarding our involvement in Vietnam.

When you mention Kerry using his testimony in the Senate for political gain, what do you mean specifically? I’m not trying to be cynical or disrespectful. I truly don’t understand. I see him as a soldier who served, was pissed off at what he had experienced and by the stories he had been told by fellow veterans – tired of the crap dished out by the various administrations (both Dem and Republican – yes, I fault both equally) with regard to policy – ashamed by the treatment of returning vets…and clearly outraged by the extreme hopelessness of the mission – the outcome of which had wrongly been placed on the shoulders of our entire military. I see him as being angry at our LEADERSHIP – and I see him demanding change. I see his experience in the war as his motivation to enter the political fray – to try to foment change.

Please don’t laugh or mock me. Tell me what I’m missing.

I was too young during the Vietnam War to know understand what was going on. I didn’t learn about what took place until I was much older – and I didn’t know about Kerry’s testimony until the Swift Boat controversy came to light. When I read his words, I didn’t come to the conclusion that ALL the troops in Vietnam committed war crimes. Just as I know ALL the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are not responsible for war crimes. Some are, yes. But, certainly not all. Do the crimes of some take away from or minimize the deeds of those who fought valiantly and served proudly? Absolutely, unequivocally, they do NOT.

I suppose I DO have much difficulty seeing your point of view. But, it’s not because I’m partisan, blind, uneducated (or much worse). I can only surmise this is an intensely personal issue...one that can only be understood by those who lived it, breathed it, and have been forced to deal with it each and every day. For what it’s worth, please know that there are those, like myself, who are grateful for the service you and 500,000 others gave to our country. Just as we are thankful for the dedication and service of our men and women serving in Iraq today.

To Jon: Yes, I can SEE that. Thank you for your explanation. After reading it, all the previous comments, everyone’s point of view...all of it became crystal clear. I also learned a thing or 7 about how to format my future posts.

I agree, Kerry was indeed vague – and after reading the passionate responses to my rant, I understand better (first handedly) why and how his accusations were misconstrued by many vets. I, too, think he should’ve offered a more complete, cohesive explanation for his charges. As a matter of fact, I think he STILL should...even today. Truth be told, I’m quite pissed that he hasn’t.

Do you know if there was an outcry by vets when he made his speech in 1971 – or is this something new? I don’t even know if this was televised or reported in the media. My guess is it wasn’t.

Even though I will probably continue to argue the objections to Kerry’s statements...I must admit, I’ve come away from this better informed – and much more appreciative of each of your contributors’ opposing viewpoints. I think that’s a very good thing.

You really should check out Xbox -- it’s awesome!

Posted by: Becky at August 30, 2004 11:15 AM

To Gary: Kerry never said ALL soliers were involved. He specifically stated in his testimony he was speaking for those veterans involved in the Winter Soldier Hearings in Detroit.

No, Becky, you are absolutely wrong here. (I will put aside for a moment the fact that many of those involved in the Winter Soldier Hearings weren't actually veterans, although they claimed to be.)

In Kerry's opening statement he says, "I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger 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" [emphasis added]

It's clear from that statement that Kerry was speaking for a whole lot of soldiers, and NOT just the Winter Soldiers you allege.

I must disagree, however, that Kerry lied during his testimony to the Senate in 1971. There were atrocities committed during the war – some we know about...and many of which, I’m certain, we will never know.

Again, you are wrong. No one disputes that SOME atrocities occurred. But Kerry said the US was murdering 200,000 people every year in Vietnam. Kerry stated flatly that atrocities were widespread. That's a lie.

Care to adjust your opinion in the light of these facts?

Posted by: Steverino at August 31, 2004 11:35 AM

Becky ...in response:

>>However, I am concerned that SOME of our military leadership has not learned from the atrocities committed in My Lai, My Khe 4 and by the Tiger Force in 1967-68. Why are these things still happening?

I'll answer the second question first ...in the sense of isolated occurrences: Atrocities have occurred in EVERY war throughout history. By EVERY participant in EVERY ONE of those wars.
Look, no one has ever suggested that crap don't happen. Crap DOES happen. There is no dispute over that (there can't be). That's not excuse of any kind, just an acknowledgement of the fact. And though "Why" is hard to give a concrete response to ...still:

"Why" do these things "still" happen ...I can't say exactly, but I can offer these analogies as a "route" for you to come to an understanding of ..."Why?" atrocities in war, in battle happen? ...for the same reason that mothers murder all their trusting children by holding them under the filled waters of the family tub, husbands drown their pregnant wives seemingly out of sheer sexual boredom, good ol' boys don white hoods to frighten sweet little girls from going to a particular school, ragheads fly hundreds of innocents in fuel-filled jets into office buildings filled with thousands of other innocents whose main concerns that morning were whether to have a sesame seed or onion bagel with their cuppa.

These kinds of things happened, they continue to happen, they WILL continue to happen ...and it sucks. No disagreement there. Maybe if we could all be what the Good Carpenter said we should try to be (whether we believe He was anything other then a carpenter or not), these things wouldn't happen. I ain't holdin' my breath in the meantime though.

So I guess in answer to "Why are these things still happening?", I'd have to reply that it's because there's some dark twisted corner of our common human nature that hasn't changed.

And I'd suggest that only God might be able to change human nature ...and so that kind of change is way far outside the ability of anyone else to effect.

Now, in answer to the first part of your question, I'll begin with asking you a question: why do you think the military command hasn't "learned"?

Do you know the purpose of After Action Reports? Or Rules of Engagement? Do you know why there are MPs, brigs, court martials, JAGs? Why do you think we spend the money on "smart weapons", and precision munitions? What would be the purpose of the military's concern with collateral damage, unless they wanted to minimize it? Surely you can't have watched the nightly news and that vid' of the fighter sending a bomb through a 3x5 foot WINDOW (from a speed of several hundred miles an hour) and not have been impressed by the implications?

As a current events example: are you aware that the military leadership was investigating Abu Ghraib, taking action, and had indeed released public reports (on the CENTCOM website) MONTHS prior to the partisan media finally looking into this?

The military as an institution has learned, and continues to learn ...but NO ONE will ever be able to prevent individuals from committing isolated atrocities in a war zone. Hell, we can't prevent them from happening in Downtown USA.

But please don't even rhetorically suggest that atrocities are institutionally approved as command policy ....

>>I disagree that Kerry’s statement to the Senate precipitated the removal of our troops in Vietnam.

I didn't say that, nor did I mean to imply that. I didn't mean to suggest that Kerry was QUITE THAT responsible. "Precipitated" ...no.

"Aided" however ...yes.

Kerry significantly contributed in a highly public manner to the dissemination of war myths and outright lies that were an outright betrayal of forces still on the field. If you consider Kerry was still an *active* officer in the Naval Reserves at the time of his various public testimonies, you could make the case his outright lies and his contacts with the North Vietnamese in Paris were actionably high treason (in the legal sense).

His testimony was undoubtedly responsible for an enormous shift in public support of the war effort:

Kerry conducted an extremely effective campaign of disinformation, which a sympathetic media and the Left and the North Vietnamese were delighted to take advantage of.

The consequence of Kerry's propaganda was a highly significant contribution to the public atmosphere against the war effort, that eventually culminated in a Democrat-controlled Congress voting to cease PROMISED logistical support to the South Vietnamese government and army a short time after US forces left the field.

Do you understand the consequent historical significance of our abandonment of our South Vietnamese ally? - Those effin' idiots in the mid-1970's Congress were DIRECTLY responsible (hell, they were effin' personally culpable) for the subsequent slaughter of millions in SE Asia. And for the subsequent and eventually disastrous changes within the intelligence community (which eventually led to the infamous Jamie Gorelick "wall of separation" memo of the mid 1990's, which little memo was PROBABLY the single most significant reason for 9/11). For the rise of the ayatollohs, for the birth of militant Islamofacism ...you can start with them, if you're trying to ascertain culpability.

The perception of the evil ones in the world was that the will of the American people, their spirit, had been broken. And why not?

We ran out on our allies. We turned our back on our responsibilities.

It wasn't the military "leadership" that was at fault back then ...it was us. We, the People. We elected OUR Congressional representatives & senators ...the sorriest bunch of idiots ever elected and sent to Washington.

Hence my original assertion stands.

>>Kerry spoke against the policy of free fire zones...something he experienced first hand. Along with the other members of his division and one other, he did speak out while he was in Vietnam, refused to participate and the crews began to mutiny

I suspect that you're unaware of the technical meaning of a "free fire zone".

First, let me tell you what "free fire zones" are NOT: they aren't killing fields where a soldier has "permission" to shoot at any piece of motile organic life they see.

A free fire zone is NOT a place for target practice on civilian populations.

I suspect - from the semantic distortions that typically occur in a discussion of technical military terms - that information comes as a minor surprise to you?

To wit - Free fire zones are a sub-set of the Rules of Engagement, that specify IF the troop deems it necessary, the troop can use appropriate weapons systems **WITHOUT asking for permission from HQ** upon suspected enemy combatants ...in other words, you can fire for due cause without asking permission. The Rules of Engagement for waterways (in Vietnam) from dusk until dawn (i.e, night time) specified that vessels under way that sought to flee could be fired upon (most Swift Boat officers would have stopped the boat, and checked things out before just shooting people).

Now ...as to "...he did speak out while he was Vietnam ...refused to participate ...began to mutiny", etc. ...umm, well, that's what HE says ...ya been reading TOUR OF DUTY, eh?

But what his fellow officers, superiors, and crew say is:

"In reality, Kerry was regarded by his military peers as reckless with human life...Kerry protrays himself as an officer constantly protesting to his superiors about criminal war policies and inappropriate tactics. In reality, while Kerry constantly complained about the location of his assignments to his peers, he hardly ever said a word of protest or spoke out in objection to any superior officer...These incidents involved occasions when he imagines himself [in his daily journal] confronting superiors with antiwar sentiments and objections to military policies that he felt were inappropriate. But these conversations never happened. Kerry invented them to create the false impression that he was an outspoken critic of the war and war policies while in Vietnam. The reality was that Kery was always deferential to his superiors and that he limited his criticism to his peers or the private pages of his journal." UNFIT FOR COMMAND, p. 51, 52

"In these incidents, Kerry's behavious (concealed from higher commanders by his own fraudulent reports) was IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF ORDER promulgated by Admiral Elmo Zumwalt SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PREVENT OPPRESSION OF THE VIETNAMESE." (((**emphasis is mine**))) ibid, p. 52

"Critically important is the fact that Kerry filed a phony after-action operational report concealing the fact that a child had been killed during the attack on the sampan..." ibid, p. 55

"...[t]he only atrocity I ever knew of or heard about was Kerry killing the small child in the junk." ibid, p. 58

I could go on here, quoting his fellow vets from UNFIT, in refutation of the implications of the questions you've raised ...but maybe you can see that there's two sides to the story Kerry tells? - On the one side is a known and admitted liar (c.f, Xmas in Cambodia, self-inflicted wound, both stories of which he's backed away from) ...on the other side is a bunch of that guy's fellow vets from 35 years on, who have nothing whatsoever to personally gain by speaking out now (well, unless you want to descend into the fever swamp of the conspiratorialists ...and frankly, I've better things to do with my time). Except their love of country, and their hopes and concerns for the future of their grandchildren (yeah, we're all of us gettin' that old now ...grandkids, sigh).

>>Please don’t laugh or mock me. Tell me what I’m missing.

Clearly what you're missing ...is the "whole picture". To understand how the bits all fit together, you have to see the picture (i.e., of Kerry's life), as a whole. Over many years, you look for a pattern. Kerry's life "pattern" is cause for alarm. Yeah, and you have to accept that, well, Kerry's reality is flexible and changeable and he doesn't care who gets hurt in the process.

He's a classic, is Kerry ...a real child of Machiavelli.

Look. A lot of politicians aren't nice people. Mostly, who cares? Send 'em off to the statehouse, or to Washington, and hope they don't do too much damage. Life goes on. But Kerry is a particularly noxious member of that species. And it's a particularly dangerous time for America in the world right now.

And Kerry just isn't someone you would want to trust your grand-child's future to.

...I'm done! Hard questions to try and respond to ...sorry for the length, everyone.

Posted by: brandon davis at August 31, 2004 06:06 PM

ADDENDUM TO POST ABOVE!

By "participant", I was referring in the general sense to the armies. I did _not_ mean the individual soldiers!

(I just realized how that might be mis-read.)

Posted by: brandon davis at August 31, 2004 10:16 PM