The Slander That Made John Kerry A Star


PDA






Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 28, 2004, 06:12 AM
John Kerry's lies about his own service in Vietnam are one thing. His lying about all other Vietnam Vets is another matter. He still owes an apology to them.
_______________________________________________________
Op/Ed New York Post

Fri Apr 23, 2:15 AM ET

Thirty-three years ago today, a young, unknown political activist named John F. Kerry sat down before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and unleashed a bitter verbal broadside against the war in Vietnam - and, with particularly harsh invective, against the young Americans who were fighting it.

Kerry charged that U.S. soldiers routinely committed the most gruesome of atrocities - "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

The allegations electrified Washington - and made Kerry a national celebrity.

But the charges were slanderous lies.

"John Kerry (news - web sites)'s 1971 testimony slandered an entire generation of soldiers," writes military historian Mackubin Thomas Owens, who led a Marine infantry platoon into combat in Vietnam.

"He said in essence that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course - indeed, that it was American policy to commit such atrocities," Owens writes.

The libel served Kerry well, though.

The better part of a half-century has passed; the nation is once again at war - and the junior senator from Massachusetts now stands as the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.

Surely it is no coincidence that now - after all these years - John F. Kerry is trying to rewrite the dialogue that attended his first moments in the national spotlight.

On "Meet the Press" last weekend, Kerry maintained that while his "words were honest," they were nonetheless "a little bit over the top."

No regrets.

No contrition.

And, certainly, no apology.

"A little bit over the top"?

Well, here's what the then-national spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War had to say on April 23, 1971:

"[U.S. servicemen] had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

Indeed, he charged, "[Americans] are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners - all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam."

Did these things really happen the way John Kerry said they did - routinely, as a matter of national policy?

In Oliver Stone movies, maybe.

Yes, some American soldiers committed atrocities. (Though even those crimes paled in comparison to those repeatedly perpetrated by the Vietcong, as an integral part of a decades-long terror campaign meant to coerce South Vietnamese support for the Communist side.)

But even as harsh a critic of U.S. policy as Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon (news - web sites) Papers, has said that the men involved in the war's most notorious event, the My Lai massacre, knew that the killing there was "out of the ordinary. That is why [the soldiers] tried to hide the event."

But that's not what John Kerry told the Senate.

Kerry agreed with Jane Fonda, who declared - during a protest at which Kerry was the featured speaker - that "My Lai was not an isolated incident but rather a way of life for many of our military."

Kerry, to be entirely fair, didn't actually fashion his charges from whole cloth.

He took them from accounts included in the "Winter Soldier Investigation," a fabrication purportedly based on testimony from, in Kerry's words, "over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans."

That was odious nonsense.

"Winter Soldier" was, in fact, a set-up organized by a JFK-conspiracy theorist, the fabulist Mark Lane.

And it was quickly exposed as a lie by journalists James Reston and Neil Sheehan - themselves harsh critics of U.S. policy - who discovered that many of its supposed eyewitnesses never even served in Vietnam.

To date, John Kerry has never disavowed the Winter Soldier Investigation - or apologized for his role in propagating its notorious falsehoods.

Kerry has tried to explain away his slanderous charges by suggesting they were spontaneous - prompted by the heat of his anger over the war.

But it is now known that Kerry's speech was in fact carefully crafted by Adam Walinsky, a one-time Robert Kennedy aide and speechwriter - who also coached Kerry in how to deliver it for maximum emotional impact.

That is, for utmost political effect.

John Kerry, you see, had carefully planned a political career - and decided to use the war as his signature issue.

The year before he appeared before Congress, he'd entered a congressional race in Massachusetts. And he would exploit his sudden notoriety to move up the electoral ladder until he reached the Senate in 1985.

There are many ironies in Kerry's career, not the least of which being the fact that he's now running for president as the champion of the very same warriors he so viciously slandered 33 years ago.

Sen. Kerry can't bring himself to apologize for calling the men he purports to represent war criminals.

But he doesn't hesitate to hit them up for money.

"Most Americans are not familiar with John Kerry's Vietnam record," reads a current campaign solicitation that complains about "the Bush smear campaign in the press."

"Help us fight back by contributing [money]. And if you're a veteran . . . join Veterans for Kerry right now."

Not so fast.

As Mackubin Thomas Owens wrote in National Review, "What Kerry did after leaving the Navy constituted a breach of trust with his fellow veterans - because, to protest the war, he cast aspersions upon their conduct."

Insists Owens: "He should apologize."

Indeed he should.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=106&e=6&u=/nypost/20040423/cm_nypost/theslanderthatmadejohnkerryastar

If you enjoyed reading about "The Slander That Made John Kerry A Star" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Joe Demko
April 28, 2004, 08:33 AM
*Yawn* This is scarcely news. More importantly, none of the bad things John Kerry has done excuse the bad things George W. Bush has done. Third party, here I come.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 28, 2004, 09:58 AM
*Yawn* This is scarcely news. More importantly, none of the bad things John Kerry has done excuse the bad things George W. Bush has done. Third party, here I come


I Guess those Vietnam veterans who're organizing demonstrations against Kerry for this summer and fall haven't gotten the news yet that the dissipated and disaffected find the whole matter to be a crashing bore.

They'll just have to stay home instead.

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

Joe Demko
April 28, 2004, 10:23 AM
Waving the bloody shirt (Vietnam Vets) in my face changes nothing. Anybody who hasn't heard about John Kerry's post-war activities at this point has either been in solitary confinement or so utterly not paying attention that they aren't qualified to cast an informed vote for anybody.
I repeat: None of the bad things John Kerry has done excuse the bad things George W. Bush has done. Third party, here I come.

edited to add: Save the personal insults. They do nothing to bolster your position.

BeLikeTrey
April 28, 2004, 10:26 AM
The democrats are behind Kerry all the way. It's not that he is worth a spit as a politician, but the Dem base has put out the "anyone but Bush ideaology" knowing otherwise, their giggolo would tank. So, the Dems ALL vote Kerry and Republicans and Third parties split the rest of the vote. Not good- so please, don't disguise your vote in the third party, we all know where it's really going. (please take a second look at the whole Ross Perot ordeal). Lets be honest here please, vote third party, vote Kerry. I do agree with most of the Libertarian party platform but we cannot afford to risk voting for it and having a man like F'n Kerry slither into office due to dissention in 2Amnd groups. I am starting a movement right now and I want people to rally behind it ;) "Anyone but Kerry!"
By the way, I am also starting a new group. Veterans for no Body armor for our troops (for Kerry). Too long of a name?

Joe Demko
April 28, 2004, 10:38 AM
That's been hashed to death, too. Pax has phrased it far better than I could in other threads. John Kerry isn't fit to be president. Neither is George W. Bush. I will not whore myself out to either party.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 28, 2004, 10:39 AM
Golgo-13:

Waving the bloody shirt (Vietnam Vets) in my face changes nothing. Anybody who hasn't heard about John Kerry's post-war activities at this point has either been in solitary confinement or so utterly not paying attention that they aren't qualified to cast an informed vote for anybody.
I repeat: None of the bad things John Kerry has done excuse the bad things George W. Bush has done. Third party, here I come.

edited to add: Save the personal insults. They do nothing to bolster your position.

Again, If you don't wish to read this thread nobody is forcing you to do so.

I found the Op-Ed piece from the NY Post to be right on target, and I posted it for those on THR who might feel the same.

Again, If you don't want to read it, find some other thread to pursue.

Believe it or not, not everything that's posted on the Internet is targeted at you personally.

Again, If you don't wish to read this material, instead of whining about how boring you find it, find another thread to pursue, you're not paying for the bandwidth.

Save the condescending, dismissive crap for someone that's interested. Like in another thread perhaps?

And beleive it or not, not everything that's posted on the Internet is targeted at you personally.

Again, if you don't want to read this material, find it too boring, find another thread to pursue, or maybe go pop your Jane Fonda exercise tape into the 8-track and do some leg-lifts and start working on that cellulite, beach season is only a month away.



Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 28, 2004, 10:45 AM
Golgo-13:

That's been hashed to death, too


Yep, another self-appointed THR censor.

Maybe you could go find a different thread to read if you find this one so dull, instead of whining about how you're bored.


Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 28, 2004, 10:52 AM
BeLikeTrey:

By the way, I am also starting a new group. Veterans for no Body armor for our troops (for Kerry). Too long of a name?


Wait just a second, Kerry voted FOR that bill..., before he voted against it.

(Referring to the supplemental DoD appropiation bill of 10/2003 that included funding for more body armor for the troops in Iraq.)




Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

w4rma
April 28, 2004, 11:09 AM
The U.S. Army says that Lt. Kerry was telling the truth.

Vietnam atrocities revealed in report
Elite unit said to kill hundreds of civilians
By Associated Press, 10/20/2003

TOLEDO, Ohio -- An elite unit of American soldiers mutilated and killed hundreds of unarmed villagers over seven months in 1967 during the Vietnam War, and an Army investigation was closed with no charges filed, The Blade reported yesterday.

Soldiers of the Tiger Force unit of the Army's 101st Airborne Division dropped grenades into bunkers where villagers -- including women and children -- hid, and shot farmers without warning, the newspaper reported. Soldiers told The Blade that they severed ears from the dead and strung them on shoelaces to wear around their necks.

The Army's 4 1/2-year investigation, never before made public, was initiated by a soldier outraged at the killings. The probe substantiated 20 war crimes by 18 soldiers and reached the Pentagon and White House before it was closed in 1975, The Blade said.

William Doyle, a former Tiger Force sergeant now living in Willow Springs, Mo., said he killed so many civilians in 1967 he lost count.

"We didn't expect to live. Nobody out there with any brains expected to live," he told the newspaper. "The way to live is to kill, because you don't have to worry about anybody who's dead."

In an eight-month investigation, The Blade reviewed thousands of classified Army documents, National Archive records, and radio logs, and interviewed former members of the unit and relatives of those who died.

"There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears," former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators.

Part of the unit's mission was to force villagers to move to refugee centers so they could not grow rice to feed the enemy. Many refused to go to the centers, which resembled prisons and lacked food.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/20/vietnam_atrocities_revealed_in_report_boston_globe/

pax
April 28, 2004, 11:31 AM
If you vote third party just vote for Kerry
BeLikeTrey ~

I see it is time for remedial math once again.

"John has 10 votes. George has 10 votes. If Kathy does not vote for either George or for John, how many votes will each one have?"

Not good- so please, don't disguise your vote in the third party, we all know where it's really going.
Where my vote is really going is for the candidate whose platform, positions, and values most clearly mirror my own.

Don't get me wrong: I think Kerry is a dishonorable bastard, and that his election would be disastrous for what is left of the 2nd Amendment. I don't want him in office.

However, I don't want Bush in office either. I think his re-election would be disastrous for what is left of the 4th Amendment. Hey, he's campaigning on undermining the 4th even further -- and you are going to vote for him because he's at least not against the 2nd? You will throw away the rest of the Bill of Rights as long as you can hold onto your guns. Your own guns are being used to hold you hostage while the rest of your rights are stripped from you.

I don't want either of them in office, so I'm not going to vote for either of them.

pax

The president has kept all of the promises he intended to keep. -- Presidential spokesman George Stephanopolous (Clinton administration)

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
April 28, 2004, 11:47 AM
w4rma:

The U.S. Army says that Lt. Kerry was telling the truth.

No they certainly didn't. Kerry accused the US Government of adopting the tactic of targeting Vietnamese civilians as a matter of policy, and of ordering US forces in country to carry out atrocities of the type he has admitted to.

The only "Official" accusations of widespread US atrocities in Vietnam came from committed communist propagandists such as Ramsey Clark.

In fact, such atrocities were not a part of US policy in Vietnam. The US prosecuted soliders for committing these atrocities in the limited number of cases where it did occur.

It's a shame that Kerry was never prosecuted alongside people like Lt. William Calley for the war crimes or "atrocities" Kerry has admitted to committing.

If, God forbid, Kerry is elected, that would make him the first admitted war criminal and mass murderer to occupy the Oval Office.

Far from making any coherent point, all you have done is repeat Kerry's slander against all Vietnam vets.

flatrock
April 28, 2004, 01:19 PM
That's been hashed to death, too. Pax has phrased it far better than I could in other threads. John Kerry isn't fit to be president. Neither is George W. Bush. I will not whore myself out to either party.

You have two viable choices in the upcomming presidential election. You can choose Bush or Kerry. Making a protest vote for a third party candidate is your right, but it's not productive.

If Kerry gets elected, and you would have perferred Bush over Kerry, what good does throwing your vote away on someone else do?

You can stand behind the "it's a matter of principle" argument. However, you're still playing into the hands of the Kerry supporters that are trying to get him elected by getting those who won't vote for Kerry to not vote for Bush.

We have the right to vote, and the responsibility to vote in a responsible manner. I personally have a hard time equating a vote for a third party candidate that I know has no chance as a responsible choice.

pax
April 28, 2004, 01:29 PM
flatrock,

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?postid=914583#post914583

pax

"I'm not going to vote for the pro-freedom candidate because not enough people will vote for him, so he won't win." Circular logic: see "Logic, circular". -- Tamara on THR

Joe Demko
April 28, 2004, 01:31 PM
The only way I would throw my vote away is by giving it to either Bush or Kerry. Neither of them has earned it. You see, I don't prefer one of them over the other. Having the choice of Bush or Kerry is like being asked "Would you rather see the Bill of Rights gutted starting at Ammendment 4 or starting at Ammendment 2?" Since neither of those options coincides with what I want for this country, I won't vote for either of those candidates. I will find one that does have the same goals I do, or at least closer than either Thing 1 or Thing 2, and vote for that person.

HBK
April 28, 2004, 01:31 PM
So Kerry was telling the truth? The fact that you believe that says more about you than the leftist BS you are incessantly cutting and pasting. :rolleyes:

pax
April 28, 2004, 01:31 PM
If Kerry gets elected, and you would have perferred Bush over Kerry, what good does throwing your vote away on someone else do?
That's a mighty big 'if' you've got there, by the way.

pax

The two major political parties can be summed up this way: There are two parties, one is the Stupid Party and the other is the Evil Party. Occasionally these two parties create legislation that is both stupid and evil. This is called bi-partisianship. -- Andrew Grooms

fix
April 28, 2004, 01:35 PM
With each passing day, I'm becoming less concerned that the Libertarian vote will hurt Bush. Kerry is self destructing at a greater pace than Dean. I do hope that my Libertarian friends will join me in voting for Bush (assuming AWB sunset) if we begin to see the rising of the Hildebeast! That's the only thing that could potentially make me consider voting for Bush even if he does sign an AWB renewal.

flatrock
April 28, 2004, 01:40 PM
The U.S. Army says that Lt. Kerry was telling the truth.

No. Kerry said that such attrocities were widespread, and considered business as usually by all levels of the military.

The army investigated the actions of a specific unit, and found that unit had committed attrocities.

Kerry took the horrible actions of a few and accused millions of our soldiers of such horrible actions to advance his political career. Most of those soldiers were little more than kids who's only crime was being called to military service through the draft.

Kerry perpetuated lies made up by those that opposed the war because it advanced him politically to do so. He made criminals of good honest people in the eyes of the people they had left at home to go fight for in a foreign country.

If people committed attrocities, they should be held accountable. Kerry told lies about our soldier to advance his career. He should also be held accountable.

HBK
April 28, 2004, 01:42 PM
I feel more than a little sick about the 2004 election. I feel like Kerry will lose in a landslide, but I felt that way about Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 1996. If Bush signs the AWB, I cannot vote for him. I am a little worried if Kerry tanks, they will try to change candidates like they did in New Jersey. Democratic Party's motto should be "rules were made to be broken."

BeLikeTrey
April 28, 2004, 03:56 PM
I was refering to something similar to what you are talking about. But with one exception. Votes:
Kerry 10
RKBA 10
---- SPLIT:
Bush 5
Libertarian 5
Who wins the election?

BeLikeTrey
April 28, 2004, 04:00 PM
In my opinion the second is the most important because it protects the very utensil that was the means by which a removal of dictators or tyrannical regimes. (as intended in the spirit of the 2nd) It is the failsafe so to speak.

HBK
April 28, 2004, 04:19 PM
BeLikeTrey's scenario is the one I fear most. That's the one that would make me, if I was a hardcore libertarian, vote for Bush. I don't see how you can be for the 2nd ammendment and not vote for Bush this year. The 4th is important, no doubt, but the 2nd trumps them all.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Slander That Made John Kerry A Star" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!