SwiftVets.com

[KeithNolan]

Edited: Keith, critiquing the claimed record of a Presidential candidate is not spitting on him. Dubious claims of "veterans" in VVAW have been well documented in the book, Stolen Valor.



With that in mind, I thought you guys might be interested in recent comments on the subject by GEN Tommy R. Franks, USA (Ret), who fought in Vietnam as a young lieutenant with the 9th Infantry Division, 1967-68, before commanding U.S. forces in Iraq in 2003. The article on Franks and Kerry which follows can be found at this address: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080504.shtml

FROM THE DAILY HOWLER:
A VERY FRANKS DISCUSSION: . . . We refer, of course, to Tommy Franks’ important discussion with Sean Hannity. The session aired Tuesday on Fox. And yes, this session was very important, as every DNC talker should be told. It’s the kind of discussion such talkers can use when they want to refute the coming attacks—the attacks that will now be made (again) against Kerry’s post-Vietnam record. General Franks, of course, just finished a stint as CentCom Commander. And since Franks has known Laura Bush since school days—and since he’s partial to the president too—Hannity knew that this was a chance to trash Kerry’s post-Nam public record. You know—a chance to say that he slandered the troops when he described appalling misconduct in Nam? A chance to call Kerry a very bad man—a man you can’t possibly vote for?

This was an early line of attack on Kerry, and it’s about to be ginned up again. So Hannity threw raw meat to Franks, assuming that Tommy would take it and run. But uh-oh! Franks vouched for the accuracy of Kerry’s remarks. We hope DNC types will notice.

You know Sean—he has all the moves. Always eager to stir the rubes, he started by asking Franks this:

HANNITY (8/3/04): I want to play a tape of John Kerry, and I want to get your reaction to this tape.

KERRY (videotape, Dick Cavett Show, 1971): I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search and destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on—these acts are contrary to The Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So, in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.

HANNITY: What does that mean to you?

Hannity seemed to assume that Franks would say Kerry shouldn’t have said that, or that such conduct never occurred, or that this dude is a very bad man. But Franks is a soldier, not a pundit—as such, he doesn’t mislead for a living. Quickly, Sean knew that things had gone wrong. Franks said Kerry’s statements were right:

FRANKS (continuing directly): I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam. One was the lack of leadership of young people like in—in John Kerry's position. He was a young officer over there, and I'm not sure that, that activities like that didn't take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure that they did.

Say what? Just that quickly, Franks was off message. But Hannity gave him another chance. He played one more piece of old tape:

HANNITY: I want to play you another tape of his, where he talks about what other soldiers did when he was there.

FRANKS: Right.

HANNITY: And then, I'll get your reaction to this. Roll this tape.

KERRY (videotape, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1971): I relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off the ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in the fashion of Genghis Khan.

HANNITY: I mean, raped, murdered, all these things. But he never told names. Does that anger you? I mean, this is the guy now that is the leading candidate for the Democrats.

“But he never told names,” Hannity said, engaging in his trademark dissembling. (Sean misleads like other men breathe.) Duh! In this testimony, Kerry was describing statements made by former soldiers in the well-known “Winter Soldier” investigation. The names of these soldiers were public record; Kerry didn’t have to list them. But at any rate, Franks again passed on the bait. Hannity wanted the general to hammer Vile John. But once again, Franks told the truth:

FRANKS (continuing directly): I don't know. I think Vietnam was—I think Vietnam was a bad time. I think that what I've learned in my life, Sean, is that it's a heck of a lot easier to protest than it is to step up and take responsibility for the actions of a unit or for—or for your own actions. And so, I don't—I don't like what I saw. But at the same time, I wouldn't say that—the things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam. I think that things didn't go right in, in Vietnam.

Franks did try to help Sean out, suggesting it was unworthy to protest. (In another answer, he seemed to say that he had refused to engage in activities that contravened the Geneva conventions.) But again, Franks stated the obvious truth: “The things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam.”

Sadly, everyone knows that such events did occur. But a gaggle of Manchurian anti-candidates are about to start saying otherwise. Sean hoped Franks was Manchurian too. But Franks said Kerry’s statements were accurate. In fact, he said something much stronger—undeniable.

Of course, nothing is “undeniable” now, in a world where your press corps has walked off its posts. In 1971, Kerry spoke to a Senate committee, made up of Dems and Reps alike. No one questioned the things he said, because everyone knew that his statements were accurate. But Manchurian mau-maus are about to deploy, and they will be pleased to deny the undeniable. Will the Bill Hemmers challenge them? Frankly, we doubt it. But Franks gave the Dems a key word—undeniable. Will someone tell Vilsack to use it?

[Grampa]

Tell me Kieth, how you feel about the treatment of Vietnamese farmers by the NVA?

How do you feel about John Kerrys consistent support for Communist Governments that murder their own by the millions to include what happened when we left Vietnam as a result of the one sided story pushed by VVAW, the KGB fed anti war movement and the likes of John Kerry?


What I see is LOTS of support for folks who enabled a Communist victory and the resulting deliberate massacre of millions of innocent Vietnamese in the name of the workers paradise. I see a one sided story about Vietnam perpetuated by historians such as yourself. Its all about how bad the US was, nothing about the majority of soldiers who didn't commit atrocities in an effort to vindicate people who were for a Communist victory in Vietnam. Jane Fonda, John Kerry and all the fans of the "peoples revolution' still fail to acknowledge that our defeat brought worse misery and suffering which continues to this day, to the people of Vietnam.

I see the same efforts being made by some of the very same people who were pro-Communists back in the 60s, to include John Kerry NOW, to portray the Iraqi conflict in the same manner, to include the same KGB style propaganda plan used by MoveOn, ANSWER and all the usual left/socialists to discredit the good we are doing over there, all in the name of their petty politics of trying to unseat the sitting President. John Kerry is part and parcel of that effort and he relies on it to garner support for his Presidential bid.

I will do my damndest to make sure it doesn't happen again. I will do my best to make sure John Kerry is defeated this November.
_________________
Iraqi Freedom 2003-2004. We won't take any of that 1960s crap when We come home!

[KeithNolan]

The charge has been made that the VVAW was stuffed full of liars, frauds, and misfits who were not actually veterans of the Vietnam War. The book STOLEN VALOR is often trotted out to prove this claim. Problem is that STOLEN VALOR only identifies one phony (Al Hubbard) of the thousands of veterans who joined VVAW in 1970-71. And no one has ever identified by name any of the so-called phonies who testified to war crimes for the VVAW in Detroit. I'd really like some names!

More to the point, I remain appalled that combat veterans are willing to dismiss as frauds other combat veterans with whom they have political disagreements.

KWN

[LewWaters]

[GoophyDog]

Pardon the pun but folks are missing the boat. READ what Franks said, place it in the proper context as responding to Kerry's protest statements:

[waltjones]

The problem Nolan has with the point he's trying to make here is that Franks didn't quantify it but Kerry did. Did atrocities happen in Vietnam? Yes, but there has never been quantifiable, credible evidence that they took place at a higher frequency than in other major wars. There IS evidence - over a hundred American soldiers executed in WWII for war crimes vs. two war crime trials from Vietnam - that there were actually less. Kerry said they happened on a daily basis, known to ALL levels of command. I was in 'Nam 19 months, and that certainly wasn't my experience. Who do you think has more credibility on this Mr. non-vet Nolan; me or you? I put your historian abilities right down there with that other great propagandist, Micheal Moore. Thatisall ....
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor.

[carpro]

I listened to Hannity and Franks. It was a good interview. Franks handled it well, but didn't let Kerry completely off the hook as G-dog illustrated. Walt nailed the rest of it.

If Kerry hadn't included me in his atrocity claim, I might be a huge Kerry fan today.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service."

[You Bic?]

I think one of the most overlooked quotes of Kerry in his testimony before Congress in 1971 was his blood libel that the [armed forces] of the USA "murdered" 200,000 Vietnamese every year.

It is on page 190 of this document, third paragraph from the bottom.

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

"Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, Kerry was asked how a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam would effect the South Vietnamese army and people. "[Y]es, there will be some recrimination," said Kerry, "but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America." (See page 190 of the attached transcript of his entire testimony)." From Human Events Newspaper at this link.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3010

This is an astounding slander of the Vietnam Vet ! Yet it is a slander that has been completely ignored by the media despite the documentation of these transcripts of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

This is significant because Kerry apologists allways excuse Kerry for quoting testimony from the Winter Soldier Hearings, by saying that Kerry was merely quoting what others had said.

Here is Kerry in his own words slimeing the Vietnam Vet by calling him a murderer!

[sdonions]

The left will say that Kerry was only repeating what he had heard from others. Yet after all the intelligence that said Hussein HAD WMDs and President Bush goes in to take out that butcher, all of a sudden the President LIED

[You Bic?]

It is apparent that Kerry was not just a disillusioned vet but an aniti-American activist as well. Remember Kerry said this when American soldiers were still fighting in the field and POWs were still in Hanoi.

Kerry Denounced U.S. as 'The Real Criminal' in Vietnam
NewsMax.com ^ | 2-15-04 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff



Kerry Denounced U.S. as 'The Real Criminal' in Vietnam

During his war protest days in the early 1970s, Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry once denounced the United States of America as "the real criminal" in the Vietnam War.

In comments first reported by the New York Times 33 years ago, Kerry condemned the entire country as "criminal" during a 1971 demonstration on Wall Street, a few weeks after the trial of Lt. William Calley.

"Guilty as Lieutenant Calley may have been of the actual act of murder, the verdict does not single out the real criminal ... the United States of America," railed the future Democratic presidential hopeful.

The damning comment was unearthed by the Baltimore Sun, which reprinted Kerry's outburst in its Saturday edition exactly as quoted above.

The Sun also revisited other anti-war comments by Kerry that have yet to receive significant exposure, including remarks Kerry uttered on NBC's "Meet the Press" a few weeks after the Wall Street protest.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others," he told the network, "in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions and burned villages." (H&I is an attrocity????!!!!!)

Though NBC has the Kerry interview on tape, it has so far declined to broadcast his revealing comments.

The Sun also obtained reactions from two of Kerry's Swift Boat mates in Vietnam, who told the paper they were deeply disturbed by his anti-war activities.

Kerry crewman James Wasser said he was "absolutely upset" over his former commanding officer's claims that the U.S. committed wartime atrocities as a matter of course.

Saying he recalled no such war crimes, Wasser said of Kerry, "I felt betrayed."

Shipmate Bill Zaladonis was also offended by Kerry's claims. "I didn't like the idea [of Kerry condemning his fellow servicemen]," he told the Sun.

"I certainly didn't believe that all Vietnam veterans were baby-killing women rapers. Most people I know agree with me - they didn't see it."

While Wasser and Zaladonis remain troubled by Kerry's anti-war past, they're split over whether they intend to support him for president.

[LewWaters]

Sorry, Keith, but not 30 minutes ago, on the radio, they replayed Hannity's interview with General Franks and he was asked who he is backing in the election. He said it was not a matter of who he was backing as when to go public about who he would be backing. Hannity then asked which way was he leaning and he stated he was leaning towards George Bush, no surprise there.

Back to your own transcript supplied;

FRANKS (continuing directly): I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam. One was the lack of leadership of young people like in—in John Kerry's position.

Very telling
_________________
Clark County Conservative

[fortdixlover]

[Theresa Alwood]

I heard the interview with General Franks also. What Mr Nolan fails to say about the interview with Gereral Franks...is that he was not going to say who he was voting for but as Sean pressed...General Franks remarked he "leaning toward President Bush"...apparently with a wink.
_________________
Born to raise a little hell!

[You Bic?]

Was this you Kieth?


Kerry's Winter Soldiers

This essay was written during an online exchange between author John Boyle and Vietnam War historian Keith Nolan, who wrote, in reference to viewing a tape of parts of the VVAW's Winter Soldier Investigation:

"In any event, I didn't hear any testimony that should have sent John Kerry running for the exit."

I suppose I could write a book on that truly sorry business in Detroit in late January and early February of 1971, for which Jane Fonda helped raise the money and John Kerry dutifully "vetted" some of the witnesses and sat as "Moderator" of one of the "Panels."

In general terms, be mindful that several of the "witnesses" were on a semi-professional tour of many places like Oslo and Moscow, where they were lionized by folks like the Pathet Lao. And that these tribunals were numerous and had been around the world for years, especially in Europe. The permanent one in Oslo was funded by the Soviet KGB.

None of this is particularly difficult to research, because the participants are still happy to brag about it.

Be mindful that several (not all) of the witnesses were fakes. How many more were phonies beyond the known dozen or so has yet to be definitively proven. Be patient.

Be mindful that everyone involved with the enterprise refused to cooperate with any of the several investigative agencies that tried to verify or refute these stories - supposedly because of the suspect motives of all government agencies. But I think much more likely because the stories could not withstand objective investigation. VVAW, at the time, would have us believe that they did not want guilty individuals punished when the overall policy was really at fault. Tell that to the families of the 400 plus American service members executed for war crimes by the U.S. military during World War II. I'm sure they wonder why Eisenhower and Marshall were not shot.

Were some true? No doubt. Does that make a case for anything about government policy, the Vietnam war, the people who served in it? Is everyone in Milwaukee a cannibal because Jeffrey Dahmer was a media sensation?

But one must ask, if VVAW had anything like its claimed 40,000 members, or even the 12,000 it would report if pressed, or even the 7,000 that is more likely accurate; and if they spent considerable time recruiting "witnesses" via "coffee houses" set up outside the front gates of military bases all over the country, using inducements beyond mere coffee; and if this recruiting was helped by free ads in publications like Playboy - - - if, after all this, they were able to produce only 120 witnesses to atrocities in Vietnam, witnesses of alleged military experience in Vietnam, including John Kerry, THEN, one must ask, from this sample, from this dubious collection of people, who in their right mind would conclude not only that this was "evidence" in any rational sense, but that is was representative of the actions of 3.5 million troops over ten years or more?

If anything, all the effort put into this enterprise, and the scant results it was able to produce, strongly argues that the occurrence of atrocities by the troops in Vietnam was rare.

But the opposite conclusion was drawn by VVAW.

And that was Kerry's stated conclusion. It couldn't possibly have been his belief; but it was his stated conclusion.

And VVAW to this day bemoans the fact that the fruits of this event were unjustly ignored by the mainstream media. NO functioning journalistic enterprise with even the minimum standards of ethical behavior could possibly publish anything of the kind and maintain its credibility.

Keep in mind that most testimony regarded as credible by historians (Mr. Nolan) and legal professionals, usually consists of "who, what, where, when" and, if possible, "why." All of the witnesses at Winter Soldier spoke extensively of "what" happened. None specified "who" did it. None specified exactly "where" it happened. Time of event is fuzzy or non-existent. And the general "why" seems to be that "everyone was doing it" or it was just "fun."

Such stories can be heard in any place where veterans gather, especially if the liquor is flowing, and most especially if some of the story tellers are not veterans at all.

How convenient for the brave witnesses to be shielded both from legal actions for libel and/or prosecution for crimes if they themselves did the things they testified to. Just be as vague as possible as to verifiable details, and your butt is good to go.

Now one may assume that all these diverse people could not all employ the same rhetorical limitations entirely on their own. So some kind of coaching had to have taken place, at a minimum.

Some of the events described defy the laws of physics and the ballistic properties of explosive devices (Joe Bangert seemed to be an expert in this sort of pornographic fantasy). Much else is just twisted opinion of commonly occurring war-time events often heard from malcontents in any military organization.

And I have often wondered lately about John Kerry's choice of words in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which enshrined this travesty into "truth" for all of American history - and which brings me here today. How he characterized the Winter Soldier investigation was, "They told the stories at times they had personally raped..."

"Stories..." he said. This was perhaps some of his guide Adam Walinsky's best legal foresight.

I wonder, was that one word deliberately used to provide cover some long time hence, if the truth ever got out about the Winter Soldier investigation? "Hey guys, I said they were only stories -- honest!"

Now that would be prime Kerry.

John Boyle 19th Combat Engineers RVN 11/66 - 2/68

[fortdixlover]