None Too Swift

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue May 04, 2004 4:28 am

From the Wall Street Journal:

* * *

Unfit for Office
I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander in chief.

BY JOHN O'NEILL
Tuesday, May 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

HOUSTON--In 1971, I debated John Kerry, then a national spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for 90 minutes on "The Dick Cavett Show." The key issue in that debate was Mr. Kerry's claim that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Now, as Sen. Kerry emerges as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've chosen to re-enter the fray.

Like John Kerry, I served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. Ironically, John Kerry and I served much of our time, a full 12 months in my case and a controversial four months in his, commanding the exact same six-man boat, PCF-94, which I took over after he requested early departure. Despite our shared experience, I still believe what I believed 33 years ago--that John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades.

Neither I, nor any man I served with, ever committed any atrocity or war crime in Vietnam. The opposite was the truth. Rather than use excessive force, we suffered casualty after casualty because we chose to refrain from firing rather than risk injuring civilians. More than once, I saw friends die in areas we entered with loudspeakers rather than guns. John Kerry's accusations then and now were an injustice that struck at the soul of anyone who served there.

During my 1971 televised debate with John Kerry, I accused him of lying. I urged him to come forth with affidavits from the soldiers who had claimed to have committed or witnessed atrocities. To date no such affidavits have been filed. Recently, Sen. Kerry has attempted to reframe his comments as youthful or "over the top." Yet always there has been a calculated coolness to the way he has sought to destroy the record of our honorable service in the interest of promoting his political ambitions of the moment.

John Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage," and Dwight Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" inspired generations. Not so John Kerry, who has suppressed his book, "The New Soldier," prohibiting its reprinting. There is a clear reason for this. The book repeats John Kerry's insults to the American military, beginning with its front-cover image of the American flag being carried upside down by a band of bearded renegades in uniform--a clear slap at the brave Marines in their combat gear who raised our flag at Iwo Jima. Allow me the reprint rights to your book, Sen. Kerry, and I will make sure copies of "The New Soldier" are available in bookstores throughout America.

Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces.

John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?

Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. Nobody has recruited me to come forward. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience.

Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamist terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing--John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.

Mr. O'Neill served in Coastal Division 11 in 1969-70, winning two Bronze Stars and additional decorations for his service in Vietnam.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue May 04, 2004 6:40 am

So the guy doesn't think there were any war crimes committed in Vietnam, what's the point of this story? At least Kerry even went to war, he was a rich blood and still volunteered. He didn't eek out of it...and don't tell national guard isn't eeking out of it. Especially when you jump over 150 candidates

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue May 04, 2004 6:50 am

Heh. The point (says bash, as he leads a horse to water) is that we are at war and there ain't no way this fool has demonstrated any capability to inspire confidence in our military personnel. But wait, there's more!

Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief." They will do so at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday.

"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. The event, which is expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialRepo ... 0503a.html

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:28 am

I'm having a real hard time wondering who to believe. Bush's cronies conjuring up stories saying his volunteered duty in Vietnam wasn't that bad or Kerry saying Bush's National Guard duty, which is suspect at that, is crap. What made you think Bush would be a good CiC in 2000, not me.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:39 am

I think I'd sooner believe a talking turd than Bush on most anything, and kerry isnt much higher. Altho I have to believe that almost any leadership would have to be better than what Bush has given us so far.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:45 am

Why not forget about Vietnam and look at how each has tried to affect our current situation in Iraq?

Kerry voted against the budget increase for the troops has said repeatedly he wants the
U.N. to take over in Iraq.
To me that shows how little he cares about setting up a democracy of some kind.

The U.N. has done nothing except recieve bribes and issue empty threats...they sound just like a Senator come to think of it!

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:59 am

Let's not forget, Will, that one of Kerry's current campaign themes is the soldiers aren't getting the equipment they need. Wow, John, first you vote to stop them from getting the equipment they need and now you make it a campaign soundbite that they are under-equipped. Dovetails nicely. Ladies and Gentleman, meet John Kerry.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Tue May 04, 2004 9:01 am

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvo ... nyway.com/

Not much content here yet, but the sentiment is interesting.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue May 04, 2004 4:13 pm

A disgrace to Purple Heart recipients: the douchebags vietnam doctor speaks up

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue May 04, 2004 6:25 pm

Ouch. About as relevant as bush's service record, but still. Heh!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue May 04, 2004 6:39 pm

I know, it's a cheap shot but I couldn't resist because just today he came out with yet two more "I'm a vietnam war hero campain commercials!

I think they might be the result of a Freudean slip that belies the fact that he hasn't done anything selfless or anything to be proud of since he left Vietnam.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:38 pm

Good find, Will. So John *I killed a man with my bare hands and wrestled a bear* Kerry is also John *I shot a mortar into a rock in front of me and milked it for a ticket home* Kerry. Heh.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue May 04, 2004 9:00 pm

More. Get it here because you sure won't read it in the liberal *lamestream* press.

In a letter to Kerry signed by more than 200 Swift boats veterans, they wrote, "It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us).

"Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war.

"We believe you continue this conduct today, albeit by changing from an anti-war to a 'war hero' status," the letter said.

linkified by Lothar - please keep your links short enough to prevent horizontal scrolling

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed May 05, 2004 3:41 am

"Get it here because you sure won't read it in the liberal *lamestream* press. "

Oh hush. The press was practically eating out of bush's hands during the war in iraq.

I've also heard about both of the listed stories on KGO 810am radio out here.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed May 05, 2004 6:06 am

Birdseye wrote:"Get it here because you sure won't read it in the liberal *lamestream* press. "

Oh hush. The press was practically eating out of bush's hands during the war in iraq.

.

The press was not eating out of Bush's hand rather, they were all erect over a real war. Reporters get to enhance the size of their penii be being in bed...er imbedded with the action and the networks enhance their ratings by all the unwashed masses tuning in. You could have had a imbecilac idiot or even Algore as president and nothing would have changed the newsies feeding frenzy.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed May 05, 2004 6:22 am

Birds, I have no idea about KGO radio. I'm referring to what I would call The Big Three; The New York Times, CNN and The Washington Post. None of these reported the story as far as I could find (although it may have been buried too deep and I just didn't have the patience to dig down beyond the major headlines). The LA Times might also be considered part of that cabal but frankly I've felt the LA Times is so bland (and with such an inconsequential Op/Ed section) that it long ago fell off my *required reading* list.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:08 am

So a bunch of people that knew Kerry didnt like the fact the was anti-war (as were a lot of vets) and now they say he is unfit for commander in chief. Bush served in national guard and cheney never served a day in his life, something is confusing me here. Regardless if you think he deserved all the medals or not, Kerry was in the war being shot at and injured.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:21 am

Zuruck wrote:...Bush served in national guard and cheney never served a day in his life, something is confusing me here.....

Of course it is confusing you, you're trying to make Bush's service record have some sort of bearing on whether or not Kerry is a lying poseur. That's where you're getting off track.
Kerry is a lying poseur regardless of where Bush did, or didn't, serve.
Bush isn't running campain commercials saying he was a war hero, Kerry is.
If Bush tried to run ad's saying he was a hero for serving in the national guard he'd be an asshat too!

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:28 am

As well as it isn't *a bunch of people who knew Kerry*, it is 97% of Kerry's command chain. Folks who are tasked with evaluating leadership ability. Z, you might want to leave this one alone, there's not much hope you can discredit it. Best to make like John Kerry and simply pray it falls through the cracks before too many people notice it. Each time you bump it, another person probably reads it.

As was insightfully pointed out in one article, Kerrys *change of heart* over the Vietnam War (which launched his political career) was the seminal point and the first big flippy floppy of his life. The reasons he testified before Congress for his *change of heart* have since been shown to have been predominantly (and conveniently) fabricated or secondhand hearsay. He has repeated that pattern ever since (see Benedict Arnold Companies for his latest flip, or flop, I've lost count).

The question now and pertinence to 2004 is will he likewise make flippy floppy in Iraq, North Korea and the other areas where we need leadership with vision and, as importantly, the resolve to see them through to successful conclusions?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed May 05, 2004 11:30 pm

Blah. I wish Edwards or Dean had won. Edwards voted for the war, but at least he doesn't come off as silly as Kerry does to me.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu May 06, 2004 1:14 am

Is it just me, or does Kerry remind any of you of Herman Munster too? *cues Munsters music*

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu May 06, 2004 8:04 am

so, since Kerry spoke out against the war when he returned, like many vets did, it nullifies what he did in theater? I don't see how that matches up.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu May 06, 2004 8:28 am

What Kerry did during his four months in Vietnam was *commendable* but not exceptional. Also, some details are a bit questionable but Kerry's refusing to release all his records so we may never know the full story. Despite that, what we do know is he falsely accused his *brothers in arms* of being war criminals to attract a crowd and launch himself into the political spotlight. It worked, he's now a junior senator. But, you see, he is trying to work both sides of the fence in his campaign for president. He wants us to think he's the anti-war activist war hero. However, almost every man who was part of his chain of command during his service months in Vietnam is making it clear now that despite whatever admiration the anti-war folks give Kerry, the military side of the fence thinks he has no legitimate credentials and he should stop wrapping the flag around himself.

So, in a way, I can understand your confusion about it matching up. It doesn't in anyone's mind except John Kerry's, a man that can be often found trying to suck up to whatever audience he's speaking to, even if it contradicts what he said the day before. John really, really, really wants to be president but we deserve more in a president than simply someone who wants the job. A clear message and a consistent outlook are what is missing from the Kerry camp. So he's intentionally trying to be vague and *nuanced*, hoping to mumble his way into the presidency. To be fair, I think any Dem cadidate would have the same troubles considering what a mixed bag of special interests the Democratic Party has become. He has to go outside of that camp to win, hence the mixed messages and flippy flops.

If it were left up to the liberal media I'd wager he'd get away with it because there wouldn't be a consisent message trail to follow. In my mind, this will be the first election in history that the Internet has played a decisive role in who gets elected simply because there are too many message boards, blogs and search engines now to remind us of his contradictions and keep him honest.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu May 06, 2004 9:20 am

What I find funny is that I think the same way about Bush as you do about Kerry. I just don't understand how we sit here and argue that a man's service in Vietnam was "commendable" but not exceptional. Were you there? Was I? I've talked to plenty of vets about the war and if I didn't know any better after listening to them talk, I'd say war crimes did happen there. What would you classify the prisoner abuse as? What defines a war crime exactly? Grotesque murdering? Killing innocent? Inflicting mass casualties?

In respect to the people speaking out, I corral them with the people that came out against Bush earlier this year that you guys quickly disputed as being political. I'm sure this is political in some way, it always is. His former comrades have no beef with Kerry but it gets played up.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:16 pm

I know two vietnam veterans very well. Both admit to minor war crimes (killing people surrendering because they hated the enemy) and both admit they saw crimes beyond

Whether Kerry's specific claims are true or not, we'll never know. I wish I could say I believe the people he served with that they didn't committ crimes, but to be honest nobody is ever going to know. I lean in their direction, but it's impossible to take a side on a he said they said argument. There is an incentive for them to want to protect their honor, too.

"To be fair, I think any Dem cadidate would have the same troubles considering what a mixed bag of special interests the Democratic Party has become. "

I'm assuming you also believe this about the republican party, and george bush.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:25 pm

Birds: this is a Kerry thread. Both you and Zuruck seem to want to turn it into a Bush thread. Start your own. To answer your question, however, special interests means different things to each party. Most Republican special interests can be summed up as pro-business, which is generally positive for all Americans. On the Dem side, special interests often take the form of pro-group, which can be summed up as benefitting a limited number of Americans.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 06, 2004 2:42 pm

Soooo...if Herr Kerry openly admits to war crimes, do you think mayhap that Vietnam might look into charging Kerry for said crimes? Now if I was a sneaky dem, I'd pay...er find some vietamese that was witness to these crimes and could I.D. Kerry. Hmmm, perhap the rep. could use a man like me in their dept. of tricks.

"Whats that"?
"Only the Dems have such a dept."?
"Nevermind".

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 06, 2004 2:47 pm

Woodchip seems to have forgotten that Lee Attwater was a republican

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu May 06, 2004 5:50 pm

I'll start a new thread, however it seems pretty silly to bring up the Democratic nominee and not expect discussion of the republican nominee. You are for bush, so this is your attack on Kerry's charactor. Discussing bush is natural.

I stayed on topic, minus one question I had for you.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu May 06, 2004 6:30 pm

The topic of this thread is not "were war crimes committed?" -- it's "is Kerry fit to be president?" Since Kerry is running on the strength of his Vietnam service, then, we should ask whether or not his Vietnam service shows him to be fit to be president.

One sub-question is "were Kerry's descriptions of war crimes in Vietnam honest and accurate?" It doesn't particularly matter whether or not war crimes were committed -- only whether or not Kerry's description of war crimes was correct. From what I've seen, they were not -- and they weren't even such that they could be seen as an honest mistake. They were flat out bald-faced lies.

Another sub-question is "was Kerry's war-time conduct as heroic as he said it was?" From what I've read from Kerry's doctor, it wasn't. According to him, he got a purple heart for a serious wound from enemy fire, while according to his men the wound was from his shooting a mortar at a nearby rock and according to his doctor the wound was superficial.

Yet another sub-question is "has Kerry been honest about his anti-war activities?" The whole medal tossing / non-medal-tossing incident is just another drop in the bucket here.

Overall, the pattern established here is that Kerry hasn't been forthcoming about his Vietnam service -- he's waffled, flip-flopped, hidden the truth, and sometimes outright lied about it. Since he claims his Vietnam service prepared him to be president, it seems his dishonesty about it disqualifies him.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 06, 2004 7:11 pm

Will, my forgetfulness is better described in construction parlance as "Selective Amnesia".