Cipherdom (deprecated)

Your characterization of Kerry’s betrayal as a free speech issue shows how little you understand about what motivates the Swift POWs.

POWs are duty bound to live up to the Code of Conduct to the best of their abilities. Many POWs were tortured in an effort to admit that they were war criminals. They resisted. Kerry presented false testimony under oath that betrayed all Viet Nam vets and the POWs in particular.

Like Jane Fonda, Kerry met with the enemy on foreign soil. Kerry’s post-war activities were cowardly and self-serving. Fellowes supposition might be that, when US Naval Officers are meeting with the enemy, the enemy might get an idea they can win if they hold out. We have freedom of speech, not freedom of treason.

It is so typically liberal to think “these rights are what make this country what it is.” Think again.

Fellowes believes that Kerry’s anti-war activities prolonged the war.

Now we’re flirting with a subject even real historians have trouble resolving – the lessons of Vietnam.

I assume Fellowes supposition is something to the effect that Hanoi was emboldened by the anti-war movement and therefore stalled at the Paris peace talks.

If it were only that simple.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone, but US politics also contributed to stalling tactics at the talks. Remember, the Nixon v. Humphrey election? It’s now public record that Kissinger supplied Nixon with insider info on the talks, which Nixon used for his political advantage. While LBJ was trying to push South Vietnam’s president (yes, it was the South, not the North, who were reluctant to sit down) to join in the talks, Nixon/Kissinger lobbied President Thieu against it. And Thieu, right before our election, announced he wouldn’t join. Even though LBJ had stopped the bombing, supplicating Hanoi and getting them into the peace process, Nixon took an action against peace, to help him win against Humphrey.

Obviously I don't believe that is the only reason the war lasted as long as it did. But it speaks to several key realities:

a)The Vietnam War was an enormously complicated mess. No one group, person, or policy bears full responsibility for it’s continuation to beyond absurdity. With Iraq, laying blame is far simpler.

b)The Vietnam War was deemed militarily un-winnable very early on. Depending on which history you read, anywhere from mid ‘64 (although that is primarily attributed to LBJ apologist interpretations of his WH tapes) to ~ late ’67. The later seems more in line with Westmoreland’s ‘plan’ for victory; which was to see victory in SE Asia by end of ’68. Unfortunately for POWs like Fellowes, the US government continued to hold out for a politically expedient ‘peace with honor’ resolution.

c)The Vietnam War, as a US military action, was never conducted properly; not from the very beginning. See Neil Sheehan’s amazing work: “A Bright Shining Lie.” The peace movement (or perhaps most significantly - Daniel Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers), began to shine the public light on this. Key US military strategists in Vietnam, such as John Paul Vann, never broke the ‘omerta’ and never came out on record. But they fully agreed it was a mess. What if more upper echelon military people had joined Kerry, would the war have continued? We’ll never know.

I reject the argument that Kerry was some sort of ‘traitor.’ He spoke the truth and did it with the intention to right a wrong; to see the war ended. I can empathize that from a prison cell, where you hear only propaganda (unlike those of us living in a free society, where the media is open and objective about all things..;-)), you might think the anti-war movement was pro-Hanoi and anti-GI. However, after 35 years, that misconception should have been cleared up by now. Like I said earlier, I worry more about the Vets who haven't come to grips with the reality of Vietnam by now.

And it should go without saying, the concept that Kerry shouldn’t have spoken out, that by doing so he was ratting out his fellow brothers-in-arms, is counter to all sorts of fundamental US tenets: free speech, government by the people and for the people, the law above all else. These rights are what make this country what it is. Those that wish to inhibit the excercising of those rights are unamerican, in my book.

I should have been clearer. It is "inexcusable" to the Swift POW's. It's their issue really, not mine.

I don't think they would have spoken up if it was just lying about medals. You may be aware that every political opponent of Kerry since 1972 has asked O'Neill for help and O'Neill has steadfastly refused. The difference is that Kerry now seeks to be Commander in Chief.

These are Duty, Honor, Country guys. And to them, Kerry is a traitor ... which is worse than a coward.

I’m not sure what “moral code” VC is talking about. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires obedience only to “lawful” orders. If Kerry was truly moral and had honor and courage, he should have refused to follow the illegal orders into Cambodia on Christmas eve. Of course, we now know that this statement was a fabrication to gain political advantage. I have not heard one report about Kerry protesting any “Jinjis” Khan-type atrocities while he was in Viet Nam.

I had the honor to meet Captain Jack Fellowes, a former POW who spent more than six years in the Hanoi Hilton. Fellowes was the officer liason for the Naval Academy Football team when I was on that squad in 1976 / 77. Fellowes, who used to come to practice smoking a cigar and wearing a J&B Scotch windbreaker, is a member of the POW’s For Truth.

Fellowes believes that Kerry’s anti-war activities prolonged the war. "[Kerry] owes me two years, as does Jane Fonda and that crowd," he said. "I don't think [Kerry] should accept that role [commander in chief], because he betrayed all of us. He betrayed all the military. So it kind of bothers me. We just don't do that. We are Americans," he added.

A frustrated athlete note to VC. In reference to his ability to survive six years as a POW, George Coker, Felowes’ navigaotor said, “Sports taught me to be strong physically, as well as mentally, to roll with the punches, and to keep pressing for the victory.”

I admit to being deferential to military types when it comes to military matters. Most of the officers I know believe that we were going to have to take Saddam and/or his sons out before the end of the day. If you believe that, then you might want to choose to attack when he is at his weakest.

That does not mean that Bush is vindicated. I believe voters are properly holding Bush accountable for no WMD and a poor post-war plan. If the Democrats had a good candidate, he/she (except Hillary) would be leading by 10 points. I remain convinced that, while voters view Bush’s mistakes as critical, they will ultimately view Kerry’s as fatal.

VC said: By attacking Iraq, Bush made sure Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

This conclusion has been getting a lot of media play too. It’s hard to refute. It also makes me wonder what the people are thinking, who say they’re going to vote for Bush, because it’s the prudent thing to do in the middle of a war. I truly hate to say it, but it's probably going to take another attack, for them to see how perfectly goddamn delightful it all is, I'm sure. (getting closer to remembering that Crumbism!)

TOF:

If exaggerating the truth is an inexcusable offense, you realize you're going to have to indict every politician, businessperson and fisherman in this country?

However, don’t let me dissuade you from maintaining zero tolerance for the practice. For you must then, of course, cast your ballot against Bush and his WMD exaggerations. Those exaggerations are, without question, far more inexcusably offensive.

Much of Kerry's congressional testimony was untrue. Many of those that testified in the Winter Soldier meetings were frauds that never served in Viet Nam. For Kerry to report it as fact was inexcusable.

Much of Kerry's exploits in Viet Nam were exaggerated. What he actually did was good enough, but Kerry tried to, as they say in the Navy "grease his own wheels." Another inexcusable offense.

The Swifites and POW's for Truth belive that Kerry did all of this to further his political carreer. I agree with them.

I don't think you've heard the last from the Swift POW's. They may have lost in Viet Nam but they won't lose here.

I want to thank both of you guys for those last two posts, which are what political discourse should be about. I've sensed Cipherdom spinning out of control lately, almost to the point of regretting I ever started posting political opinions here. (I said, "Almost.") My plan was to just sit this one out, but here goes . . .

I couldn't agree more w/ Col. Day's first sentence:

"The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam."

Kerry is answerable for the vehemence of his anti-war statements. But to settle scores with Kerry for breaking the code of silence, O'Neil and his sources do not have the right to lie about his combat service, which is clearly what many have done. Ironically, the conservatives' SBVfT campaign might have succeeded in keeping Kerry from being elected if they'd just stuck to the facts of his protest efforts. By trying to debunk Kerry's heroism, they drowned out the legitimate argument that his congressional testimony may have been damaging to soldiers still in Vietnam. With their exaggerations and lies, Bush's surrogates have hurt far more they've helped him in this election.

But the code of silence -- or honor, if you call it that -- does not trump the moral code. To say no atrocities happened in Vietnam just isn't defensible. What might be defensible is to say Kerry breached faith by testifying about them. I just disagree strongly. I believe he was acting with the best intentions, albeit emotionally, to try and stop what he and most sensible people had come to realize was an unjust war. Is it moral to be silent while draftees keep being called up to "die for a mistake?"

I completely buy Dean's statement about personal responsibility. In a perverse way, terrorists attack U.S. civilians in an attempt to hold them accountable for their democratically elected government's actions. I'm not saying that's right, and I'm not saying we should react to it by sticking our heads in the sand -- which is one response they'd welcome. But the response they want most of all is for us to live up to the stereotype they take as reality: That the U.S. is an immoral, unaccountable force of cultural arrogance at best and of martial destruction at worst. Now more than ever we'd better be sure we aren't making that stereotype the reality. Not because we're scared of anyone (god forbid), but out of enlightened self-interest.

Some of us have a fundamental disagreement over the morality of war. But setting that aside, Americans who advocate just kicking ass in response to terrorism need to consider whether the momentary satisfaction is worth the creation of more terrorists, as is the case in Iraq. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was obvious that Al Qaeda wanted to lure us into a broader conflict. Their agenda was to drive a wedge between us and our allies (especially the House of Saud), destabilizing governments across the world. By attacking Iraq, Bush made sure Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Even before post-invasion Iraq descended into chaos, I said the war was a terrible idea, strategically speaking. How I regret that it turned out to be much worse than that. And how I hope it somehow turns out better than the disaster that's looming nearer day by day.

I respect your opinion.

However, if Kerry is elected, we are telling our officers that, if they personally disagree with the Iraq war, it is OK to meet with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Paris after they get home. This is probably OK with VC but, many Viet Nam combat vets are justifiably up in arms.

Jim Bouton had the right to write Ball Four. As a young man, I thought it was a great book. As an adult, I think it was a grand betrayal of locker room confidences. I believe Bouton wrote it solely for personal gain. I understand why many of his ex-teammates hated him. I understand why he was banished from the Yankees for 28 years. Somehow, I think this is a fair analogy because I would guess that VC supports Bouton all the way.

All sides should be heard. BS is in the eye of the BS-holder.

It is absolutely your right to disregard the view of the hundreds of brave men (below) who left pieces of themselves in Southeast Asia.

Maybe Bud Day comported himself in strict accordance with the rules of engagement. Maybe he earned his MoH without witnessing any atrocities. But for him to say there is NO (his emphasis) evidence they occurred is utter BS.

There are tens of thousands of men who served in Vietnam, who disagree that Kerry’s Senate testimony was anything except the truth. I know some. My college roommate, for 2 years, was very active in Viet Vets Against The War. We’re still good buds – saw him this summer, in fact, even though we live on opposite coasts. He was an army medic, who served and then attended school on the GI Bill. He volunteered (that’s how it was done, for certain missions) to go out with and attend to the GIs on search and destroy patrols. He knows what he saw – and I believe him.

Yes, the right to free speech comes with the responsibility to hear all sides. But you don’t have to buy the BS.

... just like Kerry thought it was his duty to libel all Viet Nam vets

I am personally more concerned about vets who remain in denial over what happened in Vietnam, rather than those who admit to the horrors they saw and perhaps committed.

Another gripe I have, with the current discussions on Vietnam, is how some forget (or never knew, due to their age; which like RR, I will not hold against them) the anti-war movement did not begin with ‘dishonoring’ GIs. It happened later on, after the disaffection with the war had fully set in.

Bringing this into the present, the current view held by most Americans against the Iraq invasion (US Admin = bad; Armed Forces = good), is not equivalent to the feeling held by the anti-Vietnam public at the height of the anti-war movement in late 60s/early 70s. However, if this Iraq debacle drags on and on, I’m convinced we’ll see a similar evolution in sentiment. “You can’t fight a war, without an army” became a rally cry, only when people finally began to take personal responsibility for that war.

Right now, most of the US public hasn’t accepted they are partially culpable for what’s going on over in Iraq. If you’re against the invasion, it’s not ‘our’ war, it’s ‘Bush’s’ war. Granted, given the way he ram-rodded it down our throats, this is understandable. But, if the war goes on and on, that view will change. We could see more than just Blue and Red states. Could the current divisiveness steam-roll? A Civil War, part deux? OK, I’ll remove the tinfoil hat - it won’t go that far.

But there is the distinct possibility a second Bush admin, with a never ending Iraq debacle, could result in a different sort of homeland battle. There was fighting in the streets during the Vietnam era. It can happen again. Once in a lifetime is more than enough for me.

Bud Day asks: “Should we elect a known proven liar to lead us in wartime??”

Good question.

You forgot to include this letter (below) from that pesky Congressional Medal of Honor winner, Bud Day. It is absolutely your right to disregard the view of the hundreds of brave men (below) who left pieces of themselves in Southeast Asia.

No doubt you think it’s your duty ... just like Kerry thought it was his duty to libel all Viet Nam vets and meet secretly with the enemy in Paris.

Your right to free speech comes without responsibility. Just allow for others that disagree with you.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1235321/posts
http://www.swiftvets.com/