Again, it's the wrong war (Swift Boat Veteran Related)

Ventura County Star | 8/10/04 | Richard Larsen

[Rabid Dog]

Veterans try to resurrect divisiveness of the '60s

When a president takes this nation to war -- and make no mistake, while the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, it is the president as commander in chief who decides and gives the order to go to war -- he had better have his facts right, his justifications airtight and his moral compass above reproach. If not, people die needlessly and the president breaks faith with his oath of office.

Forty years ago today, President Johnson signed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which handed him unprecedented power "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

As we have learned, Johnson had his facts wrong. The alleged Aug. 4, 1964, attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin that spurred Johnson to ask for power to wage war did not happen.

Johnson had his justifications skewed by Cold War politics. As he told then-national security adviser McGeorge Bundy in a May 27, 1964, phone call: "(I)t looks to me like we're getting into another Korea. ... I don't see what we can ever hope to get out of there with, once we're committed ... I don't think it's worth fighting for and I don't think that we can get out." ("Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964," Michael R. Beschloss, editor, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1997, p.370.)

Johnson's moral compass had been focused on the presidential elections of 1964. He told of his thoughts on South Vietnam to then-Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., during an earlier May 27 phone conversation: "The Republicans are going to make a political issue out it, every one of them." (Ibid., p. 367.)

Thirty-nine years later, President Bush asked Congress for and was granted power to use force, as a last resort, against Iraq because, as he told the American public, it had weapons of mass destruction, was seeking nuclear weapons and was a threat not merely to its neighbors, but to the United States.

As we are learning, he had his facts wrong, his justifications strangled by neoconservative visions of American empire and his moral compass set on the presidential elections in November.

And once again, the Republicans make a political issue out of the Vietnam War.

Thursday, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began airing a television commercial in which 13 veterans attack Sen. John Kerry on his war record. They allege he lied about his service in South Vietnam, dishonored his country and betrayed those he served with in Vietnam. These reasons, the group argues, make Kerry unfit to serve as this nation's commander in chief.

How many of these veterans served on a boat commanded by Kerry? None. Yet, they claim to be better able to judge his fitness to lead this nation than the men who served under his leadership. And this creates strong fodder for Republicans, despite official denials no connection to this group exists.

One of the group's founders, Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, debated Kerry over Vietnam on the "Dick Cavett Show" in 1971 at the behest of the Nixon administration.

The group's public relations consultant, Merrie Spaeth, was a Reagan administration press officer and a Ken Starr adviser during President Clinton's impeachment. She also is the widow of an O'Neill law partner.

The group's main money man is Houston homebuilder Bob J. Perry. Though he gives money to Democrats, most of his donations go to Republicans, a total of $5 million, including the last four Bush campaigns. Perry often crossed paths with Karl Rove, now Bush's top political strategist, during Rove's Texas years.

If, as Republicans maintain, no link exits between the Bush campaign and the swift-boat veterans, why didn't the White House denounce the ad when Sen. John McCain, the target of a similar campaign in his fight against Bush during the 2000 primary campaign, asked it to?

Because no one can prove tacit approval is a connection.

The veterans challenged Kerry on the war, but it is Kerry in peace they abhor more because he had the character to speak out against the Vietnam War. These swift-boat veterans need a swift boot to remind them freedom of speech is a key part of the Constitution each took an oath to defend.

Then again, perhaps their dislike is not so much for what Kerry said, but because he understood more than 30 years ago what these Swift Boat Veterans for Truth might still have difficulty accepting: For all the heroism and there was much, for all the willingness to risk their lives and all did, for all those who died in service to their country, the war into which first Johnson and then President Nixon sent them was built on a lie.

-- Richard Larsen is a deputy opinion page editor for The Star. His e-mail address is rlarsen@VenturaCountyStar.com.

[Rabid Dog]

The Ventura County Star hasn't had one article on the Swift Boat Veterans - yet all of a sudden it's on-staff liberal from the 60's comes up with this column.

[hobbes1]

And his writing is as piss poor as his history.

the war into which first Johnson and then President Nixon

Should read....the war into which first Kennedy and then Johnson sent them, before Nixon got them out.

[Conspiracy Guy]

And once again, the Republicans make a political issue out of the Vietnam War.

Kerry the war criminal war hero made Viet Nam an issue. Here is the true story.

First Down Kerry




This is how I flew above, the jungles there in Nam.
I held the skid and fired my gun, bam bam bam bam bam.
We approached the landing zone, I was the first man down.
“First Down Kerry”, I was called, Air Cav had come to town.
I designed the Huey, the Cobra, the Jolly Green.
Still I went to fight VC, I was a lean machine.
Swift boats, choppers, bombers too, ah yes I did it all.
For four months I was busy, but still I took the call.
I served with honor, brave, and true, saved so many men.
Viet Nam is safer now, I would go back again.

Conspiracy Guy aka DIF 8/5/2004

[Rabid Dog]

I sent in a rebuttal on several of the points and asked for a retraction because of the erroneous statement on the White House not denouncing the advertisement (which they did on August 5). I encourage you to do the same and to copy the editor jhowry@venturacountystar.com.

[Rabid Dog]

Some point by point refutation would be nice if you get a chance.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Kennedy was dedicated to extracting U.S. personnel from South Vitenam. A few weeks before he was assassinated, he ordered the troops out. When LBJ took office, he literally stopped men on the runway preparing to board aircraft to leave South Vietnam and ordered them to go back. Within weeks he had thousands MORE troops on the ground in preparation for his war.

[Rabid Dog]

I forget who was going to do it, but a thread regarding Swift Boats facts would be nice right about now.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And once again, the Republicans make a political issue out of the Vietnam War.

Excuse me? Exactly WHO decided that his entire campaign platform would be "I served in Vietnam"?

[Grampa Dave]

There is one way to battle the lies of the lunatic lefties like this clymer, Richard Larsen.

That is to donate to the Swift boat vets to counter the tie in with the mediots and Kerry!


This bs oped is exactly why we should contribute to the Swift Boat Money raising for tv ads, based on comments from Kerri's staff":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1188521/posts

According to a Kerry campaign source, senior campaign advisers tasked two Washington-based campaign staffers to vet the recently published Unfit for Command.

"The purpose was to compare what that book had with what we had on file from Senator Kerry," says the campaign source, who said that the research project developed more than 75 instances where Kerry's recollections, previous remarks, or writings conflicted with the book's reporting.

"We took some of the most glaring examples, like the Christmas in Cambodia story, and presented them to senior staff, and we assume that those things were put in front of Senator Kerry," says the source. "We haven't heard a word about it. All we were told is that it was being taken care of."

The campaign source said that the book was not considered a "serious" problem for the campaign, because, "the media wouldn't have the nerve to come at us with this kind of stuff," says the source.

"The senior staff believes the media is committed to seeing us win this thing, and that the convention inoculated us from these kinds of stories. The senior guys really think we don't have a problem here."

---

It is obvious that ABCNNBC BS and O'Reilly are in the closet with Komrade Kerry's Klan, and they will never get the real story out.

For the real story to get out, the Swift Boat Vets need funding to buy tv ad time. That Funding must come people like Freepers.


"It is time that we fund these brave Navy warriors's effort to get the truth out to America, since the mediots will not do it!


To Donate to Swift Boat Vets

$100 via my credit card is now in their advertising account.

Here is the link to donate:

https://coral.he.net/~swiftvet/swift/ccdonation.php?op=donate&site=SwiftVets

[hobbes1]

I understand that, But he did put them there in the first place.


The ongoing leftist revisionist history about "Nixons War" p!$$e$ me off.

"President Kennedy was the third President to affirm our basic policy in Vietnam, but the first to expand it to a new, heightened level of commitment. He increased the number of U.S. military combat advisors in South Vietnam to 16,000. The Kennedy administration also committed a tragic blunder that forever changed the equation in Vietnam. On November 1, 1963, a coup encouraged and supported by the Kennedy administration led to the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. By participating in the removal of South Vietnam's President, Kennedy had made the United States directly responsible for the fate of South Vietnam. What had been Vietnam's war became Nixons war."

[Rabid Dog]

This guy is a loon but he is a on-staff paid loon - I've been pushing for them to get an on-staff conservative columnist.

[elbucko]

[President] Johnson had his justifications skewed by Cold War politics.

Not exactly. His justification was domestic politics and not foreign geo-political strategy. LBJ could not politically afford pictures of Saigon falling to the communists before the 1968 election. Johnson had to prop up the South Vietnamese or loose in '68. While draftee's, like me and volunteers were fighting communists, LBJ was actually fighting Republicans

"We were soldiers, once", and we were also Lyndon Johnson's unwitting '68 election volunteers. That's why Vietnam smells bad to everybody.

[FRMAG]

An Army Truck Battalion is much more troop heavy than a Swift boat unit was during Viet Nam. I served in one as an Operations NCO just before I retired and believe you me all the senior NCOs were aware who the truly bad and truly shaky officers were. We had to because oftentime the only protection that junior enlisted have from poor leadership at the commissioned level is strong leadership at the NCO level. What we did was to essentialy freeze the bad seeds out by giving them as little to do as possible.

[Rabid Dog]

ping

[elbucko]

By participating in the removal of South Vietnam's President, Kennedy had made the United States directly responsible for the fate of South Vietnam.

He certainly did. Bad "Karma" if there ever was one. However, had JFK lived, he would not have needed to reinforce Vietnam to win a second term in '64. Lyndon Johnson, OTOH, did escalate in '65 to protect his a$$ for '68's election. We all know it did not work. LBJ was no "Commander-in-Chief"!

The point is, Vietnam was not international politics, but domestic. And Democrats are willing to sacrifice long term foreign policy for short term domestic political advantage. Read Jimmy Carter, Iran and 9/11. John Kerry and Iraq.

[cyncooper]

Re the writer acting like Vietnam was brought up out of thin air by Republicans grasping for an issue. It doesn't get much more disingenous than that after watching the campaign and then the demcon.

As to the writer saying none that served ON Kerry's boat are against him. Wrong, again, oh liberal writer. Steve Gardner is speaking out against Kerry. Calls him an "opportunist".

And this: If, as Republicans maintain, no link exits between the Bush campaign and the swift-boat veterans, why didn't the White House denounce the ad when Sen. John McCain, the target of a similar campaign in his fight against Bush during the 2000 primary campaign, asked it to

Well, Mr. Writer, perhaps the Bush administration respects the rights of these vets to speak out. The Bush administration has not questioned Kerry's service, but these men certainly have a right to. And the Bush people don't take cues from McCain, who, I might add, made his one and only comment on the issue and has been severely taken to task by his constituents (I can attest that I called his office in my city). I am anticipating a modified response next time he addresses the issue.

[backhoe]

Is John F. Kerry Fit to Serve? - The SWIFT Boat Saga   An excellent synopsis of facts vs. Kerry's lies.

[crusty codger]

bump

[ravingnutter]

The group's main money man is Houston homebuilder Bob J. Perry. Though he gives money to Democrats, most of his donations go to Republicans, a total of $5 million, including the last four Bush campaigns. Perry often crossed paths with Karl Rove, now Bush's top political strategist, during Rove's Texas years.

Hypocrisy abounds...I don't hear anyone complaining about George Soros' funding of left wing causes. Oh, but that is just "leveling the playing field". R-i-i-i-i-ight...

[elbucko]

We had to because oftentime the only protection that junior enlisted have from poor leadership at the commissioned level is strong leadership at the NCO level.

Thanks Sarge. I'm here because of wise, experienced and dedicated "Lifers" like you.
God Bless you.