When FOX news sued Al Franken last year, I was a little embarrassed to be a conservative. Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, was about to come out, and FOX decided to sue because the title contained the words “fair and balanced.”
I thought the whole thing was stupid and brought unnecessary and unneeded press to Franken and his liberal cohorts. See this Washington Post (registration req.) story for background.
In a developing story on the Drudge Report, John Kerry’s band of legal thugs is “asking” Regnery Publishing to withdraw the book that exposes him as a liar. What a gaggle of idiots. (I try not to call people “idiots”, but it’s Friday and I feel like doing it.)
I think it’s just as dumb for John Kerry to try to ban the book. Why? Because it’s giving the book and his lies unnecessary press. Either answer the charges (with specifics, not generalizations) or ignore the book. In the words of someone I “know”, Kerry whines, cries, but does not answer.
Besides, even if Regnery withdrew the book, Kerry’s still got problems with his ever-changing war stories. Good grief. At least Bill Clinton was slick, John. Learn from your great savior!
When Michael Moore’s trash came out, the RNC didn’t sic a bunch of slick lawyers on the pitiful, desperate, overreaching liberals, did they? The generously-proportioned Moore is still raking in the dough. Liberal dupes.
Articles referring to Kerry’s lies: Kerry should show records and Swiftee John O’Neill Speaks Out on Kerry’s False Claims.
Blogs For Bush, Patriot Paradox, Ramblings’ Journal and Evangelical Outpost weigh in.
By the way, Michelle Malkin will be on Rush Limbaugh in the 1 o’clock hour. She’ll talk about her treatment last night by Chris Matthews on Hardball. Michelle’s blog is being overrun. You may not be able to access it for a while.
Update (6:50 p.m.): It’s getting really muddy. Kerry goes crying to the Federal Election Commission.
(Hat tip: Ramblings’ Journal)
Update II (8/21): Unfortunately, the GOP also cries.
A Very well done post!! A great read, and i agree 100%. (claps hands vigorously!!!)
Comment by The Bugg — 08.20.04 @ 1:34 pm
Kerry is hopeless. Every time he opens his mouth a new lie is exposed.
All he has left is name-calling and legal challenges - the real mark of a loser.
Finally, there is some closure for the many Vietnam veterans who were insulted and exploited by Kerry and his kind.
I just contributed to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - I bought their book.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 08.20.04 @ 2:08 pm
What’s interesting is that I sent an email stating some of these things to the Kerry campaign earlier today… not that they’ll listen to me or even bother to read the email in the first place. I told them that they should have looked at what Clinton did to dodge stories… and also warned that Clinton, who was well-liked, was a mainstream media target because they are a voracious Hydra that always needs feeding. Bush isn’t giving them anything to gnaw on, and eventually they will turn around and chew up Kerry, even if it won’t occur until after an election… there’s more to do than win an election, ya know.
He’s got to deal with this now, release his records, and actually move on. I also said I hoped this would give his campaign impetus to stop talking about Vietnam and start talking about his political record (not that that’s much better). I’m tired of an issue that is older than I am.
Comment by meep — 08.20.04 @ 2:18 pm
libel:
Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: ‘lI-b&l
Function: noun
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means
Has ANYONE *proven* that the SWVFT’s allegations are remotely credible?
Seems to me Kerry’s got a legal right to do much more than play nice with Regnery.
Comment by BW — 08.20.04 @ 2:41 pm
See, BW, the crux of the biscuit in regard to your quoted definition is the use of words such as “unjustly” and “without just cause”. Another definition of libel (from Dictionary.com) is:
li·bel Pronunciation Key (lbl)
n.
a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs,
or pictures, that damages a person’s reputation.
b. The act of presenting such material to the public.
(emphasis added)
Do any of the Swifties’ detractors have any evidence that the Swifties’ allegations are false? It seems to me that any legal recourse that Kerry and his organization have in this matter would be served by proving the allegations of SWVFT are false, rather than trying to intimidate TV stations into dropping the ad by sending letters that gave the impression that said stations were setting themselves up for libel suits by running it.
If Kerry were really on the side of the angels in this one, why did he resort to slimeball tactics, rather than simply refute the allegations with evidence to the contrary?
Comment by AWG — 08.20.04 @ 3:11 pm
BW - In defamation cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (Kerry) to prove the elements of the claim.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.20.04 @ 3:20 pm
Hm, how about Dr. Louis Letson’s assertion that he treated Kerry for his injury, when his signature appears nowhere on any of the documentation associated with that injury? Not to mention the praising of Kerry as honorable in the past by several of these guys. So they were either lying then, or lying now.
Face it, these allegations are either unprovable or downright false according to the information we have.
Comment by BW — 08.20.04 @ 3:25 pm
BW - That’s been done, already. Just because Letson’s signature wasn’t on the record doesn’t prove he did not treat Kerry. The record was signed by one of Letson’s corpsmen.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.20.04 @ 3:30 pm
So what would make Letson remember a 40-year-old injury that was so minor?
Comment by BW — 08.20.04 @ 3:34 pm
Now you’re changing the argument. How should I know why/how he’d remember, assuming he ever forgot?
Let’s say we’re in a court of law. As I stated before, if Kerry brings an action against Regnery and the men, the burden is on him to prove the allegations are false, that they caused damage, etc. Now let’s say Letson got up there to testify about Kerry’s injury. Whether he’s believable or not (40 years considered “too long ago”, for example) is a question for the jury. They may find all, part or none of his testimony credible.
Just between us non-jury folks, I can easily believe someone would remember a 40 year-old event that may seem “small” to you and me. Perhaps Letson attached some significance to it.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.20.04 @ 3:43 pm
What a gaggle of idiots. (I try not to call people “idiots”, but it’s Friday and I feel like doing it.)
Sometimes, no matter what day of the week it is, you just have to call an idiot, an idiot. Keep up the good work.
Comment by Pamela — 08.20.04 @ 5:25 pm
Kerry trying to get the book recalled, stinks. It’s wrong. Flat out wrong.
With all of the back and forth, and being told that events are always unclear because of the heat of battle, I was willing to believe both sides thought they were telling the truth.
Now I’m really starting to think that Kerry is lying.
But he’s a politican, so by definition, he’s a liar.
Comment by DarkStar — 08.20.04 @ 5:27 pm
The fact that Kerry doesn’t explain the discrepencies himself and instead sends his legions to go after the reputation of the Swift Boat Veterans says everything to me.
He can’t dispute what they are saying unless he signs the release for ALL of his military records.
I’m guessing he won’t do this because there are some bad Officer Efficiency Reports and because his story doesn’t match up with the facts.
And now, with the new SBVFT commercial - showing Kerry testifying that he saw all sorts of war crimes that he was either lying about or not man enough to report when he was on duty — the Kerry camp cannot dispute his words.
Comment by Beth Donovan — 08.20.04 @ 7:44 pm
A Must Read: Caveman Chris Mathews
She did a great job under extremely hostile circumstance. (I was wondering if Mathews was going to pop her. He was that angry- yelling, spitting, interupting.)
Trackback by Armies of Liberation — 08.20.04 @ 9:19 pm
Nice post La Shawn.
Comment by Jane — 08.20.04 @ 9:21 pm
Many of us bemoan the overbearing litigiousness of our society. Apparently, this particular fish stinks from the head down (Kerry *and* FOX News). Sad.
Comment by Mark Slater — 08.20.04 @ 9:35 pm
First they tried the lawyer coup d’etat is 2000 and 2002. Now, they are trying censorship via lawyers. I don’t trust these leftists.
Comment by RepJ — 08.20.04 @ 9:50 pm
Heh- never fails. Every time the Right takes Kerry up on one of his “BRING IT ON” challenges, he runs whining to the microphones- and this time, also to his sleazy army of Leftist lawyers. I wonder when they’ll start dispatching squads of creeps to intimidate voters at Republican polling places…
Comment by Jim Robertson — 08.20.04 @ 10:56 pm
Did any of you read the New York Times article about this? I will assume you have, and that means that after learning about all of the untruths in ‘Unfit For Command’ and after learning that BC’04 worked directly with the liars, you continue to support Bush on this?
How is this possible? Can any of you make sense of this for me?
My take is HERE.
Comment by Screwy Hoolie — 08.21.04 @ 12:32 am
link
This article states Kerry is closely related to John Winthrop, the First Governor of Massachusetts. Here is a short commentary written in 1630 by Winthrop, “City upon a Hill.”
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/winthrop.htm
I wonder if Kerry would have this banned as hate speech were it written today, or just fluff it off as another right-wing religious nutcase.
1588 John Winthrop is born.
1602 Admitted to Trinity College.
1630 Sails for New England; writes first journal entry of Bay Colony; delivers his lay-sermon, “Modell of Christian Charity,” aboard the Arbella.
1634 Voted out of the governorship.
1637 Reelected governor.
1640 Voted out of governorship.
1642 Reelected governor.
1645 Stands trial, having been accused for overstepping authority.
1646 Reelected governor and serves until his death.
1649 Winthrop dies in Boston on 26 March.
Comment by MORSteve — 08.21.04 @ 1:06 am
You read the New York Times to get “facts”??? A leftist, amoral, Bush-hating, Christian-despising, bundle of rags good for maybe wrapping a few fish? Oh, brother. I’ll go on over and read that story while I hold my nose, and I may even blog about it today if it contains the “facts” you claim.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.21.04 @ 7:39 am
Who ya going to believe? 250+ honorable Vietnam vets or 1 gigalo John Kerry? You decide.
Comment by RepJ — 08.21.04 @ 10:00 am
I read The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Guardian, The Financial Times, and other web sites.
If you rely on one source, you are going to miss something. (Even the differing versions of newswire stories is interesting.)
I refuse to not read something because they have a political view opposite to mine.
Comment by DarkStar — 08.21.04 @ 10:23 am
Two things:
1) Republicans have gone to the FEC over several liberal 527 groups, just as Kerry is doing now.
2) Several Conservative groups went after Moore, and had their complaint unanimously rejected by the FEC.
My guess, is that Kerry will be handed the same fate as the anti-Moore people.
Comment by expatlse — 08.21.04 @ 10:28 am
I also read a variety of sources and a few that most wouldn’t read. I read the NYT, but for laughs, not for facts. I guess my sarcasm didn’t come through.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.21.04 @ 10:33 am
One question should be on everyone’s mind. The Swifters call into question how military awards have been given.
Therefore, why aren’t all citations in question? Why only Kerry’s?
Comment by expatlse — 08.21.04 @ 11:13 am
Because he’s a public figure and office holder who made his war record an issue by criticizing the president’s, and he’s running for the highest office in the land. The scrutiny is justified. A Vietnam protester wants to command the military. How such a man could be in a so-called dead heat with George Bush during wartime is still a mystery to me.
Comment by La Shawn — 08.21.04 @ 11:18 am
That still doesn’t explain why all citations should not be subject to doubts, if one of the bases of their argument was that the papers are overly exuberant and puffery.
Moreover, many veterans have told me of the same atrocities that Kerry spoke about, and these were hardly left-wing protesters (on the contrary). I did not know any of that was new news. Tons of fatherless children, rapes, cruelty, etc. Cruelty was committed by people on both sides. Were the Vietnam vets somehow different from every other soldier on the planet in every war?
People are acting as if all soldiers were just choirboys. Many protesters detested the war and wanted the soldiers home. Others treated the soldiers terribly, and they are truly disgusting.
Heck, I saw a program about how many Vietnam Vets are discriminated against at VFWs, because the WWII guys see themselves as better since they “won” and it was a declared war. Is their behavior all liberals faults, or is it a little more simple than that?
Comment by expatlse — 08.21.04 @ 11:51 am
If then Lt. (junior grade) Kerry saw and participated in war atrocities, then he was bound by his oath to report them.
Not one person from his own Swift Boat has ever verified Kerry’s accusations. Ever.
Comment by Beth Donovan — 08.21.04 @ 1:22 pm
Soldiers are also bound by their oaths not to do many things. For instance, soldiers may not break local laws (i.e. sleep with prostitutes)–how many soldiers have been reprimanded for that compared to how many have used them.
Oath, shmoath.
Comment by expatlse — 08.21.04 @ 2:01 pm
Okay, a few things deserve comment. First let us talk about war crimes. It is easy to claim that all Vietnam vets are war criminals since most of you have grown up with the Hollywood version of the war, and you don’t know any better. Remember this indoctrination is the product of those trying to justify the butchery that followed our desertion of the Vietnamese people.
The only war crime I heard of during my time with the Cav was of another unit taking ears, and that was only a rumor. I did, however, see the results of atrocities committed by our adversaries. I also saw American soldiers help and care for the local people on many occasions.
As to the “war crime” of sleeping with prostitutes, I’ll admit that one has me stumped. If someone can explain this crime, maybe I’ll get a better handle on it.
Medals are another story altogether, and one longer than I care to go into. Some came easy, others were earned the hard way. If you’ve been there you take them with a grain of salt. The real heroes were those who did what they did when nobody was watching, and they died doing it.
Comment by Rick Bridgeman — 08.21.04 @ 3:55 pm
Vietnam-era war crimes, whether real or not, are a big part of the reason that we now have an all-volunteer force. Those who *choose* to be in the military generally make better soldiers, sailors, etc. Also it’s easier for the military to vet recruits’ background, mental sbility, etc. Though that process obviously isn’t perfect, far more maniacs are barred from service now than when the draft was in force.
Comment by Juliette — 08.21.04 @ 4:47 pm
I never said prostitution was a war crime. Please read my post. I was referring to soldiers do not always report when others are committing illegalities.
Comment by expatlse — 08.21.04 @ 5:12 pm
I’m left with this thought. How would the Dems, the Left and the Media react if George Bush tried to use the FCC to shut down Moveon.org and George Soros? I think we all know the answer to that question. And as usual, the Left remains silent when one of their own attempts the ‘censoring’.
Comment by Ray Phelps — 08.21.04 @ 9:59 pm
And as usual, the Left remains silent when one of their own attempts the ‘censoring’.
Well Ray Phelps. They’re not all silent. Some of them are making stammering excuses.
Comment by likwidshoe — 08.22.04 @ 1:22 am
Actually, several Conservative organizations have been trying to stop liberal 527 groups. Heck, the FEC rejected the complaint against Michael Moore unanimously.
Comment by expatlse — 08.23.04 @ 4:30 am
The one difference about this ad is that it really strikes home and is especially damaging to both Kerry personally as well as the campaign.
I was there in 1968. The words hurt terribly at the time and were one factor which turned me off about the anti-war protestors that returned from Nam. Too many lies were told which ran totally contrary to my own experience.
While I returned opposed to the war it was for the more common concerns shared with many Americans who served in Nam: failure to support the war and prosecute it consistently with realistic expectation of success. That possibility has been lost in the haze of the passage of years which perceive the war as “unwinnable.” It wasnt.
The lying words of the extremists among us, Kerry being an obvious example, turned off the majority who wanted to address the issues like consistent proscecution of the war and avoidance of time and money wasting projects that were obviously conceived by someone in lala land (defined as a politician who had no idea of what circumstances actually were.
I took, and still take, Kerry’s comments as personally offensive and lies about actual circumstances. I was a Navy liasion officer in communications with Marines serving on the ground who provided air support from carrier based Navy aircraft. Both the perceived situation prior to an authorization for a strike, as well as the results of the strike, were available to me on a daily basis.
Why? To determine if we were perceiving real threats correctly and being successful in their elimination. Were some honest mistakes made? Of course there were. Civilians, especially in those times absent all the marvelous technology of today’s wars, did not die solely from “collateral damage” (a bad joke for a euphemism) but from simple mistake or a rushed decision to initial a (usually) defensive attack based on the perception of immediate danger to U.S. troops (some Aussie commandos and a few Army units in addition to Marine ground troops).
For Kerry to say that Americans participated in regular and consistent attacks on civilians and/or their villages was an absolute lie and strikes at the hearts and minds of all those who feel they were acting, with distinction and honor, in proscecuting the war. I never met, heard about, or talked to another Swift boat commander (and I talked to more than a few, albeit always on the radio), who would agree with Kerry’s comment.
It should be present, from the prescence of overwhelming numbers of Nam veterans, that the insult from Kerry runs deep and is going to be met with the severest criticism, some as extreme in opposition as Kerry’s extreme lies.
Curiously, and only in passing, it’s entirely possible I talked to Kerry on the radio if he ever called for a defensive or offensive air strike was the Delta was included within my area of authority, although not primary (mine was support of ground troops in the broader, largely rough and jungle area, west of the Delta who would come under fair in small or larger groups. (The Delta area was a special theater of operations because of the water based smuggling of arms from North to South Vietnam and special tactics required, and sufficiently distant, although adjoining, to the one in my control.) I served alongside a Marine officer of same rank who would be in direct contact with the Marines, then consult with me on whether to autorize Navy aircraft strikes from the off shore based carrier aircraft. These “discussions” often weren’t very long and the working relations often required an immediate decision, where the nod of a head made up the “discussion.”
(These circumstances also point out the inane way in which the various services used to “cooperate” with each other. The Army couldn’t order an Air Force strike, for example, but “liasion officers” were used to communicate immediate or longer term action. Even with units from the Marine Corps and Navy, which worked much more closely, this arcane “liasion” situation existed. To the credit, IMHO, of most involved there was little interplay of selfish individuals protecting their own turf with no knowledge or concern for the other service.
This was especially true in circumstances where I operated as both the Marine officer and I were invariably of like mind. The only “discussion” which occurred usually had to do with extreme circumstances when, for one reason or another, we had limited assets for use in making a (typically) defensive attack.
Our role was to provide virtually immediate support from Navy planes armed with bombs and napalm (the latter more effective in terrain with heavy vegetation), a matter of only a few minutes. Therefore my contact with with those on the ground (and other liasion officers) in the Delta area were limited, and usually based on strategic (available assets) concerns. But we often requested direct contact with ground personnel, notably Swift boat commanders, to evaluate the need to shift some of our assets to the Delta where a few more minutes were added to an attack for defensive reasons.
In theory such command between different fire control and attack districts was coordinated from aboard the carriers by higher ranking officers. In practice the knowledge of on the ground circumstances didn’t allow for much reliace on such coordination. There often wasn’t enough time and individual officers like myself were sufficiently trusted to act based on our knowledge of situations on the ground in our own area and the desperate need for immediate help in the other sector.
There were never enough fighter-bomber support craft available for extreme situations, nor enough of the slower moving “Jolly Green Giants,” the transport type gun ships. Engagements of forces were often simultaneous (and unrelated) and there was always the hesitance to provide assets which might be needed by one’s “own” troops. We too often walked a fine line, knowing that “loaned assets” to the other district meant our “own” did not have adequate support or backup.
We had constant air patrols ready for attack in any area within our sector available for immediate use. The few minutes needed for additional aircraft, or the borrowing of assets from another area, too often made them useful when the danger of overwhelming forces by the enemy, or those of an ambush where the size of the envemy force was unknown.
In short, based SOLELY on an error by a platton leader on the ground, we might commit assets and then not have them available when there was a clear and urgent need in our district or others, of a grave and imminent danger. That’s virtually a definition of what war and its conduct are all about. They become especially difficult with comparisons are made with the terrain involved, vis a vis an area like Iraq, and the differences in available technology.
I personally think Kerry’s awards and commendations were deserved, based on the information widely available. That doesn’t mean, however, that there isn’t always some margin for decision making about such awards which isn’t marginal. In the heat of combat it’s entirely possible that of 20 men involved 10 will have entirely different perceptions from the other 10. It’s common. I don’t question the sincere beliefs of those who support Kerry, as well as those who question what happened, because that’s so very typical of what occurs in the heat of combat (I prefer to avoid the modern jargon which seems more vague than useful for clarification.). These comments apply to his Silver Star and Bronze Star.
They’re not awarded lightly and without good cause. Are mistakes make? Of course there are, although they tend to fall in the area of actions overlooked, not so much as those where the awards are actually made. The Purple Hearts are somewhat different because there’s objective medical evidence, although there can be a margin of error here too. When is a “wound a wound?” Severe “wounds” can occur, for example, when there’s a severe concussion which is not accompanied by any bleeding at all (for example, a bullet passing through a helmet which has no or little contact with the Marine’s head).
Anyone who has served in the military can present any number of examples when the “wound” involves little or no bleeding, not to mention the fact that the source of the wound is open to questionable. Fairly liberal interpretation was made during the Vietnam war, probably an unwise decision by the military, based on the assumption that the applicant would be truthful about the nature of the “wound.” The fact that “three and you were out” (3 Purple Hearts and you could elect to return to the States) likely wasn’t very influential in claiming Purple Hearts.
Kerry’s first Purple Heart, apparently of marginal nature, would not have anticipated that the next two incidents would allow him to obtain earlier relief from his 365 days of duty in Nam. It’s ludicrous. I knew too many officers of the lower ranks, myself and Kerry included, who didn’t exactly sit around during periods of R&R planning on ways to pickup “easy” Purple Hearts so they could go home soon. That’s a ludicrous argument. Did some apply and relieve that commendation when injury was light? Of course it did. The perception of each of us differs.
And they didn’t pass out Silver or Bronze Stars without good cause. There has always been debate about whether an award is justified. Just as often the debate centers around whether or not a particular commendation should not have been higher, i.e., should his Silver Star have been Bronze, his Bronze Silver, etc. etc. I witnessed and had direct knowledge of circumstances which might have been deserving of the Navy Cross or Congressional Medal of Honor. The circumstances of such awards leads to the highest tests of credulity. The eye witness by one or a few often can mean the distinction chosen is lesser than its merits.
So I’d prefer the awards Kerry received not even be part of the discussion. The time is a distant one, the risks and nature of the combat are unknown in the present, and there will always be disagreement by honorable men in the heat of combat.
What DOES need discusing are the conclusions drawn and stated by a returning vet in a public forum or public comments. Whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia, a major issue at the time, is significant because Americans at that time weren’t supposed to be there (although knowledge of the somewhat hypocritical “official comments” ignore some of the special forces and sniper ops. Disapproving his statement is not as clear as it would appear, but is possible if communications with command control was aware of the claim, others present, etc., but again you encounter issues of credibility or, more often, actual but variably knowledge.
This, at long last, brings me to the issue of what returning vets had to say and their actions. Many, many returning vets were entirely proud of their service. Others, like me, and a smaller number (but substantial one) returned critical of proscecution of the war. But most of the complaints were based on poor support by our politicians in D.C. or some of the inane programs we were so supposed to support which were just plain stupid.
With the exception of a few days, my time in Vietnam (365 days) overlapped with Kerrys. I’ve mentioned it’s possible I may even have talked to him on the radio, but I have no recollection of that or the names or personal acquaintance of the commanders of any of the Swift boats. They were outside my direct area. They were close at hand so circumstances on the ground (or water) were essentially the same.
Keep in mind that the role of the Swift boats was to disrupt the smuggling operations moving down the Mekong Delta and various rivers from the North to the South. My area was the one adjoining a portion of that area, but centered on search and destroy missions of enemy troops (VC) and land based smuggling operations, as both were occurring. The line blurred and was often no more complicated than the water’s edge. And it was land based attacks that were the greatest concern of the Swift boats.
But as earlier noted much of that territory, a region difficult to precisely describe because of sometimes arbitrary lines, were under control of another Navy and Marine Corps officer, a pair no different than myself and my Marine counterpart. The officers involved, because of our minue to minute, day to day involvement, were low ranking: Ensign, Lt. JG, and Lieutenant (with the equivalent in other services being 2nd Lt., Lt. and Captain). Ditto the Swift boat commanders. We didn’t plan strategy, we carried it out. When a fire broke out, we put out the fire.
As the war progressed beyond 1968 and 1969 some of the positions tended towards the higher ranks in these groups or the next rank. There was a distinct and critical shortage in 1968 for properly qualified officers, especially those from the two service schools. I was a college graduate who went through OTS and a limited communications school program, but one for which I was chosen based on potential for communications. Curiously (IMO) I was initially encouraged to become involved in “communications” because of degrees in English and related fields. LOL But I was eventually selected for reasons which extended beyond my good grammar and elocution skills.
Kerry belonged to a unique and minor groups (although not small in number) which returned from Vietnam with an agenda. Their perception of the war is one which continues to this day and is the basis of the few good Hollywood productions about that war. While often accurate in terms of combat, the political perceptions of such films are not consistent with the beliefs of most Nam vets, including those like me who were unhappy with conduct of the war and saw it as essentially meaningless AS IT WAS BEING CONDUCTED. But our voice, that of the majority, became the voice of the minority in both Hollywood and in the public perception.
But in fairness to all there was no clear way to count heads and segregate all into nifty little groups the way we all like to do in life. The country had mixed emotions. The polls at the time were meaningless IMO. Significant was the decision of Johnson not to run for re-election and the eventual recognition of most of his cabinet that the war “was a mistake.” But that does not accuraely reflect the larger view, that the war may have indeed be prosecuted for the wrong reasons, but even worse, was not properly fought and that any number of insane ideas became majjor policy.
Those were confused times. I had friends who returned ardent supports of the war and they understood my views perfectly, along with many others who shared them, and we had no problem in remaining good friends. These same individuals populate today’s VFW and American Legion organizations, side by side. Even some of the small minority of radical opponents (Kerry and Fonda crowd) were often welcomed at times as friends, those who had “been there.” Our views and perceptions varied, but the key issue here is that few really fit into one single and easily distinguished category.
In politics we had a choice between Nixon and McGovern. If the country was split 50-50, as indicated by all the polls (and which I’d generally agree with), why did Nixon bury McGovern in the election? Why the great popularity of Bobby Kennedy (and to a lesser extent, Eugene McCarthy?) Bobby Kennedy articulated the views of many like myself, but of course was assasinated. Would I have voted for him? I’ll never know. I voted for Nixon twice, not something I’m entirely proud of for obvious reasons.
Bob Dole has now entered the fray, yet another politician like Sen. McCain, who speaks of Kerry’s “superficial” wounds leading to the Purple Hearts. I respect the integrity of both. I think Bob Dole has been pushed into the arena out of despeeration and for reasons he would not normally pursue. Likewise I think anything Sen. McCain has to say, leans towards the opposite extreme.
I believe and agree with both Dole and McCain. The bottom line is that both have been drawn into an area which should not be at issue.
The issue was John Kerry and his associates after his return. They extend beyond Jane Fonda. They extend to the more radical elements (a minority) which supported the demonstrations, made infamous, at the 1968 Democratic Convention.
Kerry lied about what Americans did in Vietnam. My Lai did occur in 1968, far from the area where Senator Kerry saw service, and was an anomoly clouded in its own special curtain of shame, disgust, and fear.
Did we fire on civilians and burn villages like the incident at My Lai (an isolated one with nothing comparable)? Of course we did. But massive air attacks typically occurred under circumstances when heavy fire was coming from those areas on our personnel. In times of war, at least in 1968-1969, we didn’t have all the marvelous technology that we have in 2004 for make more surgical strikes. You don’t make “sirgical strikes” when a group of Marines is ambushed or a Swift boat comes under HEAVY fire. We attempted to wipe out the source of that fire as had been done throughout history, including the “heroe’s war” (WWII). The VC didn’t wear name tags and ID.
That situation exists today in Iraq. But technology, ranging from special night vision gear and special rifle scopes, to better intelligence, etc. etc., makes possible a much better means of isolating the enemy from civilians. All information received to date indicate our forces have gone to extremes to do exactly right. The American public has been drugged to believe that they must somehow be able to obtain perfection. Insane. They come close, but cannot be perfect.
Returning to Sen. Kerry, let’s ignore the foolish (to me) issues of Kerry’s record. What concerns me is his lies or poor perception of real events (take your pick) upon returning from the war. Further, his inconsistent support of military actions at later dates, ditto CIA budgets, etc. etc. should be the basis for our real concern.
Being a Lt. JG who commands a Swift boat with perhaps a dozen men (it was variable, depending on Marines on board for short range protection and search operations) as being qualified for President is as inane as saying that all POWs are qualified to be a US Senator. John McCain has clear qualities, agree or disagree with his views, that go well beyond his service and the time spent in the Hanoi Hilton. The same thing can be said of other veterans, with John F. Kennedy coming to mind. Each of these men who went on to higher office did so for reasons well beyond their roles in time of war.
The draft dodger complaint against Clinton was a legitimate one. But the “slacker” complaint about GWB who served in the Reserve are not. The two made two different choices at the time regarding their obligations to their communities, states, and the country at large.
Ditto Sen. Kerry. He definitely enlisted, and by all counts served honorably (to what extent is NOT an issue), but what he then did after the war speaks as clearly to the issue of him serving as president during wartime like the present, just as it spoke during Clinton’s terms. Agressive pursuit of the war against terrorism? Clinton certainly failed (ask the 911 Commission) and John Kerry will also fail.
In Kerrys case we don’t need the token, ever changing support for our war against terrorism as exhibited by Clinton, and as clearly suggested by his voting record. We know where George Bush stands.
(signed as “anonymous” but with knowledge that La Shawn can readily identify me through my IP on her log; while I doubt this comment will be widely circulated, I have no interest getting embroiled in inane “service record” debate; my email address as listed is correct)
Comment by Anony Moose — 08.23.04 @ 5:29 pm