Lando 
Posted on 08/22/2004 8:01:17 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Campaign '04: John Kerry says he'll fight claims he lied about or exaggerated his service in Vietnam. The best way to fight such charges would be to stop calling people names and start providing some answers.
He'll have to show that the charges by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are false. That's a tall order. The allegations are numerous, well documented and quite serious.
In general, they insist that Kerry has consistently overstated his heroism, that many accounts of his service in Vietnam are not true and that he has slandered his fellow veterans by claiming they were guilty of widespread war crimes and atrocities.
It's too bad Kerry has responded to these charges — and particularly those raised in the book "Unfit for Command" by former Swift boat commander John O'Neill — by vowing to "attack."
So far, his "attack" seems to be of the political and personal kind, with Kerry and his followers claiming that O'Neill, and the 250 or so Swift boat vets who back him, are Republican Party shills.
On Friday, Kerry filed a legal complaint about O'Neill's group.
But that won't do. Only answers will. The presidency of the United States is too important to give to someone with something to hide. Questions about Kerry's fitness to be commander in chief won't go away if he simply stonewalls and makes baseless charges of political bias.
After all, it was Kerry himself — with the smart salute and "reporting for duty" opening of his convention speech — who made his military service the keystone of his campaign. And it is Kerry who has repeatedly compared himself favorably with President Bush on that score.
In so doing, he's all but ignored his undistinguished 20-year career in the U.S. Senate and his decade as an anti-war activist.
Fair enough. Now we have questions about Vietnam. Such as:
• Did Kerry commit war atrocities? This charge would seem unduly harsh to level at someone who fought in a war more than three decades ago — except for the fact that he himself made it.
In a 1971 appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry said: "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed . . ."
Earlier that year, Kerry claimed his now-beloved "band of brothers" were broadly guilty of war crimes as well.
During the infamous "Winter Soldier Investigation" by anti-war activists in early 1971, Kerry and his pals described a shocking array of atrocities that U.S. troops routinely committed: arson, rape, torture, murder, burning of villages, all part of official policy.
This, more than anything, explains the still-burning ire of his former comrades in arms.
As O'Neill wrote: "Millions of Vietnam veterans will never forget Kerry's spinning of lies — lies so damaging to his comrades but so profitable to himself."
Kerry never provided evidence that such war crimes were official policy or routine. But he — and O'Neill — have raised questions about his own behavior in Vietnam.
• Did Kerry lie about "Christmas in Cambodia"? This is a story Kerry has repeated over and over as explanation for his later metamorphosis from decorated hero into staunch anti-war activist.
"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas," Kerry wrote in the Boston Herald in October 1979. "The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."
A couple of problems. Nixon wasn't president on Christmas Eve 1968. Lyndon Johnson was. In fact, official records of his service show Kerry was never in Cambodia — as his campaign now concedes.
Subsequent "clarifications" — saying Kerry in ensuing months served as a kind of ferry master for Green Berets, CIA agents and Navy Seals into Cambodia — likewise have run afoul of the truth. There simply is no evidence for it.
Yet, on the floor of the Senate, Kerry said the experience was "seared — seared" into his memory.
Bad memory, or just a lie? People deserve an explanation.
• Kerry's medals. Kerry returned from his 4 1/2 month stint in Vietnam with three Purple Hearts for wounds, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for gallantry.
But some of those who served with him cast doubt on how he earned his medals — and whether he deserved them. Harsh charges, to be sure. O'Neill's book, however, raises serious evidence to support the charges. Kerry must respond.
Specifically, O'Neill alleges Kerry got his first and third Purple Hearts for mishandling grenades — in one case, for setting off one too close to his boat, and in the other, throwing a grenade into a rice bin. In neither case was he seriously wounded, says O'Neill.
Questions abound, too, about his Bronze Star, received for pulling special forces Lt. Jim Rassman out of the water under hostile fire, and his Silver Star, given after Kerry beached his boat in the face of an ambush and killed an enemy soldier.
In the first case, O'Neill and others charge, Kerry was fleeing action when he picked up Rassman. In the second case, the soldier was a "skinny kid" who was wounded and running away.
We'd like to know — and suspect the American people would, too.
You may be wondering: Why raise these questions now, in the heat of a campaign? Sadly, the major media have all but ignored questions of Kerry's record. They've been too busy looking for scandal in Bush's past and, more recently, attacking O'Neill and anyone else who dares question Kerry's glowing accounts of his service.
The bias is pervasive. As the Media Research Center, a media watchdog, pointed out, ABC, CBS and NBC did 75 stories on charges Bush was "AWOL" from the National Guard. They did nine on claims Kerry fibbed about his war record. Biased might be too kind a description.
The major media in this country are overwhelmingly liberal and refuse to ask the questions that need to be asked. They do their viewers and readers — and Kerry for that matter — a disservice.
If Kerry thinks he's being slandered, he should answer with facts —not with insults, threats and lawsuits.
We have questions, senator. We're ready for your answers.
Lando
Want to join in the fun? Click the logo to donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!
Amen!
And, oh by the way, those nine were questioning the credibility of the Swift boat veterans, not kerry.
I just may have to resubscribe.
Great article. Kerry, release your war records. I find it incredible the New York Times and Washington Post believe everything John F'N Kerry says and Bush needs all his records released. There should be equal treatment. Send the article to everyone you know, especially non-informed people so they see the bias in the media
Kerry titles his book "Tour of Duty" for his service in Vietnam. He also claims that he had TWO tours of duty in Vietnam (because of his time on the USS Gridley)
Kerry twists the truth so much, you have to watch EVERY WORD HE SAYS. He will lie to you and weave a story (lie) so subtly that you are unaware that he is taking you down the prim-rosed path.
Here is the truth as compared to Kerry's lies. KERRY NEVER EVEN SERVED ONE TOUR IN VIETNAM. HE IS A LIER.
Yes he was in Vietnam (for 4 months) and yes he was on the deep water coast of Vietnam on the USS Gridley (for 5 weeks)but he did not serve a tour in Vietnam.
A Tour in the Nam was 12 months, one year, 365 days, one circle around the sun. Guys would count down the days until their time was up. It was a big deal. When you only had a few weeks to go until your year was up, you were "SHORT", going home soon.
This issue is important for this reason. John Kerry knows that he didn't serve a Tour, let alone TWO Tours, yet he brazenly reports that he did, he lies. Kerry lies about almost everything. That's my point. He can not be trusted.
One might argue 'Well, the time that Kerry spent in Nam was HIS tour, so what is the big deal". If that is your argument then Kerry should have named his book "My Time in Nam" or something. Not lie and give the impression that he spent a tour in Nam. AND, there is NO excuse for his claim for TWO TOURS in Nam, my God. What a lier.
Kerry's lies smack of Michael Mooreism.
As far as Unfit for Command is concerned, I have read it. The Swifties could give a crap less if John Kerry got medals, their issue is the same as what I explained above (and the fact that Kerry smeared their good name with lies) and that is that Kerry can not be trusted. He is unfit for command.
Darnit... my copy of Unfit for Command is at least 2 weeks back-ordered... I want it darnit!
I agree! I think the media (MSM) is the fourth branch of our government - that powerful it is.
Actually, maybe Edwards REALLY REALLY meant spend JUST 3 minutes. Any more than that, and its YOUR fault you don't want a CIC Kerry. He meant 3 minutes perhaps as a MAXIMUM. That's it! If you spend 3 JUST minutes OR LESS, you can in good conscience vote for Kerry.
But I trust this statement was made before the advent of the internet. It is the internet that is exposing the "press" of the past and taking its place as the press of the present/future.
The battle being waged is not over the actual charges, but the mechanism by which they have been brought...
I was beginning to become concerned that this issue might be raising up too soon in the campaign...that Kerry, if mortally damaged, might have sufficient time to give up the mantle to some other candidate....(say...perhaps...Hillary Clinton...who would then be able to presume the title: The Savior of Her Party).
But, I am becoming more heartened that this will procede apace for a while longer....(Olympics, RNC...another two to three weeks, at least)...The FEC will find itself without sufficient substance to the Kerry Campaign's allegations to make a definitive determination, at least not soon enough to impact the SBVFT 527 and the Bush campaign (but it will likely linger to be a sour grapes theme after Kerry loses the election). Thus, eventually, Kerry will, buy the force of his own words and his own challenges, be brought to sign the SF-180 and set the records free on the winds of the internet.
And/or lose the election no matter which course he chooses to take!
I am confident that there is a load of stuff in his record that he does not want to come out...fitness reports, after action reports, dicipline reports, medical records......and the very real paper trail indicating that he was the author of the embellished reports that yielded his decorations and that he was even the author of the recommendations for his own medals.
We are now past the point where a limited release of the information (sanitized for his protection) would do anything to address the questions....anything less than full disclosure will do more harm to his campaign than good!
And in the inimitable words of John Forbes Kerry: "Bring....It....On!"
Good article.
I got up and turned on the TV for ten minutes then turn it off. Seeing all of the non news reminds me of this quote "The press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary." Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
John O'Neill just slaughtered John Podesta ( Kerry's campaign spokesman ) on ABC. It was amazing. Sometimes, the truth kind of squirts out through the cracks of the biased liberal media.
True. But the majority of morons don't use the internet for information. They watch the ABC channels and read the rag newspapers put out by lost left for their news. Surfing the internet takes brains, and the majority of sheeple have been programmed not to use their brains, USEFULL IDIOTS!
Point made, but that is changing and use of the internet is increasing all the time. Most all school kids have some exposure to it, and even many people without persoal computers have email, whether at work or set up at a library or school. In a few more years, the internet will be what television was in the 50's and the radio before that. People will be more exposed to bits of truth, whether they want to be or not. The internet holds the key to restoring the republic. Just pray that Hillary never gets the opportunity to impose her will to set a gatekeeper on the internet.
shockingly, CNN just had some journalists on that all agreed that the MSM missed their chanmce to get on this months ago, and several well opined discussions regarding Kerry's stance (smear campaign) just isn't going to cut it...might have to look for the transcript later...
"I remember hazily thinking I was spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies while we were drunk and celebrating Christmas. This intoxicated absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no Americans was very real."
Its the only newspaper I get. The WSJ is a little hard to follow and a lot more expensive.
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.
