Skip to comments.Senator Kerry - I Am Not An Assassin
Posted on 04/27/2004 7:01:09 AM PDT by Big OttoEdited on 04/27/2004 8:55:07 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Senator Kerry - I Am Not An Assassin
Just in from my friend and author, Larry J. O'Daniel. This was faxed to Sen. Kerry's office five days ago with no reply thus far. The Senator did not reply to O'Daniel's earlier fax either. No surprise there.
Senator Kerry, I am not an assassin and you are no leader: (The accused asks the accuser questions)
Senator Kerry, we have never met, but many of your actions have touched and marred my life for over 30 years. It would be different if what you said had been true, but truth has not been one of your strong points.
On May 6, 2001, you asserted on Meet the Press that Phoenix was an assassination program, amplifying this way: "the government of our country, ran an assassination program. I mean, Bill Colby has acknowledged it. We had the Phoenix Program, where they actually went into villages to eliminate the civilian infrastructure of the Vietcong. Now, you couldn't tell the difference in many cases who they were. And countless veterans testified 30 years ago to that reality. And I think--look, there's no excusing shooting children in cold blood, or women, and killing them in cold blood." Your VVAW, with you apparently present, even named an alleged assassination plot against sitting Senators and Representatives the Phoenix Project.
Enough is Enough! It is time to set you and the record straight. You are fabricating the truth! I am a veteran of that program as were about 2000 other men. Phoenix stands as the forerunner to our present day efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan which lead to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the hunt for Bin Laden. To persist in your lies about my program is dishonoring those who serve today. Phoenix was further designed to cure ills in the intelligence gathering programs in Vietnam. It was right then and it's successor efforts are correct today.
In that May interview, you charged that we did not know who were VC or friendly when we entered a village. Senator, did you ever hear of a black list? We used the local Popular Forces or Regional Forces, or Kit Carson Scouts, who lived in the village to help search and identify Viet Cong. We were after specific people. That is how we were trained. You further charged on that show: "the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."
I not only enforced free fire zones in both Provinces I served in, but I actively participated in the designing of them and the rules concerning their access. Before any targets were engaged by the pilots with whom I flew, they had to have my permission as I represented the Vietnamese government in their eyes. That meant I decided IF the targets were military, even if it was free fire. This job I did not take lightly. Even though I was only a 2 LT or 1 LT, I was legally the counterpart to the District Chief in this capacity. If I was wrong, the CID came looking for me and I was not politically connected nor well off financially. I utilized the best intelligence possible, plus split second analyzation of the scene on the ground versus what my intelligence told me to expect. On several occasions, I gave the order to fire. Sometimes, the other side cooperated and fired first, making my job a lot easier. On each occasion, the intelligence returned saying they were VC soldiers.
In your public statements about Vietnam, you cooked your intelligence books. You utilized phonies, wannabes, and people with active imaginations to bring out this specific charge against Phoenix. In the Winter Soldier Investigation you used as a basis for your 1971 statement, Phoenix was not mentioned that I could find. However, The Winter Soldier Investigation (WSI) grew out of the previous Citizens Commission of Inquiry of US War Crimes (CCI), organized as an offshoot of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. Further, CCI staff organized the early chapters of Vietnam Veterans Against War (VVAW) in 1970-71. Thus, you have your own self - feeding set of information.
The WSI said, during that period, men who had taken part in the CIA's Phoenix Program--including former U.S. Army intelligence agents Michael Uhl, Edward Murphy, and Robert Stemme--disclosed its record of terror, torture, and assassination. The need to demonstrate a broader pattern became clear.
Michael Uhl was not Phoenix. He lists himself as leading a military intelligence team with the 11th Infantry Bde in 1968-69. Once he is listed as a military intelligence operative. One posting listed him in Vietnam (11/68 - 5/69) working with Counter Intelligence receving information about suspected members of the VCI through Phoenix sources. Further, Uhl is listed as a contributor to CCI's successor, Citizen Soldier, along with Tod Ensign, who later organized the International War Crimes Conference, in Oslo, Norway. None was Phoenix. Edward Murphy and Robert Stemme, have apparently disappeared as the Winter Soldier listing is about all I can find on either one.
Another star witness against Phoenix was K. Barton Osborn. He testified before Congress in August, 1971. Previously, he testified in Oslo, Norway, as a representative of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. However, he was not Phoenix either. He was with the 525th MI group from September 1967 to December, 1968, apparently as an enlisted man. Except for possibly exchanging information, there were no ties.
Well, how about Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn? They went public in early 1969 seeking conscientious objector (CO) status because of Phoenix. The attorney for Reitemeyer, on February 14, 1969, alleged Reitemeyer was to command a band of PRUs whose job was to maintain a kill quota of 50 bodies a month. He said he was trained in assassination. Cohn, likewise sought CO status. (Reitemeyer was neither SEAL nor SF, thus not a PRU adviser).
Neither were in Phoenix nor in Vietnam. They were in a class at Fort Holabird, just ahead of me. I knew of them and their request for CO status before I graduated. Reitemeyer also signed a statement specifically denying being trained as an assassin. None of the men in my class, who ultimately ended in Phoenix, had any inkling of our Vietnam assignment before we arrived in Vietnam. Both these Lieutenants were forgotten until My Lai broke in 1969.
So, Senator, name someone in Phoenix, really in Phoenix, who will back your contentions. Colby firmly denied Phoenix was an assassination program. Surely, you have those names somewhere in your files. After all, you are known for recording for posterity, including some really great movies of yourself on shore, posing as some infantry guy. Allegely, you ferried SEALs in the Nam Can. Name those Phoenix assassins.
Most people today are not cognizant of the reason I bring this up now. Phoenix was the American name for a Vietnamese program designed to cure the same ills of our allies that plague our own intelligence systems today, information and intelligence sharing. Phoenix worked, even with LTs in charge, in curing much of those ills.
Phoenix was designed to do two things. DIOCC personnel (the ones who accompanied Vietnamese into the field on specific operations) were to achieve rapid evaluation and dissemination of infrastructure intelligence and to form quick reaction operations targeted on disrupting, harassing, capturing and eliminating local VC infrastructure (MACV Directive 381-41). For the non military, DIOCC meant District Intelligence and Operations Coordinating Centers.
The VCI then were the equivalent of the Al Qaeda and Baathist thugs of today. The Districts were the rough equivalent of counties in the United States. Our special orders read "... Primary duties include performance of duties as tactical advisor to ARVN/GVN infantry type military or paramilitary units in the district area of responsibility to include frequent participation in ground combat operations..." (A personal note: This is how I, a military intelligence officer, infantry trained, earned my Combat Infantryman¹s Badge).
For those who seize on the word eliminate and our standard term of the day, neutralize, our supplemental orders defined those terms. We had six priorities of elimination or neutralization. The highest priority was to recruit in place (have a spy in their camp). We are seeking to do that today in our search for Bin Laden. Our second was to get those in the organization to defect to our side. We have seen the wisdom of that in Iraq and Afghanistan today. In Phoenix, we had 22,013 of those defections. A third priority was to capture those who would not defect or recruit in place. We have had plenty of those captures in both Iraq and Afghanistan, including the number one of the "Baghdad 55," Saddam Hussein. In Vietnam, we had 33,358 captures (these only counted after mid 1969 those who received sentences of a year or more in prison).
Of lesser priority were the goals of getting the VC infrastructure to either quit the insurgency or move to other areas. It is unknown how many of these people we had or how many people are rethinking their position of being insurgents and terrorists today because of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention those here in the United States).
Finally, there were those who chose not to surrender, change sides, and who resisted arrest (and they still had the means to effectively resist). In Vietnam, 26,369 were killed as a result of military and police operations, including battles with regular troops, searches by local military personnel in their own hamlets, and the so-called infamous snatches in the night. The sons of Saddam Hussein and ranking lieutenants of Bin Laden suffered similar fates in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is the official breakdown of the 81,740 eliminations and neutralizations of the Phoenix Program. On the American side, were 2095 military personnel, about 1150 of whom served at the District or PRU level. We are the ones who went into the field in Phoenix and you charged with being assassins.
Senator, this was the program. As a note here, several earned the Congressional Medal of Honor as PRU advisors. One Phoenix supervisor, Medal of Honor recipient from the Korean war, Lou Millett, lead the last bayonet charge in Korea. One won the Silver Star for rescuing Vietnamese comrades who had been wounded (John L Cook also won the Purple Heart, sending him to the Hospital for several months recuperation). I earned the Bronze Star with V device equivalent from the Vietnamese government for an action described later. Many others were similarly decorated.
You made a big show of us targeting civilians. Our VCI targets were those armed thugs who ran "security" programs (their term) and murdered innocent civilian, women, children, as policy object lessons for those who resisted them. Others commanded the military commanders and determined targets for them to hit. Although not uniformed, they were armed and protected by armed guerrillas and other forces.
Their counterparts today are the thugs who murdered our men in Somalia; killed sailors on the Cole; killed innocent civilian and military personnel in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, and Tanzania; and finally those who slaughtered innocent men, women, and children in New York City (twice), Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. We have found some of their bosses and are looking for the rest. Most of these guys don't wear uniforms either, but they are targets none the same.
On our counterpart side were the Vietnamese you slandered in your 1971 testimony charging them with leaving our men alone, in a fight. In IV Corps, where you and I served, the adviser represented the bulk of Americans present, especially after the 9th Division left. I spent time in lonely outposts and on ambushes with my counterparts, sometimes being the lone American present. My life was literally in their hands and they never let me down. I utilized Kit Carson Scouts, or former VC as guides. Throughout the war, there is not one recorded instance of the Scouts turning on us. A friend of mine, Kiet Van Nguyen earned the Navy Cross, the second highest decoration (had he been an American he would have received the Medal of Honor) for rescuing an American pilot downed near the DMZ with his American advisor (The Medal of Honor recipient). His exploits were part of the movie Bat 21. Today, we are training Iraqis and Afghanistanis to do likewise.
Had I violated my oath of office, the UCMJ, or rules of engagement in the Phoenix Program, I would have faced criminal investigation. How do I know? My successor in Hoa Tan, Laurence Croft, shortly after I was assigned to An Xuyen, faced a representative from the State Department looking into Phoenix allegations. It was a surprise visit. He inquired about the building behind our Phoenix office. Croft said, I don't know (and neither would I). He had it opened. Stumbling upon the blood soaked floor with leather thongs hanging from the metal ceiling support almost caused Croft to see Leavenworth. I would have had the same reaction. Croft was left to twist for a time before our Vietnamese counterpart, laughing, told the State Department guy, this is where we kill our chickens, pigs, and ducks. A quick look on the floor found the chicken feathers. Believe me, we were cognizant of our responsibility.
Speaking of responsibility, it's my turn to put you in focus. Truth sometimes is a double edged sword, isn't it? In 1966, prior to going on active duty, did you ask for a year's deferment prior to joining the draft pool? Did they turn you down? How was your student deferment prior and this additional request any different from any other person, including me? I had a student deferment for two years and ROTC deferment for two years before my commissioning.
You joined the Navy and received your commission in December, 1966, serving on active duty until leaving in January 1970, asking for an early out to run for Congress. Since this is a little over 3 years after entering active duty, it would seem that 4 years was your commitment. So, is it correct that you left active duty before fulfilling your total 4 year active duty commitment?
Insight Magazine's J. Michael Waller reported on March 6, 2004, for WND, that "Kerry opted for reassignment to New York City, where as a uniformed, active-duty officer he reportedly began acting out the antiwar feelings he had expressed before enlisting. Press reports from the time say that he marched in the October 1969 Moratorium protests, a mass demonstration by a quarter million people that had been orchestrated the previous summer by North Vietnamese officials and American antiwar leaders in Cuba." (emphasis not in original) Did you march in that October 1969 parade?
If so, were you aware of UCMJ section 88 prohibiting officers from criticizing the President and others while on active duty? Of course, protest then was more than just criticizing. You talked about the President being a war criminal. This is fulfilling your legal obligation as an officer? If you did march, were you aware of the connections between that march and plans, formulated by IPS (a group you have long associated with) to coordinate with Vietnamese and Soviet aims in ending the war. Former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev wrote that more money was spent directly and indirectly funding these anti war groups than in military funding for Vietnam. Right after the October 1969 Moratorium March, Pham Van Dong, Prime Minister of North Vietnam, cabled the organizers, "We are firmly confident that with the solidarity and courage of our two peoples, with the sympathy and support of the peace-loving peoples in the world, the struggle of the Vietnamese people and of progressive people in the United States against US aggressions will end in total victory. I wish your "Fall Offensive" a brilliant success."
(A personal note Senator: Three men from my Infantry class out of the 7 killed - died after you decided to demonstrate in October. An earlier casualty from my class was a National Guard officer. Thirty Nine others from his National Guard unit were likewise killed in action.). You thought no more of the UCMJ rules on you than you did of your rules of engagement in Vietnam.
I just mentioned the rules of engagement - let's return to Vietnam - You were assigned to Swiftboat 44 on December 1, 1968. Within 24 hours, you had your first Purple Heart. You accumulated three Purple Hearts in four months with at most two days of duty lost from wounds, according to your training officer and even your closest allies. Where is the record of the first purple heart being issued? The other two have been found.
By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier. One can begin to appreciate Zumwalt's problem with Mr. Kerry as commander of an unarmored craft dependent upon speed of maneuver to keep it and its crew from being shot to pieces. Mr. Kerry now refers to those civilian deaths as "accidents of war." (Tom Lipscomb New York Sun Feb 27, 2004. Lipscomb published Zumwalt's book On Watch)
This, if true, provides a war crime dilemma for you, Senator Kerry and a leadership deficiency. Further, by previously defending the actions of former Senator Robert Kerrey in 2001, you provide no firm guidelines for people in the field, now in combat, as to what is to be expected, encouraged, or discouraged when facing enemy combatants and illegal non-combatants. This really is incomprehensible considering your stated objections to alleged war crimes from 1971.
Briefly, you defended Kerrey's action as being just another day in Vietnam. You urged no investigation, telling Tim Russert, "And I think--look, there's no excusing shooting children in cold blood, or women, and killing them in cold blood. There isn't, under any circumstances. But we're not asking, you know, nor is Bob Kerrey saying, excuse us for what we did. We're asking people to try to understand the context... And I think the nation needs to understand what the nation put its young in a position to do, and move on and take those lessons and apply them to the future."
Senator Kerry, this is the future and we are at war. We punished a LTC for his handling of a prisoner in Iraq and his career was effectively ended. However, he did none of what former Senator Kerrey was charged with doing, and yet Senator Kerrey suffered no harm, criminally speaking. You defended his actions and now we we may know the real reason why.
You were asked on April 18, 1971, on Meet The Press, by Crosby Noyes of the Washington Evening Star if you, personally, as a Naval Officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country.
You replied " ...I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed... All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."
The items you specifically referred to in this statement, were never war crimes. Even you seem to realize that, even if your belated statement only applies to you - How Convenient! However, did you have other instances, specifically known to you, in mind? One question on this. UCMJ and specific orders in Vietnam dictated the reporting of war crimes was incumbent upon officers and others. Did you once report a war crime? Even a suspected war crime? In the killing of the civilian child, was there or was there not an AK-47 present in the incident?
IF the quotes of Zumwalt and those attributed to you are correct, we have possibly another war crime or two to investigate. This is not a trivial manner since war crimes have no time limits and you have made your war record a matter of public discussion. Personally, I have a problem with your Silver Star incident.
You were operating a swift boat in the Nam Can, assigned to Sea Lords, and based at Sea Float. The actions on that day are as the aforementioned Michael Uhl, in commenting on your new book, said you personally killed an enemy under circumstances that are not entirely clear. The incident, as Uhl said, was finessed somewhat clumsily in Brinkley's account, having surfaced during your re-election campaign for the Senate in 1996 when you were questioned about having shot a wounded guerrilla who had already fallen. I read the part of the book, and several versions of the incident, all furnished by you or your companions. I have real problems with the basics.
Senator, you know the rules were not ambiguous. If the guerrilla was unable to resist, he had to be tended to, after disarmed. His weapon was a B-40 either used or unused. However, the key is the guerrilla was wounded by a .50 caliber. He was not in a position to resist you or anyone else. If the VC was wounded and unable to resist, he was an enemy prisoner of war, subject to protection immediately, evacuation to medical facilities, and immediate treatment of his wounds. One description given by crew mates intimated you administered a coup de grace, a war crime. Indisputable is fact the Viet Cong, after being confronted by you, was not removed to the boat. His fate has never been discussed fully by you. In fact, you deferred to the Kerrey model of saying it was too painful to discuss.
Further, contrary to operating procedures, when your boat came under attack, Senator Kerry, you beached your boat, thereby leaving the boat unmaneuverable and the crew virtually defenseless, especially if the odds were overwhelming against you, as the book intimates. Your actions were reckless, and you were not infantry. Did your beaching your boat endanger also the mission of the infantry you were escorting? Did you consider their mission? Differing accounts say you were facing either one, a few, or overwhelming numbers of VC in that attack. Leaving the boat was inexcusable. Maneuverability was it's key to survival, and the survival of the men left on the boat. They were not infantry and if the numbers were overwhelming, how did they survive? One man leaving did nothing, except for putting them in further danger. The story smells, in every retelling.
I will comment on this from personal experience. I served in Go Cong (just above where Senator Kerrey served at the same time he was at Thanh Phong) from January 1969 to July 1969. I further served in Thoi Binh, An Xuyen Province, from July 1969 to September, 1969. This is the exact district where the late COL Nick Rowe and the late CPT Rocky Versace were captured and Versace was executed by his Viet Cong captors. Finally, from September 1969 to January 1970, I was in Song Ong Doc, An Xuyen, just above where you served.
In Song Ong Doc, I worked with naval vessels out of Breezy Cove, just above Sea Float. Their boats got attacked almost every day for a period of time, until the VC tired of the tactic. They fired to break contact. I know of no charge the shore incidents - because it would have jeopardized the lives of the men on the boats. They were not infantry. Their survival depended on speed and maneuverability. Nam Can, your area, was a transit area for VC to supply the big troop build up and NVA fillers in the U-Minh Forest (Song Ong Doc and Thoi Binh Districts in An Xuyen). On at least one occasion, I had the privilege of being ferried by these brave men, experiencing first hand the risks incumbent in their job. On one occasion, I helped carry the body of a seaman who was killed in one of our operations. He had less than two weeks left in country.
Let me elaborate from personal experience on helping the wounded enemy. Following an anti-VCI operation in Xom Ray Hamlet, Hoa Tan District, Go Cong Province, on June 26, 1969, our RF soldiers found a wounded VC guerrilla who had been guarding the Viet Cong District meeting. Our RF forces, lead by my Kit Carson Scouts and advised by my boss and myself, had broken up. Our side suffered no casualties, their side one or two killed, this one wounded, and the prize candidate captured. Two VCI barely escaped before the operation reached the meeting place.
It was about 12:30 AM, maybe later, when the wounded guerrilla was found. He was brought to the District Compound. I escorted him to the Province Hospital, about 10 miles away. We took a jeep. I had one body guard and the VC had one. His spent the ride cradling the wounded VC in his arms, the respect due a fallen enemy soldier. I did the driving. How secure was the area? At night, anything was possible. We previously lost a whole RD outpost in a night attack, VC assassination squads were still around, and we just dealt the VC a stunning blow. Night was not made for jeep travel. Plus, the VC had a reward on the heads, dead or alive, of all Phoenix personnel. However, the VC was wounded and entitled to more care than we could give him. The VC was alive when we arrived at the hospital. He was severely wounded and I did not expect him to survive. He did not. He died on the operating table. However, this is what was expected of you that day in An Xuyen when you confronted the wounded VC. Render aid, not a coup de grace. A Coup de grace was what VC did to our men beginning in Ia Drang in 1965. Our men heard and saw their comrades killed as they lay wounded, helpless to resist. Our men were likewise unable to help their comrades being slaughtered.
A final question for you, Senator Kerry. When you made your reckless charges in 1971 and repeated them in 2001, did you once give a thought to the real people hurt by your lack of integrity? People like Tom Pauken, a classmate of mine from Fort Holabird, who faced a public battering in a confirmation hearing over serving in Phoenix, when in fact, he did not. How about most of the people who served in Phoenix, who when they publicly list their service, hide the name Phoenix even today. (I did in 1971, on active duty, when I wrote an article about Phoenix, but could not mention it's name or my service in it). Some are active in security related activities, and unless you knew somehow of the prior service, you would never know they were really Phoenix advisers.
Senator, Phoenix today is my badge of honor. I am attempting to clear it's reputation to honor those serving today in similar programs from unwarranted libels from people like you and those who quote your scurrilous charges. Your lack of integrity about other veterans service in Vietnam makes me wonder about how sincere you are about your own service. How can you be proud when you violated the most basic requirements of being an officer and a gentleman. As General Douglas MacArthur so eloquently said in 1962, as both of us were thinking of future military service, concerning the award, the Thayer Award, he was presented that day. "...This award is not intended primarily to honor a personality, but to symbolize a great moral code - the code of conduct and chivalry of those who guard this beloved land ... Duty, Honor, Country, Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be..." In our Officers Guide, 1968 edition, in elaborating on this officer's code, the following two brief items concern officers in war and politics:
General Matthew Ridgway, former Army Chief of Staff said: "The point I wish to make here, and to repeat it for emphasis is that the professional military man has three primary responsibilities: First, to give his honest, fearless, objective professional military opinion of what he needs to do the job the nation gives him. Second, if what he is given is less than the minimum he regards as essential, to give his superiors an honest, fearless, objective opinion of the consequences. Third, and finally, he had the duty, whatever the final decision, to do the utmost with whatever is furnished." On Politics, it was said "It is traditional that the Army member avoids partisan politics. This is particularly important for the Regular Army Officer. The career officer serves in support of national policies without regard to the political party in power and with equal zeal in their effective performance. His oath of office requires him to serve the elected leaders of the nation, without regard to their political party, and without regard to his own political beliefs or affiliations. It could not be otherwise and must never be otherwise.... Loyalties go to the nation and to its form of government."
Thus, your obligation then, and now - Be honest, frank, objective, name the times, dates, places, units involved in the so-called atrocities of Phoenix - This was your call - and of the others you testified to and say you still back up. I remember, however, your VVAW told those people not to cooperate with the government officials seeking to verify and prosecute war criminals, if they existed. Why? They needed a cause, right or wrong, phony or real, and if exposed as phony they lost the cause.
Your code appears to be: Much better to libel veterans to carry on the cause and political agenda than to prosecute those who committed the crimes you allegedly abhorred. Senator, you failed miserably Duty - Honor - Country - then and now.
Larry J. O'Daniel is a current Director of the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veteran's Coalition. He likewise serves as a director of The Classified Activities and Clandestine Special Operations Studies Program Institute, a group of former Special Operations and Special Forces operatives who have worked in classified, clandestine, and covert operations. He has previously served with many veteran's and family organizations investigating POW/MIA matters. An author, he has written two books on Vietnam and is currently working on one on the Phoenix Program and how it applies to the current war on terrorism. A graduate of the Infantry School, the Combat Intelligence Staff Officer Course, the Phoenix in country course, he arrived in Country in January 1969. While in Vietnam, O'Daniel earned the Combat Infantryman¹s Badge, the Vietnamese Gallantry Cross with Bronze Star (an individual citation equivalent to the Bronze Star with V Device), unit citations for for Gallantry and Civic Action, plus four bronze stars for his Vietnam Service Medal. He also earned the E Prefix as being electronic warfare and tactical cover and deception qualified to teach after graduating from the US Army Electronic Warfare School in 1970. He arrived in country five months after entering active duty as a 2 LT. He made 1 LT 7 months into his tour. Five months after returning home, he made CPT and left active duty in December, 1972. He has in civilian life been an investigative reporter for a two-county (La Paz County and Blythe, CA) newspaper.
According to MacAwful, doesn't this make Sen. Kerrettes a "wannabe" draft dodger?
This is John Waffle Flip/Flop Kerry whole story Lie Deceive Distort... the 'pet' cause of the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.