SwiftVets.com

[KeithNolan]

Just stumbled across an interesting article about Bush and Kerry by James Webb. For most of you, James Webb needs no introduction. For that handful who don't know the name, Webb graduated from Annapolis in 1968 and served as a platoon leader and company commander in 1/5 Marines in Vietnam, 1969-70. Webb earned the Navy Cross and Silver Star, and was wounded seriously enough to force his medical retirement from the Marine Corps. He wrote the classic war novel FIELDS OF FIRE, and has been actively involved in politics and veterans issues for decades, serving a stint, for example, as Sec of the Navy under President Reagan.

In other words, Webb is the real deal. Webb is very hawkish on issues related to the Vietnam War, and you guys will love his take on Kerry's involvement with the VVAW. (Interestingly, unlike many posters here, Webb refrains from casting aspersions on Kerry's actual combat service in Vietnam.)

I'd be curious what you guys think, however, of Webb's comments on Bush. Webb apparently doesn't see the world in the same black-and-white tones as many of his fellow Republicans Thanks, Keith Nolan.


USA TODAY
February 19, 2004

Veterans Face Conundrum: Kerry or Bush?
by James Webb


Both Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and President Bush have had their attackers and defenders on the issue of Vietnam War service. But given Kerry's infamous anti-war activities, it is striking that many Vietnam veterans have chosen either to support him or maintain a skeptical distance from both camps. Indeed, Kerry's wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, which jump-started his campaign, often are attributed to his support among veterans.

Having been involved in veterans' issues since the 1970s, I know many veterans who in earlier days spoke of their disdain for Kerry but are now holding their fire. Kerry's negatives, however, do not automatically become Bush's positives, particularly when the focus of many now is on America's involvement in postwar Iraq. And in that context, the most important question is how - or whether - each candidate proposes to end the United States' military presence there.

To be sure, Kerry deserves condemnation for his activities as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (WAW). In the early 1970s,this small organization - never more than 7,000 veterans out of a potential pool of 9 million- became the darling of the anti-war movement and the liberal media. Its activities went far beyond simply criticizing the politics of the war to repeatedly and dishonestly misrepresenting the service of Vietnam veterans and the positive feelings most felt after serving.

Kerry and his WAW compatriots portrayed their fellow veterans as unwilling soldiers, morally debased and haunted by their service. While this might have fit a small minority, the most accurate survey, done by the Harris Poll in 1980, showed that 91% of those who went to Vietnam were "glad they served their country," 74%"enjoyed their time in the military" and 89% agreed with the statement that "our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win."

Kerry's own comments were filled with hyperbolic exaggerations that sought to make egregious acts seem commonplace. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971, he testified that fellow veterans had routinely "raped, cut off 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 fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan. "With those words, he defamed a generation of honorable men. No matter how he spins it today, at a minimum, he owes them a full and complete apology.

The view that Kerry remained on the "wrong side" of the war was compounded by his failure to consult with leaders of America's million-plus Vietnamese community while playing a dominant role in the normalization of relations with communist Vietnam during the early 1990s. Many Vietnamese-Americans believe Kerry has been an apologist for the Hanoi government on such key issues as human rights. Kerry personally has bottled up the Vietnamese Human Rights Act, which twice passed the House by wide majorities, so that it cannot even be debated on the Senate floor.

But in the zero-sum game of a presidential campaign, to go after Kerry is to give a free pass to Bush, whose actions then and now deserve no prizes. Recent statements defending Bush claim that the National Guard was not a haven for those who wished to avoid Vietnam; but it clearly was. According to the National Guard Association, only some 9,000 Army Guardsmen and 9,343 Air Guardsmen served in Vietnam. Considering that nearly 3 million from the active forces did so, one begins to understand why so many of America's elites headed for the Guard when their draft numbers were called.

Bush used his father's political influence to move past many on the Texas Guard's waiting list. He was not required to attend Officer Candidate School to earn his commission. He lost his flight status after failing to show up for a required annual physical. These facts alone raise the eyebrows of those who took a different path in a war that for the Marine Corps brought more casualties than even World War II.

The Bush campaign now claims that these issues are largely moot and that Bush has proved himself as a competent and daring "war president." And yet his actions in Iraq, and the vicious attacks against anyone who disagrees with his administration's logic, give many veterans serious pause.

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modem memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.

At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries.

Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their message.

Most seriously, Bush has yet to explain the exact circumstances under which American military forces will be withdrawn from Iraq.

Nor has Kerry given us a picture of how his strategy would differ from the course that has been set.

Once these answers are given, all of us will be able to understand more clearly the true legacy of the past.

[carpro]

[Marine4life]

So does mine and I deleted it all! I support Bush 100% and condem Kerry for what he has done 100%. Furthermore I don't know any Vet that is willing to give Kerry a pass on his 1971 activities or his voting record on military issues. And the lie about Bush being AWOL, well I just take it with a grain of salt. In that article you could delete Bush and replace it with Kerry and be telling the truth, he is a child of oppertunity as well, 4 months, early out so he could lie in winter soldiers etc. then protest under the VC flag. If this is truely Mr. Webbs words then I guess he is speaking to the 1% that is supporting Kerry, or comes with a large paycheck from the DNC. Either dosen't matter, I know what the Vets are saying and it is not in tempo with this article. Semper Fi.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes.

[ASPB]

Actually Carpro,

You just edited out the partisan BS. See My post on
"Mother May I?"
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB

[Me#1You#10]

[Marine4life]

Anything that comes out of the USA Today is like the enquirer. Webb might have said some of that but I would assure you he wasn't quoted truthfully and accurately. I will wait til he comes on TV and says that the Vets are angry at Bush, I just don't see it happening. This is a typical Nolan post. We know that the Vets are angry at Kerry not Bush and this is just more left spin, a little inuendo here and there to make everyone believe that we are mad at Bush so they will hopefully vote for Kerry. You know plant the seed that the former military back Kerry then everyone will just blindly vote Kerry in. This report probably came from moveon.org. Semper Fi.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes.

[carpro]

[KeithNolan]

Speedy might exaggerate, but his point is obvious: I mean, the first response from one poster was to accuse James Webb of being in the pay of the DNC. Come again?!

edited by Moderator

Keith Nolan

[carpro]

[KeithNolan]

James Webb holds no special place in your heart, even though you both fought as Marines in I Corps and both share the same core conservative beliefs? Even though Webb has spent decades defending Vietnam veterans against attacks from the Left?

It seems to me that most posters here are less concerned with what a veteran did or did not do in Vietnam, but whether that veteran adheres to the Republican party line. Webb did not. Therefore, you dismiss him as just another guy mouthing an opinion.

By the way, I recently saw your thread, casting aspersions and doubts on Kerry's Silver Star. Not what I would have expected from one of the few individuals here who I considered to be a straight-shooter.

KWN

[Marine4life]

That is the point that you don't understand, we are all straight shooters. You are the missfire. I don't believe that Webb said those things in that context, I think that they were twisted. It is not beyond the realm that he was bought off, the swifties that have been travelling with Kerry are. So twist away Mr. Nolan you are not going to change any minds here, call us Bush lovers or what ever you want. The fact is that he is the man to get us back to where we need to be. Kerry is not. I don't think your inuendo about us writing Webb off is appropriate, the only Vet that we have written off is Kerry, we would still go to battle with Webb and you know it. If you don't then you just don't have a clue about Vets. I know many Vets that have a different opinion than mine, democrat Vets that is, and I would give blood for them without question. So do not come here to spin your agenda. Semper Fi.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes.

[carpro]

[KeithNolan]

TO CARPO: give me the punchline, please: just what was your final conclusion about Kerry's Silver Star?

TO MARINE4LIFE: Webb's words were not twisted. They come directly from his website. To believe that Webb would sell his integrity to the DNC is preposterous. As you'll notice, his comments about Kerry's days with the VVAW are not exactly DNC-approved.

As to your comment that you would gladly go into battle with James Webb, I'm curious as to the details of your battle experience in Vietnam. I'm not being rude here (I'm not a veteran of anything, so if your service is none of my business just say so), but I'm confused in that you were apparently an enlisted man in the Marines but served in a unit which sent Cobras into battle---and Cobras were a kind of helicopter which were flown by officers and had no door gunners. Perhaps you were used as an emergency door gunner by other aviation units? Perhaps you were stationed at Chu Lai, which was frequently hit by enemy rockets? Is that what you're talking about?

Like I said, all of this might be none of my business. Considering how much dissin' you've done, however, on John Kerry's combat service in Vietnam, I'm just curious about your own.

KWN

[George F. Thompson]

Nolan, you are way out of line to cast aspersions about Marine4Life's combat experience or as to what his MOS required him to do in that enviroment. Do you allude to the aspect that if you didn't have personal contact with the VC your experience didn't count. Or is it that because you personally interviewd real combat troops you fully understand what we went through. you don't have a clue. I have more respect for a pogue in the rear than I do for an apologist for Kerry. I don't know why anyone wastes their time and effort to respond to your BS. Hopefully others will ostracize social parasites who live vicariously through the exploits of true men.


George F. Thompson, Msgt, USAF, Ret.
Combat Illuminator Operator, AC-130 Gunships ( SPECTRE )
16th SOS, RTAFB, Ubon, Thailand ( Ho Chi Minh Trail, Loas, Cambodia, Viet Nam. 73-74

[KeithNolan]

edited by moderator. I find your post very offensive and degrading to the Veterans on this site. I know of no Veteran here that has 'bragged' about his combat experiences, or stated that because of their combat experiences or time incountry that they are bigger, badder, etc., than John Kerry.

Stop with the insults, or you are out of here! This is your last warning!