John Kerry is a creature of the anti-Vietnam war

[igloo]

Kerry's Band of Brothers

From the August 30, 2004 issue: More than any presidential candidate since George McGovern, John Kerry is a creature of the anti-Vietnam war movement.

by William Kristol

08/30/2004,

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother."

Henry V

"And in this journey, I am accompanied by an extraordinary band of brothers. . . . Our band of brothers doesn't march because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers."

John Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, July 29, 2004.

JOHN KERRY is entitled to appropriate a phrase from Shakespeare. He is entitled to ask us to place weight on the testimony of the band of brothers with whom he served in Vietnam. But he has a problem. A substantial number of Kerry's band of brothers--those who served in close quarters with him in Coastal Division 11 and Coastal Division 14 from late November 1968 to March 1969--oppose his candidacy for the presidency. What they "learned as soldiers" has led them to distrust--in many cases, deeply to distrust--John Kerry.

This is not a trivial matter. It is as if Henry the Fifth, three decades later, in a (needless to say, anachronistically) democratic England, cited his experiences at Agincourt as a large part of his claim to lead. And then Exeter, Westmoreland and Bedford showed up to challenge his bona fides. The Agincourt Vets for Truth might, for example, have accused Henry of ordering a war crime when he told Exeter to have "every soldier kill his prisoners! Give the words through." They might have cited the contemporaneous reaction of Fluellen: "Kill the poys and

the luggage? 'Tis expressly against the law or arms." And like Shakespeare's readers to this day, voters would have had to weigh Fluellen's charge against Henry's possible defense of himself.

No serious person thinks John Kerry was in any way a war criminal. Many believe that his service in Vietnam remains the most admirable chapter in his life. But upon returning from Vietnam, Kerry did say that he and his fellow soldiers had routinely committed war crimes. And it is this that chiefly explains his fellow veterans' disdain for Kerry. Their contempt does not rest primarily on what Kerry did or did not do in 1968 or 1969.

On April 22, 1971, John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He claimed to speak not simply for himself. He claimed to speak for "a very much larger group of veterans in this country"--for his extended band of brothers, as it were. And he proceeded to describe in some detail the "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command," crimes that "this country, in a sense, made them do"--this country, the United States, that had "los[t] her sense of morality."

John Kerry has never retracted the charge of war crimes. It is fair to hold him accountable for his testimony--but it is also up to each American to decide how much weight to give this, or any other, three-decade-old event. What was said or done during the Vietnam era may end up being relatively unimportant in determining how people vote in 2004. But the Vietnam war, and the antiwar movement, is relevant to understanding a possible Kerry presidency at least in this sense: It is clear from Kerry's subsequent career that his real band of brothers--his political band of brothers, his ideological band of brothers--are the antiwar activists with whom he marched in 1971.

John Kerry was hostile, to say the least, to the exercise of American power in 1971. He remained so for the next three decades. John Kerry was critical--to say the least--of America's claims to moral leadership as a nation in 1971. He has remained so ever since. More than any presidential candidate since George McGovern, John Kerry is a creature of the anti-Vietnam war movement. His entire public career makes clear that he was and is--and I use this term descriptively, not pejoratively--a McGovernite. The difference is that George McGovern acknowledged this. John Kerry doesn't.

Another difference is that McGovern had the decency not to tout his war medals. Nor did McGovern claim to be "reporting to duty" when he made his case for the presidency. By indulging in that gesture, Kerry turned a spotlight on his Vietnam-era actions and invited scrutiny he may come to regret. Kerry's attempt now to suppress this debate will not work. In effect, and without intending it, Kerry invited his fellow veterans to "bring it on." So they have.

--William Kristol

[igloo]

August 20, 2004, 10:31 a.m.

Sunshine Policy

John Kerry should sign an SF 180.

Thanks to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Senator John Kerry's Vietnam sojourn faces fresh scrutiny. Kerry can easily answer their claims that he has exaggerated or falsified details of his four months in combat: He should sign the Pentagon's Standard Form 180 to assure that his military records are fully public. Total transparency would help voters decide if Kerry should become commander-in-chief.

In a May 4 open letter, just under 200 of Kerry's fellow Swift Boat veterans urged

him to instruct the Navy to release his "complete and unaltered"

military records. "We believe that you have withheld and/or distorted

material facts as to your own conduct in this war," read the letter,

signed by Democrats, Republicans, and independents. "Permit the American public the opportunity to assess your military performance upon the record, and not upon campaign rhetoric."

Regnery's best-selling book, Unfit for Command, by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, identifies several mysteries that Kerry's unabridged military documents could solve. Among them:

Dr. Louis Letson used tweezers to pull a splinter of shrapnel from

Kerry's left arm on December 3, 1968. The next day, with a Band-Aid upon his elbow, Kerry applied for a Purple Heart.

"The scratch didn't look like much to me; I've seen worse injuries from

a rose thorn," Commander Grant Hibbard says in Unfit for

Command. "Kerry didn't get my signature. I said 'no way' and

told him to get out of my office."

How did Kerry score a Purple Heart after Hibbard's rejection? The

paperwork that could explain this anomaly, the Swiftees say, contains

gaps.

Did Kerry willfully venture five miles into Cambodia that December 24, as he claimed for decades, and carelessly straddle the "watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia," as his campaign suggested last August 11? Or did he merely relax 50 miles away in Sa Dec, South Vietnam, as his contemporaneous journal indicates? "No snow, no sleighs, no fat jolly Santa Claus with frosted lips," Kerry wrote home that evening. "It's Christmas Eve." Records could settle this.

Kerry won a Silver Star for a February 28, 1969 mission in which his supporters say he led an attack on a Viet Cong stronghold and, according to his commendation, neutralized a "numerically superior force in the face of intense fire." Swiftees say he followed another boat's lead and merely shot a single, wounded Viet Cong guerrilla in the back. O'Neill and Corsi write that the actual after-action report that could resolve this dispute is not among the documents on Kerry's website.

For its part, Kerry-Edwards says it has been open. "We had requested the entire military record from the U.S. Navy, and we took those records and put them on the World Wide Web at johnkerry.com," spokesman Chad Clanton insists by phone.

Clanton's statement may be perfectly valid, but how can anyone know for sure, any more than Americans can be perfectly confident about President Bush's also reputedly public service records? An SF 180 autographed by John Kerry will indisputably show that the Navy has disgorged itself of every paper bearing his name. The SF 180 could also free anything still lodged among the Pentagon's papers that a less formal "request" might have missed. What's good for the donkey is good for the elephant: Bush should sign an SF 180, too.

The SF 180 can be downloaded at www.vetrecs.archives.gov or faxed on demand via 301-837-0990 (request document 2255). Concerned Americans can generate SF 180s and personally hand them to Senator Kerry as he campaigns. This will give him multiple opportunities to bring a verifiable measure of openness to this issue.

The fog of war and clouded memories both raise questions about who may be right on these matters, although many more Swiftees contradict rather than confirm Kerry's accounts. It also could be, as Rashomon teaches cinematically, that the same event viewed by different people from various angles can yield sincere but conflicting recollections.

There is a straightforward way to judge whether Kerry is correct, forgetful, or a talented teller of tall tales. John Kerry himself can answer many of these questions by signing Standard Form 180 to demonstrate that his whole record is open and untouched. As August's bright days prove, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

[jtk4]

Let it go

Nobody gives a fuck, oh wait .000000002% of the population does. Other then that it is a dead issue.

"The Swift Boat group also was being challenged by a Chicago Tribune editor who was on the Feb. 28, 1969, mission for which Kerry received the Silver Star. William Rood, 61, said he decided to break his silence about the mission because recent reports of Kerry’s actions in that battle are incorrect and darken the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

“The critics have taken pains to say they’re not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us,†Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in Sunday’s edition of the Tribune. “It’s gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.â€

Kerry also picked up support from Wayne D. Langhofer, who told The Washington Post he was manning a machine gun in a boat behind Kerry’s and saw firing from both banks of a river as Kerry dived in to rescue Special Forces soldier James Rassmann, the basis for Kerry’s Bronze Star.

Until now, the Post noted on its Web site, Kerry’s version of acting under fire had come from crewmen on his own boat. It quoted Langhofer as saying he was approached by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth several months ago but declined to join them in speaking against Kerry.

This is really getting fucking retarded, there is no real way to prove that he was under fire, except from people who have to remember shit that happened 40 fuckin years ago. We will get far with this.

[igloo]

Let it go

Nobody gives a fuck, oh wait .000000002% of the population does. Other then that it is a dead issue.

.

riiiiiiggghhhttt....

Sure it's a dead issue.......feel free to join on us planet earth

[jtk4]

You are right it is not dead, it should be, but it is not. I believe it just makes Bush look bad, even though he has nothing (wink wink) to do with it. This is actually turning into a publicity nightmare for him. Nobody in their right mind believes anything the swift boat people say, most of them have been discredited, everyone knows they get their money from bush backers. Even if what they were saying was true NOBODY BELIEVES THEM. It is actually funny how a much of a backfire it is. People now spend more time seeing that Kerry was in war and bush was not, and it makes bush look like an ass because it looks like he set it up. It is almost like the democrats set this up.

They should really just let it go. I could see if bush did see combat or was even there but the contrast between the two is being rehashed everytime a new article comes out, or a drunk that served 40 years ago gets a call and now feel like he has a purpose in life.

They should really concentrate on his senate record, or his wierd looking face.

[igloo]

You are right it is not dead, it should be, but it is not. I believe it just makes Bush look bad, even though he has nothing (wink wink) to do with it. This is actually turning into a publicity nightmare for him. Nobody in their right mind believes anything the swift boat people say, most of them have been discredited, everyone knows they get their money from bush backers. Even if what they were saying was true NOBODY BELIEVES THEM. It is actually funny how a much of a backfire it is. People now spend more time seeing that Kerry was in war and bush was not, and it makes bush look like an ass because it looks like he set it up. It is almost like the democrats set this up.

They should really just let it go. I could see if bush did see combat or was even there but the contrast between the two is being rehashed everytime a new article comes out, or a drunk that served 40 years ago gets a call and now feel like he has a purpose in life.

They should really concentrate on his senate record, or his wierd looking face.

I wish it was not an issue either but you know my stance...If Kerry is going to use Vietnam as a central pillar for his campaign for Presidency and as justification that he will be a better CIC than Bush, then he is going to invite scrutiny............especially from Vietnam Veterans (and rightfully so)....

You can judge Bush as CIC based on his 4 years.........with Kerry, you could only go on background, and he has CHOSEN his Vietnam service as a focal point...he asked to "bring it on" , be careful what you wish for

Now, I think with all the bullshit flying around about what happened IN Vietnam, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle....and I do hate the fact that someone who served (volunteered) is getting hit hard.......conversely, I do not like how he handled himself afterwards, and of course, neither do Vietnam Vets....and they have every right to speak out...

But the double standard and the hypocrisy of Kerry and the DNC, and now the left leaning media is absolutely ridiculous...

They are calling on Bush to denouce the 527 Swift Boat Vets (250 Vietnam Veterans-----did they forget they SERVED too)..

But where was the hysteria against moveon.org and their multi-million dollar 3 year campaign against Bush.....including the dispicable Bush is Hitler campaign.....scream about the $500,000 grand Swift Boat fund and their Republican donors, but ignore how moveon.org is funded, their millions, and their horrible messages?...

Kerry and the DNC didn't seem to mind when that group was working in his and the DNC's favor...

Funny too how Swift Boaties are GOP backed, but moveon.org is simply anti-Bush....hmmmmm.....love the distinction

Of course, the DNC didn't mind Farenheit 9/11, despite the fact that it is a pile of anti-Bush propoganda......in fact, they encouraged people to see it, despite its misleading and inaccurate nature......as a matter of fact, they put the fat bastard right next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC......freedom of speech for Moore, but not the Swift Boat Veterans?........prime time for Moore, but bury 250 Veitenam Vets?

Kerry didn't seem to mind Whoopie's disgusting anti-Bush comments, until a few days later when polls showed he better distance himself.....

Of course, let's not forget how the DNC baselessly tried attaching Enron to Bush, the ludicrous and disgusting "Bush knew about 9/11 campaign", the "Bush was AWOL" debacle and the DNC demanding dental records, the recent "Bush issued terror alerts for politics ONLY" campaign, and of course the endless "Bush is a liar" campaign.....

Kerry and the DNC didn't seem to mind when moveon.org, Michael Moore, Hollywood, etc were using tens of $millions in launching one attack after another against Bush.....including the Dem candidates themselves ( and of course, the bafoon AL Gore with his shameful accusations and Howard Dean who just can't shut the fuck up)..

And I would be remiss if I did not mention the so-called "antiwar" marches, and the one coming up in NY....does Kerry and the DNC demand the NYTimes research who is ANSWER, and denouce their crude anti-Bush rhetoric?

I do have to disagree with you though---this issue is resonating and getting traction against Kerry...hence, Kerry coming out strong to fight it...and recent polling supports that...........and people do believe the Swift Boaties..I saw polls all day long today--some saying 50%.....and higher with Vets..

Will it backfire...maybe, but doubtful.......right now, indications are it is hurting Kerry, big time.......this is a publicity nightmare for Kerry...No offense, but I do think you are looking at this completely wrong....and maybe biased

I am sure the GOP will rev up the machine against his senate record eventually( It would have been much sooner if Kerry has not hid from it)......and his mug

You may be pro-Kerry or anti-Bush, but either way, you have to see how this is another example of Kerry trying to have it both ways......let the anti-Bush 527's have a field day, but once a 527 attacks him, it is another story......

[igloo]

And to make something ugly--uglier....Bob Dole is now speaking out against Kerry

[igloo]

Former Sen. Bob Dole, a World War II veteran and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, suggested Kerry apologize for his 1971 testimony to Congress about atrocities U.S. soldiers allegedly committed in Vietnam.

Dole, who has a disabled right arm from war wounds, said Kerry received an early exit from combat for “superficial wounds.†He called on the nominee to release all of his Vietnam service records.

Dole told CNN’s “Late Edition†that he warned Kerry months ago about going “too far†and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

“One day he’s saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons,†Dole said. “The next day he’s standing there, ‘I want to be president because I’m a Vietnam veteran.’ Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn’t the only one in Vietnam.â€

'Superficial wounds'

Dole added: “And here’s, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they’re all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you’re out.â€