Posted on 08/14/2004 5:05:59 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
"The former Navy personnel who are attempting to discredit Sen. John Kerry's record of service in Vietnam are doing so to argue that he is unqualified to be commander in chief. Most appear to be angry with him on account of his opposition to the Vietnam War, not his service in it."
Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, OR ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, PROVIDING THEM AID AND COMFORT. Article III, Section 3, U.S. Constitution.
Kerry, like his soul mate Bill Clinton, is a traitor.
Anybody who provides aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States, as Kerry did in his treaonsous, mendacious statements before Congress is a traitor and unfit to serve as the Chief elected official of the United States.
Whatever he did or didn't do in Viet Nam was totally disgraced by his behavior at home afterwards.
Benedict Arnold did more for his Country before he turned coat than Kerry could accomplish in ten lieftimes.
Sustain an effort? Like in anulling his first marriage?
Sustain an effort? Like in a four month tour, when the average was full year?
Sustain an effort? Like in throwing his medals over the WH fence, and then aking to get them back? Boy he really sustained that effort!
* * * * *
The ONLY effort John Kerry seems to have ever sustained is the sustain of any lies, feints and malarky needed to relive the life of JFK.
In both instances he was trying to change foreign policy of the day.
Why is this not brought out? Why are his meetings with the NVC representatives being ignored? That too was not an honorable act, and probably illegal to boot.
Hmm..kerry's I've been to Paris and met with leaders sounds AWEFULLY familar!
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/25/kerry_spoke_of_meeting_negotiators_on_vietnam/
Kerry spoke of meeting negotiators on Vietnam - Claimed US Was "Murdering" Vietnamese
Boston Globe ^ | 3/25/04 | Michael Kranish and Patrick Healy boston globe
WASHINGTON -- In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being "murdered by the United States of America" and said he had gone to the Paris and "talked with both delegations at the peace talks" and met with communist representatives.
Kerry, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, yesterday confirmed through a spokesman that he did go to Paris and talked privately with a leading communist representative. But the spokesman played down the extent of Kerry's role and said Kerry did not engage in negotiations.
Asked about the appropriateness of Kerry's saying that the United States had "murdered" 200,000 Vietnamese annually when the United States was at war, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said "Senator Kerry used a word he deems inappropriate."
Meehan said Kerry "never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam." Meehan then declined to say to whom Kerry was referring when he said that the United States had murdered the Vietnamese; Kerry declined to be interviewed about the matter.
Kerry killed a Viet Cong fighter in an action his superiors deemed appropriate and for which he was awarded the Silver Star.
Kerry's speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, is one of the best-known moments of his life when he was involved in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In that speech, Kerry asked: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
But the follow-up session of questions and answers, made public at the time in the official proceedings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has received little mainstream notice until now.
When Kerry was asked by committee chairman Senator J. William Fulbright how he proposed to end the war, the former Navy lieutenant said it should be ended immediately and mentioned his involvement in peace talks in Paris.
"I have been to Paris," Kerry said. "I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points . . . ."
The latter was a reference to a communist group based in South Vietnam. Historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History," described the Provisional Revolutionary Government as "an arm of the North Vietnamese government." Madam Nguyen Thi Binh was a leader of the group and had a list of peace-talk points, including the suggestion that US prisoners of war would be released when American forces withdrew.
After their May 1970 marriage, Kerry traveled to Paris with his wife, Julia Thorne, on a private trip, Meehan said. Kerry did not go to Paris with the intention of meeting with participants in the peace talks or involving himself in the negotiations, Meehan added, saying that while there Kerry had his brief meeting with Binh, which included members of both delegations to the peace talks.
As Kerry runs for president, he is finding that many of his statements and activities over the last 33 years are drawing new attention. Last year, the Globe published White House transcripts of discussions about Kerry by President Nixon in the Oval Office. More recently, the Los Angeles Times focused on FBI surveillance reports, obtained by historian Gerald Nicosia, in which the FBI monitored meetings of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that Kerry led in 1971.
Indeed, there may be a tie between Kerry's statement before the Senate committee and the interest of the FBI in his activities. One FBI report provided to the Globe by Nicosia shows that the government was monitoring whether Kerry planned to go to Paris again. Kerry was "planning to travel to Paris, France . . . for talks with North Vietnamese peace delegation," said the report, dated Nov. 11, 1971.
Kerry's Senate testimony spans about six pages in the committee publication, but the lesser-known question-and-answer session was another 24 pages. As he opened the latter session, Kerry said Nixon should declare a cease-fire and "accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese."
Kerry then suggested that Congress should permit a special national referendum on ending the Vietnam War, leading Fulbright to remind Kerry that Congress "cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system, we can advise the president." Kerry responded that, "I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties, and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator [Eugene] McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera."
Kerry's statement dealt with the question of whether he was trying to negotiate in Paris as a private citizen and was thus on that "borderline" of what was allowable. A US law forbids citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties. Meehan said Kerry was not negotiating.
"Senator Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations," Meehan said in his statement. "He did not engage in any negotiations and did not attend any session of the talks. Prior to his Senate testimony, he went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madam Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned the status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs."
Kerry's suggestion before the Senate committee that there be an immediate pullout led to questions about whether such a move would endanger the lives of South Vietnamese allies. Kerry responded that "this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal." If the United States did not withdraw, Kerry said, then US bombing would continue, and "the war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America . . . ."
Meehan, asked to explain Kerry's comment, said: "During a very emotionally charged time in American history, Senator Kerry was testifying against a failed policy, which resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. That policy resulted in one of the highest civilian casualty rate in the history of war. In answering Senator [George D.] Aiken's question about the consequences of an American withdrawal and potential additional bloodbath, Senator Kerry used a word he deems inappropriate.
"Senator Kerry never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam. While opposed to the failed policy, Senator Kerry insisted that Americans must never confuse the war with the warriors."
Kranish reported from Washington; Healy reported while traveling with Kerry. Kranish may be reached at kranish@globe.com and Healy at phealy@globe.com.
This article needs a EXTREME BARF ALERT tag on it. More RAT garbage FEELINGS.
later
Oh my God! Reading Meehan's spin is sickening..."Senator Kerry used a word he deems inappropriate"...THE SOB IS A FREAKING LIAR!!!!PERIOD.
"...The humiliating end result of the communists' final offensive in early 1975 is usually placed on the shoulders of a supposedly incompetent South Vietnamese military. Little mention is made of the impact our "Watergate Congress" had on both its inception and success. This Congress was elected in November 1974, only months after Nixon's resignation, and it was dominated by a fresh group of antiwar Democrats. One of the first actions of the new Congress was to vote down a supplemental appropriation for the beleaguered South Vietnamese that would have provided $800 million in military aid, including much-needed ammunition, spare parts and medical supplies.
This vote was a horrendous blow, in both emotional and practical terms, to the country that had trusted American judgment for more than a decade of intense conflict. It was also a clear indication that Washington was abandoning the South Vietnamese even as the North Vietnamese continued to enjoy the support of the Soviet Union, China and other Eastern bloc nations. The vote's impact was hardly lost on North Vietnamese military planners, who began the final offensive only five weeks later, as the South Vietnamese were attempting to adjust their military defenses.
Finally, the aftermath of Saigon's fall is rarely dealt with at all. A gruesome holocaust took place in Cambodia, the likes of which had not been seen since World War II. Two million Vietnamese fled their country -- usually by boat -- with untold thousands losing their lives in the process. This was the first such Diaspora in Vietnam's long and frequently tragic history. Inside Vietnam a million of the South's best young leaders were sent to re-education camps; more than 50,000 perished while imprisoned, and others remained captives for as long as 18 years.
I've worked closely with Vietnamese people who fled in the boat-lift as children and have told me terrifying stories of their boats being strafed by enemy aircraft. This is the consequence of the U.S. failing the countries it liberates or helps fight totalitarian conquest.
For certain, Bob Kerrey has lost his mind. My only question is when?
We are just getting better and louder about fighting it.
"the loyalty of the band of brothers who served under his command"
Hmmmm? I guess 1 out of 17 ain't bad.
President of France, maybe.............
1. Kerry was stationed on the coast. Not mid-Mekong river.
2. Kerry' unit's patrol area was as close as 50 miles to the border. By air, in a straight line. Rivers aren't straight, by river distance he was more like 100 miles.
3. A different type of boat was used further up river, PBRs. Fiberglass hulled, water jet drive. Smaller.
4. Kerry was in command for only a few weeks. Why would the CIA, or Special Forces use or trust a newbie? And what commander would assign a new doofus like Kerry with such a task? No one, and no one did.
5. Such a insertion mission would, at a minimum, require a day of planning, a day of running fast up river, crossing and insertion at night, a day running back down river, and I would imagine a day for rest and refit. Where is the week Kerry did this? He was only running boats for a total of like 12-13 weeks. Furthermore he said he did this multiple times. So he needs multiple weeks.
6. What SF and or Seal unit did he work with? I'm sure they would be glad to confirm Kerrys lie, oops, missions.
Just a little note here, we refer to the WP as the Washington Compost
The former Navy personnel who are attempting to discredit Sen. John Kerry's record of service in Vietnam are doing so to argue that he is unqualified to be commander in chief. Most appear to be angry with him on account of his opposition to the Vietnam War, not his service in it.
They have done a better job of damaging the reputation of the U.S. Navy than they have of damaging John Kerry.
Moreover, they ignore what I consider to be the most important qualities any commander in chief must possess. If elected in November, John Kerry will make an exceptionally good commander in chief. ...
From the latest Swift Boat Vets posting:
In the 1980's SECNAV John Lehman signed the altered 3rd Silver Star Citation. 10 years before that, ADM HYLAND CINCPACFLT signed the second altered citation. The original was signed by ADM Elmo Zumwalt Jr. back in 1969 and it was entered in kerry's DD-214 back then- DONE DEAL - no need for any re-writen Citation TWO more times.
If kerry lost or threw away his citation and recieved a copy (twice) then Naval Records would have a exact verbatim copy with the 1650 award form and the Summary of action and the manadory eyewittness statements. (this happens to retired servicemen once and a while. but three times?)
Im not going to speculate because I don't have to... The key parts of the second and third re-written CITATIONS are so significantly altered that they change the whole meaning of kerry's actions:
somebody removed the lone VC completely and added "numerically superior force in the face of intense fire" and changed "a B-40 rocket" in to "rockets" they removed the hootch and "he killed him"
What these changes do are two things
1. Justify the award which should had gotten him relieved (read below from awards manual) applies to the Silver Star:
Quote: SECNAVINST 1650.1G
(1) Individuals must have distinguished themselves above those who have already won distinction for heroism.
(2) Individuals must have performed a worthwhile act or an act that was considered worthwhile at the time. Needless and foolish risking of life, or tempting of fate is not considered worthwhile.
I don't want to monday morning quarterback a guy in combat because I've been there many times and s#*t changes real fast, but in all the changing versions he needlessly and foolishly endagered his crew and 10 allies on the boat for nothing worthwhile- a wounded VC -Officers from Lt. though Col. get relieved in battle for being STUPID or Foolish (happened in IRAQ too)
2. He changed the content of the Award to suit kerry's changing requirements as a politicial candidate. Also to make him look braver and actually try to meet the prerequisites for a Silver Star not a courts-martial.
When Kerry was asked by committee chairman Senator J. William Fulbright how he proposed to end the war, the former Navy lieutenant said it should be ended immediately and mentioned his involvement in peace talks in Paris.
The rest was also pure hogwash.
Technically he committed treason while in uniform.
Technically he committed treason while in uniform.
In particular his vote to deny our troops in Iraq body armor is a glaring illustration of his unfitness to be their Commander In Chief. There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops. And former Senator Bob Kerrey is a Democrat shill.
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.