If you would like to help the Swift Boat Vets ( as I have, and I urge all to do-- even a few dollars will help ) kindly click on this logo:
Take a look at these short video clips, especially the last one. You will walk away with a heavy heart.
Posted on 10/20/2004 9:53:44 AM PDT by ConservativeMajority
During the first week of September, a documentary that looked into what impact John Kerry’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 had on American prisoners of war still held in Vietnam was featured at a media screening in Washington, DC. The film, “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal” was put together by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Carlton Sherwood, himself a decorated Vietnam veteran.
Thirteen POWs appear in the documentary to offer their stories of torture at the hands of the Viet Cong during their long confinement. They tell of how John Kerry’s words were used in an attempt to break their spirit and extract confessions of war crimes. All of them are highly decorated veterans earning nearly 200 medals among them; two of them are Medal of Honor recipients. Together, they spent over 106 years in captivity.
While Kerry and his radical associates, including Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden marched in the streets of the United States, hundreds of American soldiers languished in prison camps, threatened with trials and executions. Many of these men believe the protesters help extend the war by another two years by encouraging the Viet Cong to hold out until the American people were turned against it.
The media played a critical role in swaying public opinion against the war. It parroted Kerry’s claims that branded a generation of American soldiers as “rapists, baby killers and war criminals” and the army of “Genghis Khan.” Hollywood portrayed Vietnam veterans as drug addicted, wife-beating psychos, an image that it continues to perpetuate.
The media has rallied around Kerry once again, encasing him in a protective bubble. The Associated Press filed a lawsuit to get at President Bush’s military records and CBS used forged documents to suggest that Bush shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard, but neither of those news organizations has expressed any curiosity about Kerry’s service records. Not a single reporter has asked the man who made his service in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign why he has steadfastly refused to sign Form 180 that would permit the release the remaining 100 pages of his military records.
The hostile press trains its sights on anyone who dares to challenge Kerry’s carefully crafted autobiography. The media has determined that John O’Neill’s best-selling ‘Unfit for Command” is a pack of lies, despite the fact that not a single assertion in the book has been successfully refuted. They dismiss the well-documented testimony of 60 men who served with the Massachusetts lieutenant in favor of Kerry’s version – one that has already been proven to be less than completely accurate. ABC’s Ted Koppel will send a film crew to the other side of the planet to interview the Viet Cong about one of Kerry’s battle fantasies but won’t allow O’Neill utter a single uninterrupted sentence on the air.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had to raise money and buy television ads to present another view of candidate Kerry that a balanced press would have already examined. The same is true of this documentary. It was privately funded by veterans to tell a story that the media would have discovered were it not blinded by a political agenda.
The war on “Stolen Honor” began at its screening, where a “Veterans for Kerry” member distributed a list of questions for reporters to ask about the film. He later disrupted the event during the question and answer period.
MSNBC’s David Shuster argued with Sherwood about the edited footage of Kerry’s Senate testimony. The producer shot him down and suggested he ask his own network why it had denied all requests to allow use of its footage in the documentary. Sherwood had been seeking permission to use videotapes of Kerry’s appearances on “Meet the Press” and participation in antiwar demonstrations in the film.
But Shuster presented his slanted report on “Hardball” anyway, dismissing the film in the same way O’Neill’s book was discounted. When Sinclair Broadcasting announced that it would use some of the footage from “Stolen Honor” in a news program, the MSNBC reporter reflexively sprang into action. He wrote an article for Chris Matthews’ “Hardblogger” entitled: “Sinclair’s Sin.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6198935/#041012c
Shuster compared “Stolen Honor” to Michael Moore’s agitprop film, “Fahrenheit 9/11”, proclaiming the planned television broadcast to be unfair. Even though the comparison is inaccurate, it is a rare admission by a member of the media that Moore’s heralded work is propaganda.
The MSNBC reporter claims that the film was “picked apart” at the screening. But it was Shuster who was picked apart by Sherwood and the many decorated veterans who appeared in the documentary.
The reporter-turned-movie critic based his film review on three points. He disputes the veterans’ assertion that Kerry and Fonda prolonged the war. But the Viet Cong make the veterans case since they consider Kerry a war hero, too. His photograph hangs in a place of honor in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City with statements of praise for his role in their victory over the United States.
In 1970, Kerry met with Madame Binh, a representative of the Viet Cong in Paris. He returned to the United States to promote the proposal she imparted to him, which essentially called for America’s surrender. He held a press conference in 1971 urging President Nixon to accept the Viet Cong’s plan.
Shuster also complained that Kerry’s famous Senate testimony was edited to make it appear that Kerry was making the accusations of war crimes. Kerry prefaced his scurrilous charges with “they said they” to give himself cover. But he knew that “they”, the men who gave testimony at the Winter Soldier meeting were frauds and had fabricated the sensational stories that he was peddling as truth. Many of “they” had never seen combat, some were not even veterans.
The reporter expressed skepticism about the POW’s claim that the North Vietnamese invoked Kerry by name. Whether they spoke his name of not is irrelevant since few of the prisoners had ever met Kerry before they were captured. It was not Kerry’s name that was used to coerce confessions, it was his words that they used to try to break them.
Shuster’s objections are miniscule compared to the devastating weight of the veterans’ personal stories of imprisonment and torture. Perhaps he realizes that Kerry’s White House ambitions might be ended were America to be reminded of what the Massachusetts Democrat has been hoping it forgot. Certainly Democrats and their liberal allies see that possibility since they have pulled out all the stops to keep “Stolen Honor” from public view.
He probably also understands that the media’s role as a willing partner in perpetuating Kerry’s myths will also be exposed.
If you would like to help the Swift Boat Vets ( as I have, and I urge all to do-- even a few dollars will help ) kindly click on this logo:
Take a look at these short video clips, especially the last one. You will walk away with a heavy heart.
Didn't Shuster used to be on FNC?
I always thought he looked familiar too. I think you are right. He was formerly on FNC.
Which ones? Name their names. I agree that many or most of the WSI witnesses probably gave fraudulent testimony, but I have a bias based on incomplete information.
I have yet to see a even a single WSI witness debunked as to his veteran status. (Al Hubbard doesn't count - he didn't "testify" at the WSI, I believe)
Shusters a punk, he doesn't reply to emails that "fact check" his erroneous fact checking.
Mr. Schuster, Without Mr. Bush as President, Israel will cease to exist. Mr. Kerry is being endorsed by Yassir Arafat.
No excuses.
bttt
I haven't been able to stomach this sniveling little man, David Shuster ever since he used to work for FOX news. He is a midget of man, and I'm very glad to see Jeff Gannon take him down a few notches.
If I could reach back about 4 years, I'm sure I'd find I few angry posts I've made about this mental midget.
Kerry's used "testimony" from the VVAW's "Winter Soldier Investigation" as the basis for his war crimes charges, although none of the witnesses there were willing to sign depositions affirming their claims. Later investigators were unable to confirm any of the reported atrocities, and in fact discovered that a number of the witnesses had never been in Vietnam, had never been in combat, or were imposters who had assumed the identity of real veterans.
The results of this investigation, carried out by the Naval Investigative Service, are interesting and revealing.
Many of the veterans, though assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities. A black Marine who agreed to be interviewed was unable to provide details of the outrages he had described at the hearing, but he called the Vietnam War "one huge atrocity" and "a racist plot." He admitted that the question of atrocities had not occurred to him while he was in Vietnam, and that he had been assisted in the preparation of his testimony by a member of the Nation of Islam. But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated. Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a "criminal policy." The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity. It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.
The detailed facts of particular incidents were not of any great concern to Kenneth B. Osborn, who testified before the House Government Operations Committee in the summer of 1971. The former intelligence officer had told the CCI inquiry of an incident in which a VC suspect had been pushed out of a helicopter in order to scare other detainees into talking. Asked for the name of the marine officer who had given this order, Osborn declined: "In all due respect, I do recall his name, but I am not willing to go into that. You can see that is irrelevant. In fact, the form of the thing is what we are talking about."(31)
Two years later, in July 1973, Osborn appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to oppose the confirmation of William E. Colby as head of the CIA. Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri asked Osborn for the names of those who had committed the atrocities he claimed to have witnessed, but Osborn again refused. When questioned as to whether he had ever submitted an official complaint about these atrocities while in Vietnam, Osborn replied: "No, sir. They seemed to me at the time to be standard operating procedure." And when asked whether he had made any reports since his discharge from the service, he stated: "Only in the form of my testimony, which has been minimally investigated by the Army."(32) In point of fact, the Army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID) had interviewed Osborn soon after he first made his charges, but, like the two congressional committees later on, the CID had been unable to get him to provide specific information about the alleged incidents.(33)
The refusal of men like Osborn to give substantiating factual information in support of their atrocity allegations created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them. Since the CID is prohibited from divulging any information regarding its investigations, the Army could not even make it known that it was trying to pursue possible leads despite the absence of crucial details withheld by the accusers. As of 11 April 1971, the CID had determined that 7 of 16 allegations made by the CCI which could be investigated were unfounded or unsubstantiated.(34) Most of the allegations were so general as to defy investigation.
Check out the story of Chuck Onan
http://4dw.net/jqueen/valor.html
But unusable:
Government officials today cannot verify that Naval Investigative Service report's existence.
"We have not been able to confirm the existence of this report, but it's also possible that such records could have been destroyed or misplaced," said Naval Criminal Investigative Service public affairs specialist Paul O'Donnell.
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/chi-0402220494feb22,0,3045658.story
The following are often falsely listed as being participants in Winter Soldier, but were actually in Lane's book instead. This confusion is probably due to Stolen Valor having an explanation of Lane's history within the section on Winter Soldier.
Chuck Onan, stock room clerk in Beaufort, S.C.
Michael Schneider, deserted in Europe and deserted again in the USA.
Terry Whitmore, was in an unpopulated area of Vietnam.
Garry Gianninoto, medical corpsman at battalion headquarters.
VVAW leader and Winter Soldier co-organizer Al Hubbard lied about being an officer, and sustaining war injuries - but he never testified at Winter Soldier.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Winter%20Soldier%20Investigation
Can you show me where (URL, etc.) it shows a single WSI witness debunked as to veteran status? Again, Al Hubbard doesn't count, and Lewy's NIS report remains unusable.
While no one involved with the Winter Soldier Investigation, and subsequent Senate hearings, ever accused "all" servicemen of misconduct - it was obvious the problem had grown beyond "isolated incident" status. The problem was perceived by the participants as epidemic, and was seen as ignored and even condoned by leaders at all levels in the military and government. Winter Soldier was the culmination of efforts to finally bring national attention to this situation, and to expedite the end of America's participation in the Vietnam conflict.
Kerry said in his testimony before Congress that,
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, on Lieutenant Calley is what he did quite obviously was a horrible, horrible, horrible thing and I have no bone to pick with'the fact that he was prosecuted. But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere.
I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies with the men who encouraged body counts. I think it lies in large part with this country, which allows a young child before he reaches the age of 14 to see 12,500 deaths on television, which glorifies the John Wayne syndrome, which puts out fighting man comic books on the stands, which allows us in training to do calisthenics to four counts, on the fourth count of which we stand up and shout "kill" in unison, which has posters in barracks in this country with a crucified Vietnamese, blood on him, and underneath it says "kill the gook," and I think that clearly the responsibility for all of this is what has produced this horrible abberation.
Now, I think if you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same time try all those other people who have responsibility, and any aversion that we may have to the verdict as veterans is not to say that Calley should be freed, not to say that he is innocent, but to say that you can't just take him alone, and that would be my response to that.
Kerry was prone to generalize, even about drug use.
Mr. KERRY. The problem is extremely serious. It is serious in very many different ways. I believe two Congressmen today broke a story. I can't remember their names. There were 35,000 or some men, heroin addicts that were back.
The problem exists for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the emptiness. It is the only way to get through it. A lot of guys, 60, 80 percent stay stoned 24 hours a day just to get through the Vietnam -
Senator SYMINGTON. You say 60 to 80 percent.
Mr. KERRY. Sixty to 80 percent is the figure used that try sornething, let's say, at one point. Of that I couldn't give you a figure of habitual smokers, let's say, of pot, and I certainly couldn't begin to say how many are hard drug addicts, but I do know that the problem for the returning veteran is, acute, because we have, let's say, a veteran picks up a $12 habit in Saigon. He comes back to this country and the moment he steps off an airplane that same habit costs him some $90 to support. With the state of the economy, he can't get a job. He doesn't earn money. He turns criminal or just finds his normal sources and in a sense drops out.
Any reading of the entire Senate testimony, his meetings with the Vietnamese Communists, and other quotes from Kerry on the MTP and in his debates with John O'Neill realize that the antipathy towards Kerry goes far beyond 94 words. The LA Times article is riddled with misinformation and spin.
I find it odd that you are placing the burden of proof on those who question the testimonies of those who participated in the Winter Soldier investigation. The burden of proof should be on them. None of them have testified under oath to these allegations. Where are the affadavits? What are their credentials? We do know from Pitkin, under oath, that the VVAW influenced his testimony, which was false.
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.