John Kerry's war record

As Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, considers a bid for the White
House, Americans should know a few things about him that he might prefer go unmentioned - and I don't mean his $75 haircuts.

When Mr. Kerry pontificated at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans
Day, a group of veterans turned their backs on him and walked away. They
remembered Mr. Kerry as the anti-war activist who testified before Congress
during the war, accusing veterans of being war criminals. The dust jacket
of Mr. Kerry's pro-Hanoi book, "The New Soldier," features a photograph of
his ragged band of radicals mocking the U.S. Marine Corps Memorial, which
depicts the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, with an upside-down American flag.

Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an
anti-war activist had "given aid and comfort to the enemy," as had the
actions of Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda. Also, Mr. Kerry lied when he threw
what he claimed were his war medals over the White House fence; he later
admitted they weren't his. Now they are displayed on his office wall.

Long after he changed sides in congressional hearings, Mr. Kerry lobbied for
renewed trade relations with Hanoi. At the same time, his cousin C. Stewart
Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a
$905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam - an odd
coincidence.

As noted in the Inside Politics column of Nov. 14
(Nation),historian Douglas Brinkley is writing Mr. Kerry's biography.
Hopefully, he'll include the senator's latest ignominious feat: preventing
the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate,
claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a
clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for
which so many Americans fought and died.

The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October, more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak province alone.

On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection
simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a
program against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of
goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity. Thousands have been
killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The Montagnards lost
one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and
without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial.

As Mr. Kerry contemplates a run for the presidency, people must remember
that he has fought harder for Hanoi as an anti-war activist and a senator
than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in
Vietnam.

MICHAEL BENGE Foreign Service officer and former Vietnam POW
(1968 to 1973) Washington

Semper Fi
Billy Joe

Knowing what I know now and if I had known it then I wouldn't be on this blog complaining about someone who tried to tell the truth about an unjust war (Vietnam) where the very same nation that we defended, turn around and poisoned millions of its own and didn't have the decency to tell us that we had been poisoned, and ineffect murdered. Some of you so called vets are so hypocritical. You say on one hand you support the troop and rall against how this government treats the vets and then you turn around and show unwavering support for the very same government that literally has no problem killing its soldiers so that the military industrial complex can literally make billions at our expense.

When are we going to get serious about confronting this government about all of its atrocities, past and present against the vets. No wonder this government never takes out concerns seriously.

As far as I am concerned, when I hear a vet say that they will never leave a comrade behind, I have to laugh because several of our brothers have done just that. Until we unite and show this government that we mean business about veterans disability and health, they are going to continue to do what they are doing.

I saddens me to see the VFW and the other Veterans groups standing behind President Bush during Photo-ops. What a bunch of sell outs.

John Kerry mocked the Marine Corps memorial? When did that happen? Does anyone have the picture? A few people around here would be interested in seeing proof of this.

JNagarya

“(Until then, admit the fact that you hate Kerry because he exercised his right of free speech -- for which he fought -- by stating facts and views you disapprove without first asking you for your irrelevant permission.)”
Kerry did not simply “exercise his right to free speech”. He leaped far over the line. He committed sedition when he met with the North Vietnamese delegation, and he committed treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy by being their spokesman through the VVAW.
That was not “free speech”. I have no problem with legitimate protest – I do have a problem with an officer in the United States Navy – Kerry was still in the USNR – committing sedition and treason.
“Is all that too complicated for you? Then sit down and read the Constitution for the first time in your life.”
You might try that yourself.
I have read Our Constitution many times. I have studied Our Constitution – and not depended on other’s comments to form my ideas.
You have used several terms and phrases that are common to the Hanoi John supporters –
“stating facts and views you disapprove without first asking you for your irrelevant permission”
“irresponsible and immature. And irrational.”
“Your view is not only anti-American, it is totalitarian”
“ignorance.”
“pseudo-‘patriot’”
“jackass”
I would go on, but the list is getting pretty long. You also stated,
“It's easy to toss dirty words. It requires discipline, responsibility, maturity, and thought to instead express oneself in a manner which renders one respectworthy. Name-callers are nothing more than elementary schoolyard bullies -- loudmouths -- and are not worthy of respect.”
Who is doing the name calling? Who is trying to suppress free speech?
Moving on -
“Then, just as is occurring in Iraq, the people who belonged in Viet Nam began attacking the trespassing invader that not only had no business interfering in someone else's civil war, but violated international law and treaties in so doing.”
Once again you might wish to educate yourself concerning international law.
What occurred in Operation Desert Storm – mistakenly referred to as the 1st Iraqi War – was 100% legal. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The United States led a coalition that drove the invaders out. On 3 March 1991 Iraq agreed to the terms of a cease fire – note: a cease fire, not a peace treaty.
With me so far?
Among the terms of the cease fire were a couple of conditions you need to remember.
1. Iraq had to rid themselves of WMD – and cooperate with inspectors to insure it was done.
Iraq did not cooperate, but tried to mislead, hide and intimidate as much as possible.
2. “No Fly” zones were established and were to be enforced by Coalition aircraft. These aircraft were not to be interfered with in any way by Iraqi forces.
Iraq did not abide by these conditions, thereby voiding the cease fire agreement they had agreed to. Operation Iraqi Freedom was then commenced on 19 March 2003. It was not a “new” war, but a continuation of the one currently on hold because of the cease fire.
Now, how did the United States violate international law?

JNagarya

“Let us know when you have _in fact_ read both the "Winter Soldier" testimonies, and the representations of those testimonies by John Kerry. (Until then, admit the fact that you hate Kerry because he exercised his right of free speech -- for which he fought -- by stating facts and views you disapprove without first asking you for your irrelevant permission.)”
I have, in fact, read them. I also read his sworn testimony to Congress.
Hanoi John did not just “exercise his right of free speech”. He committed both sedition and treason while an officer in the United States Navy.

“As for the fact that Kerry was wounded three times, which you deny because "probably" ("probably" is speculation, not fact): a person does not recommend himself for medals, therefore Kerry was recommended for those medals by someone other than himself. So what you are in fact doing is not smearing Kerry but instead smearing those who recommended he be awarded those medals.”
The accounts of his wounds do not rise to the level needed by regulations for a Purple Heart. If Hanoi John would release all of his records - as was demanded of President Bush - we would know who recommended him and the actual nature of the wounds.

“And you don't even know who those persons were. And that, Mr. Scott, is irresponsible and immature. And irrational. “
If he would release his records everyone would know who these people were.
Your view is not only anti-American, it is totalitarian: you do not approve of speech with which you disagree, and you believe, therefore, such speech should not be expressed. Simply because _you_ don't like it. On what is such arrogance based? That upon which arrogance is always based: ignorance.”
I do not approve of speech that clearly falls into sedition and treason. I do not like self aggrandizing lying backstabbing seditious traitors.
As to ignorance, I suggest you look up the statutes concerning sedition and treason.

“Get over it, jackass: _if_ you served in the military, you avoided the opportunity to read the Constitution -- and First Amendment -- which you swore to uphold. What else could explain your lack of understanding of it?”
You might note - if you have ever read Our Constitution - that it contains more than the First Amendment. I suggest you read Article III section 3. You might also look up the US Code concerning sedition - Title 18 Chapter 115 Section 2381 and 2384. You might also look up Section 802 article 2 of the UCMJ along with subchapter X, section 888 article 88, Section 894 article 94, Section 904. article 104 (2). Hanoi John, being an officer in the US Navy Reserve, was still accountable to it.

“…and, invariably, those making that accusation are sitting "comfortably at home" themselves.”
I did not sit "comfortably at home". I retired with 20 years, 6 months and 8 days of active duty service. I served incountry in Viet Nam from 1966-1968. I worked on the same rivers as Hanoi John.

“Is all that too complicated for you? Then sit down and read the Constitution for the first time in your life. And in so doing, note, as example, that the US Supreme Court has no legitimate role in elections.”
I have read our Constitution many times. I have studied both on my own and as a collage student.
If you would take the time to read our Constitution for yourself, you will find that the Supreme Court was justified.

Note that I have not resorted to calling you names. I have not called you a “jackass”, nor “ignorant”.
That is usually the last resort of the ignorant.

Robert G. Scott, SFC, USA (Ret)

Mr. Robert Scott --

Let us know when you have _in fact_ read both the "Winter Soldier" testimonies, and the representations of those testimonies by John Kerry. (Until then, admit the fact that you hate Kerry because he exercised his right of free speech -- for which he fought -- by stating facts and views you disapprove without first asking you for your irrelevant permission.)

As for the fact that Kerry was wounded three times, which you deny because "probably" ("probably" is speculation, not fact): a person does not recommend himself for medals, therefore Kerry was recommended for those medals by someone other than himself. So what you are in fact doing is not smearing Kerry but instead smearing those who recommended he be awarded those medals.

And you don't even know who those persons were. And that, Mr. Scott, is irresponsible and immature. And irrational.

Let's admit the core fact: you're jealous of Kerry because he had the courage to express his views, despite the fact that petty, irrational individuals such as yourself refused to grant him your irrelevant permission to do so.

Your view is not only anti-American, it is totalitarian: you do not approve of speech with which you disagree, and you believe, therefore, such speech should not be expressed. Simply because _you_ don't like it. On what is such arrogance based? That upon which arrogance is always based: ignorance.

I've been dealing with your sort of pseudo-"patriot" since the 1960s, always boasting, "I fought and defended your rights!" -- then objecting when I _exercise_ those rights in a way you do not approve. Get over it, jackass: _if_ you served in the military, you avoided the opportunity to read the Constitution -- and First Amendment -- which you swore to uphold. What else could explain your lack of understanding of it?

We hear it again today: people smearing those who sit "comfortably at home" while others do the fighting; and, invariably, those making that accusation are sitting "comfortably at home" themselves.

Last but not least as concerns history and international law: the Geneva Accords barred any interference in Indochina (Viet Nam) by any outside powers. That was the law as established. And that was done so the divided Viet Nam could hold elections in order to reunify. Eisenhower, who knew Ho Chi Minh would get 80 per cent of the vote -- like it or not, that's termed "democratic self-determination" -- decided to intervene against a person he misperceived as (meaningless word alert) "Communist". By contrast, the Constitution Ho Chi Minh wrote for Viet Nam was based upon our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Then, just as is occurring in Iraq, the people who belonged in Viet Nam began attacking the trespassing invader that not only had no business interfering in someone else's civil war, but violated international law and treaties in so doing.

You do believe in the rule of law, right? Considering the fact that without the rule of law there can be no democracy? That same standard applies to ourselves, correct -- I mean, if we're to have a moral leg to stand on while preaching "rule of law" to everyone else? And who are we to determine for others how they will "self-determine" when it is none of our business?

I too was brought up taught to hate "Communists". Problem is, we were not taught what "Communism" was or is. And since we've seen that word flung at all sorts of situations and groups and peoples with no regard whatsoever whether they are actually whatever that word means. It's easy to toss dirty words. It requires discipline, responsibility, maturity, and thought to instead express oneself in a manner which renders one respectworthy. Name-callers are nothing more than elementary schoolyard bullies -- loudmouths -- and are not worthy of respect. You have a basic choice: respect reason, thus respect fact and rule of law; or respect irrational totalitarian brutalities which have no truck with reason, fact, and law.

And make your decision which to respect based upon the fact that, without the rule of law, there is no democracy, no freedom, no liberty. As one of the foremost Constitutional scholars among the Founders said of our system: "A system of laws, not of men." Loudmouthed totalitarian bullies not only have no respect for the rule of law, but also illegitimately take upon themselves determining _when_ others may speak, and _what_ they may say. We are not a military society, Mr. Scott, and you have no aiuthority to tell everyone else what we can and can't think, believe, or say.

Is all that too complicated for you? Then sit down and read the Constitution for the first time in your life. And in so doing, note, as example, that the US Supreme Court has no legitimate role in elections.

Mr. Durango --

The responsible and mature don't make allegations without providing credible evidence to back it up. How long shall we wait for you to do that?

Nor do they call people names simply because they have an expertise in being irrational. How long shall we wait for you to get a grip?

The allegation the John Kerry accused veterans of being war criminals is false. (What do violations of the Geneva Conventions constitute? War crimes.) If your read his statement to Congress, you'll learn that he reported on the results of the "Winter Soldier" hearings, during which honorably discharged veterans, many highly decorated, reported that _they_ had committed war crimes.”

I have read the testimony. He did accuse us all of war crimes. He did admit - brag - of committing war crimes himself.

“Kerry was wounded three times. Bush was grounded.”
Hanoi John was possibly wounded by enemy action one time. It was too minor to qualify for the Purple Heart Two were self inflicted.

“Kerry was awarded medals. Bush went AWOL.”
Kerry somehow obtained two medals. After months of requests to release the information he still won’t sign the SF 180 so we can discover who actually wrote him up for medals because he violated standing orders and doing what every man is expected to do.

Robert G. Scott, SFC, USA (Ret)

The allegation the John Kerry accused veterans of being war criminals is false. (What do violations of the Geneva Conventions constitute? War crimes.) If your read his statement to Congress, you'll learn that he reported on the results of the "Winter Soldier" hearings, during which honorably discharged veterans, many highly decorated, reported that _they_ had committed war crimes.

Smearing Kerry won't change those facts. Now consider these facts: the Geneva Conventions were written by the US _first and foremost to protect US troops should they become POWs_. Bush dismissed the Conventions with contempt. With that he dismissed those protections for US troops. One can support Bush, _or_ one can "support the troops". One cannot do both: Bush's support for the troops is equal to his support for the Conventions: zero.

Have you yet asked when Bush will finally send sufficient body armor to the trooops in Iraq? Or is that too close to dealing with reality for those who hate Kerry for manufactured "reasons".

Kerry served in Viet Nam. Bush served on a senate campaign in Alabama.

Kerry was wounded three times. Bush was grounded.

Kerry was awarded medals. Bush went AWOL.

Bush has been AWOL from responsibility and accountability all his life, has always been bailed out by others, and has always lived off someone else's credit card. He is no less AWOL from supporting the troops beyond rhetoric.

Cheney got 5 deferments. He didn't support his fellows then, and he cares even less now. Ashcroft -- it must be a record -- got 7 deferements to teach an "emergency course in business law". I hadn't heard there was a shortage in that field. Had you?

Wolfowitz and Perle, main architects of the illegal invasion of Iraq, never served a spilit second in a uniform. But, being chickenhawks, they knew better than even the corrupt Colin Powell. (Corrupt? He helped Bush lie the US into Iraq, even knowing it was a mistake, and that it meant throwing away the lives of US troops who in another time might have been directly under his command.)

When it comes to choosing for whom you will vote, base it on fact, not smears and lies which are invented by hypocrites and chickenhawks who are for war so long as they do the sending and you do the going.

Joseph Nagarya
Boston, Ma

It is up to us to spread the word of this Whacko, John Kerry.

Concerned