The politics of despair

I can't shed any light except to say there are a lot of combat veterans with a long memory and sharp knives. They hate Kerry for testifying against the war. Their war. The war in which we abandoned them and ignored them when they came marching home.

It was Kerry's war as much as it was any other veterans.

In my opinion, nobody has as much right to speak out as someone whose "been there, done that".

Many veterans left the service hating the Vietnam War. And why not? The simplest idiot could tell it should not have been prosecuted at all.

edgar, I think many soldiers were opposed to the Vietnam war when we went in (and many, many more were opposed to it before we got out).

But they went. And they did what they were told. And some of it was nasty. And, well, that's war.

To me, that John Kerry is being attacked for his military service, after all this time, is insane and bizarre. If these soldiers thought he was unfit for comand 35 years ago they had an obligation to say something then.

Boomerang--

The swiftvets didn't come out of nowhere.

Kerry and John O'Neill (author of Unfit For Command) have been fighting since the 70's.

They were on Dick Cavett together back then.

Yes, Sofia, I do know that - but I think that O'Neill was working for the Nixon administration at the time and he was assigned to follow Kerry around.

The actual group, SWVFT, came out just when it was clear that Kerry would win the nomination.

I don't know what evidence leads you to conclude O'Neill was'working for' Nixon.

Can't you imagine he just really hates Kerry? Right or wrong?

<anyway, glad to see your foray into the Political discussion... >

That seems like a credible enough motivation to me ...

'S just that, of course, the sharp knives will get in the way of the long memory ... thats how you get these allegations that turn out to be based on hearsay or speculation or to be in sharp contrast with things they said earlier.

I know I've read that O'Neill was affiliated with the Nixon administration but I don't recall where I read it. About the only news I read is in my local paper - so I'm guessing it was in there. I'll poke around a bit and see if I can find the source.

I have no doubt that he hates Kerry and that the reason is that Kerry spoke out against Vietnam. I don't understand why he doesn't hate everyone, like Ron Ridenhour, who spoke out against atrocities commited there.

But then again, maybe he does hate Ridenhour.

But most people consider Ridenhour to be a hero.

I know I do.

Those who attack Kerry are on the Republican side with an axe to grind. It's no coincidence that they simply don't want a Democrat elected. Kerry did exactly what the military expected and then some (he volunteered for the Swift Boats when he could have remained safely on a ship). There are enough voices from those who were there to put the lie to those ads.
Kerry served with high honor, but he had enough conscience to call the war what it was when he got home. When I served on a destroyer, it was still a voluntary thing to serve in 'Nam. I considered it my duty to re-up in the Army so I could get sent there. But, on being released, as a civilian I got better information about the cause and ineptitude involved in fighting there. Instead of re-enlisting I joined the ranks of the protestors. I am proud of my military service, but even more proud of joining in the Peace Movement.

"....The White House encouraged O’Neill to challenge Kerry to a debate. Kerry agreed and before the event, President Nixon called O’Neill into the Oval Office for a pep talk. “It’s a great service to the country,” declared the president....."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274

Hi nimh. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Could you elaborate just a bit?

Right on, edgar!

And I thank you for serving. It must have been awful - any war must be awful. Duty is a hard task-master.

My brother is a soldier and has been for nearly 30 years. I don't think anyone prays for peace more than soldiers do.

The vets against Kerry dont just have long memories, but also sharp knives - axes to grind, on Kerry's strident anti-war activities. But whereas those "knives" explain why they still remember so much in the first place (couldn't let it go), they also distort their memories or lead them to use them in selective and distortive ways. Thus we end up with "vets for the truth" like French and Letson who apparently are going by mere hearsay, or to O'Neill and Turlow insisting Kerry must have written his own reports, even though the facts belie that claim.

I mean, the guy (Kerry I mean), in their view smeared their name, their status as vets, back in the 70s, of course they are going to think and assume the worst of him and attribute malice and cowardice to him whereever they can, and then some more.

To me, those fellow vets of Kerry's, some of whom actually fiercely disagreed with him about his anti-war activities, some of whom have been registered Republicans for years, who still came out to testify of his heroism, carry more credibility if only just for that.

Washington Post

(free reg required)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html?referrer=email


Post's summary of the stories:

"A Record Questioned

Members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have challenged several aspects of John F. Kerry?s military record in addition to his account of the March 13, 1969, mission for which he was awarded the Bronze Star; Kerry?s campaign has vigorously defended his record. Among the events at issue:

Kerry?s First Purple Heart


Dec. 2 1968

What Kerry has said:

On a predawn patrol, as he and other sailors were firing on suspected Vietcong, a "stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell," meaning he had taken a small piece of shrapnel.

What his challengers say:

Kerry took a tiny fragment of shrapnel when he fired an M-79 grenade too close to his boat, inflicting his own wound, which was trivial. Self-inflicted wounds are ineligible for Purple Hearts.

What available military records say:

A medical report on Kerry?s injury was signed by J.C. Carreon, not Louis Letson, the doctor who treated Kerry, according to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Letson says that Carreon, a corpsman, routinely drew up reports on his behalf.

Christmas in Cambodia


December 1968

What Kerry has said:

Over the years, he has repeatedly said he was illegally ordered into Cambodia during Christmas 1968. Last week, his campaign issued a statement saying he was in Cambodia but did not specify a date.

What his challengers say:

At the time, Kerry was stationed in an area about 50 miles from the Cambodian border, and he never entered that country then or at any other time during his service in Vietnam.

What available military records say:

Kerry?s boat at the time, PCF-44, was 40 to 50 miles south of the Cambodian border at 7 a.m. on Christmas Eve. With a cruising speed of 23 knots, the boat could have reached the border in about two hours, but there is no archival evidence it did so.

Kerry?s Silver Star


Feb. 28, 1969

What Kerry has said:

While in command of a three-boat mission, his Swift boat was ambushed; he ordered his men to beach the boat so he could pursue the attacking Vietcong; a teenager with a grenade launcher popped out of a hole a few feet away; one of Kerry?s men shot and wounded him in the leg, but he ran; Kerry, fearing the youth was trying to get far enough away to fire a grenade, chased him and shot him dead. Support for Kerry?s account came yesterday from the only other surviving Swift boat commander to witness the incident, William B. Rood.

What his challengers say:

Kerry?s conduct was neither extraordinary nor medal-worthy; the decoration was based on false and incomplete information that Kerry provided and was not properly reviewed; ordering the craft beached reflected poor tactical judgment.

What available military records say:

The Silver Star citation describes the beaching of the boat and says, "Without hesitation Lt. Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

SOURCES: "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War" by Douglas Brinkley; "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" by John E. O?Neill and Jerome R. Corsi; the Los Angeles Times; and military records on the Kerry campaign Web site."

"The fog of war", right?

On nimh's "bookie" thread, realjohnboy and Jack Webb have about the most interesting responses I've seen:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=851566#851566

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=851661#851661

They reinforce the feeling I have gotten that, in the fog of war:

1.) Nobody's recollection can be considered flawless.

2.) The military's comportment should not be considered flawless, including how/ why they awarded medals (the new Chi Trib article reinforces this, with the wrong river in the citation).

3.) Kerry should not be considered flawless -- he may well have accepted a medal that was as foggy as the rest of 'em.

but

4.) Kerry did not do anything that would make him unfit for command, and the smears come from men whose emotions toward Kerry were heavily influenced by his anti-war activism, and said emotions tilted the foggy recollections in an anti-Kerry direction. I don't think that they consciously set out to lie and defame, I think that the core group started hating him in the 70's and that hatred was cultivated and shaped by those who want to see Kerry lose. There is definitely a strong whiff of opportunism, especially in contradictory statements they've made.

I don't doubt that if Ridenhour were running for president, he would be pilloried, too. Which is itself a shame.

More from the Post:

"Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete
Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 22, 2004; Page A01

When John F. Kerry rescued Jim Rassmann from the Bay Hap River in the jungles of Vietnam in March 1969, neither man could possibly have imagined that the episode would become a much-disputed focus of an American presidential campaign 35 years later.

For Kerry, then a green and gangly Navy lieutenant junior grade and now the Democratic challenger to a wartime Republican president, that tale of heroism under fire has become integral to his campaign. A centerpiece of public rallies, videos and a new campaign advertisement, it has helped distinguish the candidate from his Democratic primary rivals and from President Bush, who spent the war at home as a member of the Texas Air National Guard.

For the Massachusetts senator's critics, who include three of the five Swift boat skippers who were present that day, the incident demonstrates why Kerry does not deserve to be commander in chief. They accuse him of cowardice, hogging the limelight and lying. Far from displaying coolness under fire, they say, Kerry was never fired upon and fled the scene at the moment of maximum danger.

Establishing the facts is complicated not merely by fading memories and sometimes ambiguous archival evidence, but also by the bitterly partisan nature of the presidential campaign.......

.....both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar......

........From an outsider's perspective, the flotilla of five 50-foot Swift boats that followed the Bay Hap River that humid March day has spawned two competing bands of brothers. One is fiercely loyal to Kerry and frequently appears with him at campaign events. The other dislikes him intensely and is doing everything it can to block his election......

.....veterans opposed to Kerry acknowledge that their disgust with him was fueled by his involvement in the antiwar movement......When he ran for president, partly on the strength of his war record, their resentment exploded.......

.......it is the story of the divisions that tore the United States, and its armed forces, into two opposing camps at the time of the Vietnam War -- tensions that have resurfaced with a vengeance during the current political campaign....


....old wounds have been reopened, and they still bleed," said Larry Thurlow, one of Kerry's accusers, who was awarded a Bronze Star for heroism for going to the rescue of a boat that was rocked by a mine explosion that day. He says he got involved with the anti-Kerry campaign organized by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because Kerry's distortion of the truth about the Vietnam War "makes me madder than hell."

"We decided we aren't going to take it anymore."....."


The rest of the article is well worth reading, I think - helped me understand things a lot better, anyway....

Hi, Boomer.

What I find very interesting with all of this, from a human behavior / psychology view point is:

1) People don't generally get defensive unless they know in their own minds that it is them that is referenced in an accusation that contains no names.

2) It isn't difficult to believe that atrocities claimed by Kerry when he returned DID happen given the body count that appears in his military records. (obviously they WERE counting and whoopin' it up over the # of dead VC and destroyed villages as Kerry claimed) And, when atrocities are taking place now with the current invasion of Iraq - in our enlightened 21st century with photo's to prove it, why not then?

3) Will the guy that snitched on Abu Ghraib (sp?) be attacked if he runs for president 35 years from now? Will it be claimed that HE participated and actually took the pictures as part of a plan to build his record for when he runs for president?

IMO, the issue was created by Rove. It's part of the Republican handbook. Very sad to me that our democracy has come to this.

O'Neil was the protégé of Nixon Dirty Trickster and Convicted Criminal Chuck Colson

The White House found a better way to go after Kerry. Colson had seen a press conference featuring a young Navy veteran named John O'Neill, who served in the same swift boat division as Kerry shortly after Kerry left Vietnam. O'Neill, like many swift boat veterans, was outraged at Kerry's claim of US atrocities.

In short order, O'Neill became the centerpiece of the Nixon White House strategy to undermine Kerry. O'Neill, now a Texas lawyer, stresses that he did not receive any payment from the White House and was acting on his own because he thought Kerry's statements were unconscionable lies.

For weeks, Colson had been accusing Kerry of ducking a debate with O'Neill. On June 15, Colson wrote to another White House aide: "I think we have Kerry on the run, he is beginning to take a tremendous beating in the press, but let's not let him up, let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader. Let's try to move through as many sources as we can the fact that he has refused to meet in debate, even though he agreed to do so and announced to the press he would."

The next day, O'Neill arrived at the White House to meet with Nixon. The two men bonded; a brief "grip and grin" session turned into an hourlong meeting, with Nixon bucking up O'Neill for the fight against Kerry.

Two weeks later, on June 30, the much anticipated debate took place. Kerry, who had been studying debate since he was about 14 years old, appeared with O'Neill on "The Dick Cavett Show." At 6 feet 4 inches, Kerry towered over Cavett and O'Neill. With his thick dark hair, dark blue suit, and lean features, he cut a striking figure.

O'Neill came out swinging. Visibly angry from the start, wearing a light suit, short hair, and white socks, O'Neill used words seemingly intended to taunt his opponent.

"Mr. Kerry is the type of person who lives and survives only on war-weariness and fears of the American people," O'Neill said. "This is the same little man who on nationwide television in April spoke of, quote, `crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.' Who was quoted in a prominent news magazine in May as saying, `War crimes in Vietnam are the rule, not the exception."'

Where O'Neill was red-hot, Kerry sought to look calm and intellectual, toting a hefty briefing book. He said the veterans weren't trying to tear down the country, but instead say to the country: "Here is where we went wrong, and we've got to change. What we say is, the killing can stop tomorrow."

Edit: Moderator- Do not post your links here.



Hmmm, good to see that someone has some sense here! I was beginning to feel alone, not that did not like that!