 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
waltjones
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 392
Location: 'bout 40 miles north of Seattle
|
 Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 10:58 pm Post subject: Keith Nolan's error |
 |
|
First, a little about me. I was in the Marines from 7/65 - 5/69. I was in Vietnam from 12/66 - 8/68, first at Phu Bai (VMO-3, UH-1Es) and then Marble Mountain (HMM-265, CH-46s) near Danang. I was an Avionics Tech. and also flew 63 combat missions, including a few in the huge CH-53. Strangely enough, it only had M60s for guns.
Second, let me make it very clear that I respect Keith Nolan's writing and research abilities, and his extensive knowledge of the Vietnam war. That's why the error is so puzzling.
The error is this: Mr. Nolan honestly believes - and I apologize for previously saying otherwise - that the SwiftBoats for Truth are politically driven, and by extension, many of us Vietnam vets are feeding off that and being misled. See quote below:
| Quote: | 1.) you are aligning yourself with an organization that is spreading lies about Kerry having committed war crimes and having behaved cowardly in Vietnam for political reasons (we've got an election coming up) and in revenge for the lies they believe he told in 1971 (which is either rank hypocrisy or poetic justice, depending on your politics)
2.) you are aligning yourself with dirty tricksters who also spread lies about the Vietnam service of John McCain and Max Cleland, true American heroes who never had anything to do with the VVAW/Winter Soldiers Investigation. |
I do not know each and every one of the 200+ Swift Boat Vets who signed the letter saying they believed John Kerry is unfit to be CIC. I don't know each of the 12 of 19 of his fellow officers that served with him, plus all his Commanding Officers (in 'Nam) who signed the letter. They stated why they wrote and signed it, but apparently Keith Nolan seriously doubts their motives.
Please let me tell you how I feel. I have been doing my own research on this since early February, before ever seeing the WinterSoldier site or this group was formed. The first thing I did was to read his Senate testimony.
It was later that I happened to see the cover of his book, The New Soldier (see Calling All Marines topic). I have read a great deal of information here at this site on both sides, including your posts. I honestly believe that Kerry slandered his comrades in arms, thus harming them and our POWs; I believe he committed, if not (as some argue) the legal definition of treason, that he was a traitor as far as this Marine Vietnam vet is concerned, by marching under a VC flag in VVAW demos and speaking with both the PRG (VC, Madame Binh) and the DRV (North Vietnam); and I believe he has dishonored one of this country's most important symbols along with 6,801 dead Marines with his New Soldier's cover photo - a parody of the Iwo Jima memorial. Note that every Marine I've shown that to recognizes what filth it is without any suggestions from me.
Mr. Nolan: I respectfully but firmly disagree with your conclusions. I have yet to find a Vietnam vet who - if aware of Kerry's Senate testimony - will support him. I'm not sure why you've made this error, Mr. Nolan, but you mentioned Bush II - who has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel about Kerry - a couple of times in a self-described "rant". Could political bias be affecting your perception, as you expressed above? I suppose it could also be like a man truly understanding how a woman feels during childbirth - he just can't. If you wish to contact me for further authentication, feel free to via PM, but I guarantee you won't shake my beliefs - indeed, my intense dislike for John Kerry. Thank you and Semper Fi!
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As we are in the midst of a true cultural civil war, I will be a bit more direct in my critique of Mr. Nolan.
Mr. Nolan:
I'm happy to see that you've written 10 books about Vietnam. And I'm learning from your posts that you're most definitely an excellent fiction writer. Many fiction books have been written about Vietnam; what makes you think yours stand out? Clearly your books are based on fiction, since you seem to not be able to grasp or connect some basic facts. As an example of the facts, many of the people who served with Kerry, and were in positions of authority over him, are telling you right here in this website what they think of him. They created the website for that very purpose. Their opinion differs substantially and materially from your statement that "there is no meat to any of these attacks."
I call your attention to another fact: these people revealed yesterday in a number of venues that they expedited getting Kerry out of their hair and out of Vietnam because he was a disruptive d*ckhead ( e.g., http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38483 and http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3539 ). Did you bother reading about this?
Is this site "politically driven?" You bet it is. However: it is not partisan-driven. Not-so-subtle difference there. It is driven by a simple political calculus: these men believe Kerry as President would be a disaster for the country, from their personal experience - experience so unpleasant they felt compelled to share it rather than remain in anonymous retirement. Not to mention their belief that Kerry was a traitor after they got him off their a**, which scares the bejesus out of them regarding the implications should he become Commander in Chief.
That you fail to grasp these issues means that not only are you a fiction writer, but that you are deluded. Either that, or you feel the creators of the site are dishonorable and liars.
Sir, which is it?
If the latter, as appears to be the case, then you, sir, are here to harrass and add insult to the injury these people suffered on their return from Vietnam - an injury initiated by the anti-war antics of people like Kerry. That's the height of crassness and insensitivity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waltjones
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 392
Location: 'bout 40 miles north of Seattle
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 12:36 am Post subject: Injury |
|
|
I know that a lot of Vietnam vets are getting stirred up by this stuff, some of whom are hearing Kerry's Senate testimony for the first time. Not one vet - of any era - had seen the cover photo of his book before I've shown it to them. They don't need partisan hacks or anybody else to "mislead" them. I'm here because I believe these guys allright, but it's also because I was overjoyed to find I'm not alone. Does it hurt to bring this stuff up? You bet; I've had WAY too much adrenaline flowing lately, and I know that's not good for me. I honestly believe many Vietnam vets feel the same way. If Kerry could apologize, both for the slander against us and the dishonor to the Corps' most sacred symbol, maybe I could stop hating him - then any remaining issues I had with him WOULD be political. FortDixLover is right - there is a political side to all of this because we either see this as a way to avenge what he did to us OR we don't feel he's fit to serve as CIC. In my case, it's both. Semper Fi!
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
fortdixlover characterized it well...
"is this site "politically driven?" You bet it is. However: it is not partisan-driven. Not-so-subtle difference there"
At the Swifty's initial press conference, the reporters pressed the same question about partisanship.
John ONeill replied [ paraphrasing] that they were of all politcal beliefs, and agreed on only one thing, and that was that Kerry shouldnt be CiC.
He also said that if the Democratic party put forth another candiate that they [the Swiftys] would be gone.
I believe them, that they are not about being against the Dem party....they are against the
party's nominee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 3:33 am Post subject: Re: Keith Nolan's error |
|
|
| waltjones wrote: |
| Quote: | 1.) you are aligning yourself with an organization that is spreading lies about Kerry having committed war crimes and having behaved cowardly in Vietnam for political reasons (we've got an election coming up) and in revenge for the lies they believe he told in 1971 (which is either rank hypocrisy or poetic justice, depending on your politics)
2.) you are aligning yourself with dirty tricksters who also spread lies about the Vietnam service of John McCain and Max Cleland, true American heroes who never had anything to do with the VVAW/Winter Soldiers Investigation. |
I do not know each and every one of the 200+ Swift Boat Vets who signed the letter saying they believed John Kerry is unfit to be CIC. I don't know each of the 12 of 19 of his fellow officers that served with him, plus all his Commanding Officers (in 'Nam) who signed the letter. They stated why they wrote and signed it, but apparently Keith Nolan seriously doubts their motives.
|
I believe the issue is about the agenda of the founders of the group.
As for that bit about marching under Vietnamese flag I have not found anyone to point out where Kerry was in the pictures of folks with such flags.
Myself attended and was involved in some demonstrations and while I do not recall ever seeing Vietnamese flags I would bet my money there was some somewhere. Hell, sometimes people were flapping so much stuff around that there may even be pic of me standing near to one or under one that I didn't notice.
Powers that be probably got pics of nearly everyone in attendance. They could afford damned fine cameras too. 
I saw other banners and crap I didn't think too well of and I witnessed behavior I did not approve of. But even when organizers might try to police there own there came to be so many that there was no way. And then there were provocateurs. Who can know what of the folks carrying the enemies flag was not there with intent to discredit - Same with some of the vandals. While most I saw were probably just ******** I noticed a few who didn't look right and might be gone pretty quick when the mischief started.
Actually there is a thing about organizations and leadership positions - positions of relative power and prestige. They tend to attract people who crave the position of power and prestige and whatever the cause might be somewhat secondary. There was numbers of leaders of this and that excitedly carrying on that I just found irritating to listen to. I thought the more sincere mostly less noisy - LOL but I guess I have met noisy sincere too.
You didn't say what you thought of the smear on McCain and Cleland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waltjones
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 392
Location: 'bout 40 miles north of Seattle
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 3:46 am Post subject: political bickering |
|
|
Craig:
Regarding Cleland and McCain, I don't know the details for Cleland. I do know he picked up a "friendly" grenade and it went off - a tragic accident that probably was nobody's fault. I also know he wasn't what most Vietnam vets would call a "war hero"; he was just another one of us, and if anyone criticized his service, I believe they were wrong.
As for McCain, I have nothing but the highest regard for him. He IS a hero, by anyone's standard. If you can prove that anybody who signed the Swift Boat Vets open letter declaring Kerry unfit for CIC has unfairly criticized McCain, tell me and I will take it up with them directly!
Please don't take this wrong, Craig, but it's hard for me to believe how you aren't aware of Kerry's VVAW activities in more detail, but that's OK and just one part of it. I have noticed an improvement in the tone of your "conversation"; I also hope to improve further in that respect. Thanks for a reasonable response and Semper Fi!
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scottc
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am a vet, but not of 'nam.
I was too young for that one.
I have the highest regard for my brothers that served under those most dire of circumstances.
Therefore, I can not have direct, personal knowledge of Mr. Heinz war record. However, I do know that any two men that serve honorably with each other would take that brother to the grave. The fact that so many who served with Mr. Heinz would come out against him is proof positive of the type of person he is.
You could take a farm-boy from Iowa and a brother from Brooklyn, give them rifles and send them into the jungle for four months and they would come out loving each other to the grave. Why is this not true with Kerry?
We got five months people. We all took an oath. We can not allow a communist to sit in the White House. Ike would be spinning in his grave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| waltjones wrote: | Craig:
Regarding Cleland and McCain, I don't know the details for Cleland. I do know he picked up a "friendly" grenade and it went off - a tragic accident that probably was nobody's fault. I also know he wasn't what most Vietnam vets would call a "war hero"; he was just another one of us, and if anyone criticized his service, I believe they were wrong.
As for McCain, I have nothing but the highest regard for him. He IS a hero, by anyone's standard. If you can prove that anybody who signed the Swift Boat Vets open letter declaring Kerry unfit for CIC has unfairly criticized McCain, tell me and I will take it up with them directly!
Please don't take this wrong, Craig, but it's hard for me to believe how you aren't aware of Kerry's VVAW activities in more detail, but that's OK and just one part of it. I have noticed an improvement in the tone of your "conversation"; I also hope to improve further in that respect. Thanks for a reasonable response and Semper Fi! |
LOL - Tone?
Lets say that I can be a real follower. Let someone else set the tone. In Usenet I like to take it to extreme. If someone wants to play insult why go halfway about it?
If a fight in inevitible I am one to wish to pass on the foreplay of insult and name calling and just get to business.
I prefer civil exchange but I can be happy with the other kind as well.
Yea - Cleland a causalty and McCain I gather aquitted his self quite well in the circumstance.
Suppose a person was slandered in ten things and a some were not true at all and some might have some basis but are distorted and expanded all out of proportion?
Well, when a person or a group presents you with emotion driven slander containing much half truths and exaggerations and some downright lies what are you going to do? If you know someone has lied to you once are you likely to have as much faith in the next thing they tell you?
Suppose that the people who would try to convince that someone is a bad parson would turn plumb rabid on anyone who might defend anything about him?
So folks defend that they think they have justification for hate. I put that right up there with justification with insanity. But then I am one to generally not indulge an emotional binge about someone I might even dislike a lot.
I guess a lot of my think on some of this started back when with that Ted Sampley. Back then if you had said Kerry to me I'd have wondered who that was. I read about him and McCain but Kerry's name did not stick with me. McCain might have had me to actually voted Republican ?? I dunno.
Anyway - I got into reading a lot of stuff about that POW-MIA stuff. Been a lot of cruel explot of people who would graps at any straw.
But near as I can tell that Sampley is not associated with this thing. Some of the folks seem to overlap though.
Did you ever see transcript of some Nixon tape and conversation with O'Neil? Only thing I could ever find only had Nixons side of the conversation that O'Neil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waltjones
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 392
Location: 'bout 40 miles north of Seattle
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 1:25 pm Post subject: hate and insanity |
|
|
Craig said:
So folks defend that they think they have justification for hate. I put that right up there with justification with insanity.
That's an extremely interesting comparison, and some damn good insight! I think that sometimes hate can be equivalent to, or a form of insanity, but what about those cases when hatred is needed to say, kill the enemy? What about the case when say, a husband catches a couple of home invaders raping his wife? Does he have to get mad to do something, or should we separate anger from hate? Maybe hatred in warfare is becoming unnecessary as the killing becomes more remote and technical. Of course, I don't think that can be said of homicide bombers and the like; they're definitely still into the hatred thing. So many questions, so little time ..... With me, the hatred for Kerry seems to be in a core deep inside; I know it's not good for me, but it's not easily gotten rid of. Semper Fi!
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 4:26 pm Post subject: Re: hate and insanity |
|
|
| waltjones wrote: | Craig said:
So folks defend that they think they have justification for hate. I put that right up there with justification with insanity.
That's an extremely interesting comparison, and some damn good insight! I think that sometimes hate can be equivalent to, or a form of insanity, but what about those cases when hatred is needed to say, kill the enemy? What about the case when say, a husband catches a couple of home invaders raping his wife? Does he have to get mad to do something, or should we separate anger from hate? Maybe hatred in warfare is becoming unnecessary as the killing becomes more remote and technical. Of course, I don't think that can be said of homicide bombers and the like; they're definitely still into the hatred thing. So many questions, so little time ..... With me, the hatred for Kerry seems to be in a core deep inside; I know it's not good for me, but it's not easily gotten rid of. Semper Fi! |
"... but it's not easily gotten rid of ...." I can sure relate to that.
I've found that not giving it expression - that is to not deny it exists nor try to suppress it but to not act on it.
I think of an interview with Hollyfield (SP?) one time where he explained that he does not indulge in hate or anger at his opponent but he just goes about it like a job.
LOL - Foreman did a joke one time on a comedy program (Home Improvement) when he was supposed to hammer a nail. "I gotta get mad wif' it before I can hit it." - I like both them folks.
In my view a person can be more efficient fighting or killing if they can remain dispassionate about it. One makes less mistakes if they can keep a cool head. Anger and fear are very related and both can drive one to poor decisions and error.
Does one have to get mad? There are certainly situations where almost anyone would get mad and one could hardly fault them - but no. I do not believe one has to get mad. There is a relative truth: "Revenge is best served cold."
In my adult life I have never been beat up and haven't gotten into much more than maybe half dozen fist fights. I never attached the other person but I was good enough getting them to attack me if I wanted. I was always happy enough after the name calling ******** and we commenced to business.
I never really beat anyone up either. When I got the upper had I didn't (maybe couldn't) press it. Other times the opponent suggested we do something else.
Maybe some people do "need" to hate to do assault or to kill. I don't think I'd want them at my back if I had options though.
Would you rather follow a leader who you hate but might lead to accomplish the mission or one who is incompetent but is your friend?
But with hate could you see them clearly which might be the more or less competent? (Don't take that in relation to the candidates - I am just generalizing)
I can tell who all I don't value much of what they offer about their opinion and even the evidence they might present and that is ones who can find no flaw in their own favorite and nothing redeeming in the other. That included more than just the candidates - it comes to the whole groups who would make blanket judgments to accuse the other party. I sure do not now much of anyone who is so pure liberal nor conservative. - I do know one person who considers self to be hundred percent Democrat and seems kind of bewildered when I point out that it is the Democrat more likely than the Republican wanting to take the guns away.
Oh well, at home I have gotten in trouble for saying much of anything critical of Clinton.
There is some things of "Rage of the moment" to consider in that hate thing. Maybe rage would generally be a temporary affliction while hate be ongoing but they quite related.
I knew a fellow who was being robbed and took the gun away from the robber and shot the robber a couple times - it would have been certainly fatal right then was claimed of the autopsy. But I gather witness heard a few seconds break before the third shot that was put in the guys head. My acquaintance got seven years for the pause before that third shot.
I heard years ago that some state law (Texas?) that if a man found his wife and a guy in bed and shot the guy right now he might be justified by the law. But if the guy got away and the husband hunted him down it would just homicide.
Oh well, enough of that topic. A person could probably write a book on it and I am not having one of my better mornings - need another caffeine fix ..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2004 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scottc wrote: |
You could take a farm-boy from Iowa and a brother from Brooklyn, give them rifles and send them into the jungle for four months and they would come out loving each other to the grave. Why is this not true with Kerry?
|
Except for one is that not true with Kerry?
I gather that there is one who served on a Swift Boat with him who has come out against him and there seems to have been special circumstance in relation to that one.
What is the rest who have come out against him?
Some gave him glowing reports back then. Some only even really know about him through what has been said and read and what they have seen that Kerry was noticed by the news. He did not 'go to the bush' with them folks.
So it seems that most who had first hand experience with him in dire straights have one thing to say and then most others who come out against him are putting the worst slant they can on things they have read or heard about the events.
Then some of them folks might claim "You cannot understand because you were not there." - Maybe them same people would make same sort of argument against a jury trial for an accused?
They guys who were actually on the boat with him could as well make same claim to someone who was on same sort of boat somewhere else - "you were not there". The folks on the other boat might have opportunity to 'understand' more than someone who was never in similar circumstance at all but they still judge an event differently than those who had first hand view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waltjones
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 392
Location: 'bout 40 miles north of Seattle
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 1:21 am Post subject: The guys on the boat |
|
|
As for the guys on the boat, aren't there just a couple left who actually support him? Thatisall ....
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 2:23 am Post subject: Re: The guys on the boat |
|
|
| waltjones wrote: | | As for the guys on the boat, aren't there just a couple left who actually support him? Thatisall .... |
I will just guess at who you are addressing and which boat you are talking about.
Are any of the folks b****ing about their pictures being used the ones who served with him in combat - doing missions on Swift Boat?
Maybe I have a mis perception or maybe there is a mis perception being promoted.
I had the impression that folks who actually crewed with him there was one sorehead who had a grudge.
Somehow I suspect that it is your misperception and has resulted from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth malicious slander. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waltjones
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 392
Location: 'bout 40 miles north of Seattle
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 3:51 am Post subject: Kerry's crew |
|
|
Craig: Ouch! Yeah, you're probably right. I was talking about the 19 person photo, which I think are the officers who served with him. Although I'm sure a few might have actually gone on missions with him or been in boats with him on multi-vessel missions, they aren't his regular crewmembers. Semper Fi!
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 4:16 am Post subject: Re: Kerry's crew |
|
|
| waltjones wrote: | | Although I'm sure a few might have actually gone on missions with him or been in boats with him on multi-vessel missions, they aren't his regular crewmembers. |
Which brings up another questions - just how "regular" could his crewmembers have been? He was in four different units in his four months there. 
One of the speakers in the press conference said he picked up his first crew when he arrived and six months later got a second crew - 10 members, right?
John Kerry had (if I remember correctly) a total of 15 different subordinate crewmembers in four months.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
