SwiftVets.com

[Indianbaboon]

critiques please:

On July 30, 2004, John Kerry ‘reported for duty’ at the Democratic National Convention. A self-proclaimed war hero, he has ignored 19 years of service as a senator—possibly because he did nothing of substance in those two decades—and instead put forth an image of a world-weary veteran who knows the face of war and will do better to serve our troops than the current administration. This article won’t bother to attack the particulars of his service, mainly because the Swift Boat Vets for Truth are doing such an outstanding job for us; instead, it will focus on his actions after he returned home, and especially his actions as head of the one senate committee he ever held a leadership position in.

What is known about John Kerry’s political actions is that they started almost immediately upon his return to the United States. As the spokesman of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he was perhaps the most powerful firebrand in the entire anti-war protesting community. It was he who first used the word ‘baby killers’ to describe returning vets and it was he and his group that mocked the uniform and the people as they returned home from a year or more (many times his 4 months in country) on the thin red line. A recent research finding by Yale University researchers has directly implicated Kerry and his other fellow protesters in the sharp rise in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms in returning Vietnam veterans, believing that the lack of a sense of community and patriotism brought to bear by protesters was not an amenable environment to men who have seen the ravages of battle.

Today, he spins it as concern for the soldiers and a desire to pull them out of harm's way. But looking at his own words and actions, this is quite the untenable position. On the cover of his little heard of book The New Soldier is a mock depiction of the Iwo Jima flag raising, the one upon which the famous war memorial is based. The soldiers in the picture are dishevelled with dirty beards, bandanas, unbuttoned fatigues, and bottles of alcohol in their hands. The flag being raised is upside down.

The contents of the book are even more damming. Early in the book they say that “this country...has created a monster in the form of thousands of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence...men who have returned with a sense of anger and betrayal.” Sure, I can sort of see his point here, but it kind of comes across as a threat doesn't it? You have created this monster, and we are angry. Mary Shelley's estate has engaged a copyright lawyer and is now prosecuting Kerry, et al. For theft of intellectual property.

That phrase is repeated verbatim 4 times in the book. Three times alone during his senate testimony. Most have heard of the now infamous war crimes testimony of John Kerry, which he too has admitted to being party to. Later on during his testimony, he cites that some “60 to 80 percent stay stoned 24 hours a day.” Now for the facts, 91% of surveyed vietnam veterans say they are proud of their service, not angry and disenfranchised. 74% of them would go back, knowing the outcome. Finally, it has been determined through the Veterans Administration that the rate of drug use among soldiers was no different than that of civilians of the era. And even during the height of hippie-dom 80% of the country was NOT smoking up. John Kerry and his ilk chose to characterize our soldiers as some kind of monstrous machines, human in form but not in conscience, who were all drugged up, who all took joy from raping and pillaging, and non of whom actually believed in the war.

We also know that in 1971, Kerry, as an officer on inactive ready reserve duty, traveled to Paris in order to hold peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese government without orders or knowledge of the government, an act that undermined authority, and as such qualifies as a treasonous act. That same year, FBI files show that Kerry attended a VVAW meeting where a vote was taken on whether or not to assassinate several pro-war senators. But that’s ok, his campaign now tells us, because even though he was a part of such an organization, he voted not to assassinate these men. I’m definitely breathing a sigh of relief right now.

As a member of VVAW, John Kerry was a proponent of the People’s Peace Treaty. This treaty called for first the complete pullout of American troops and then negotiations over the return of POWs. Like that makes any sense, give the North Vietnamese what they want and then expect them to hand over the thousands of people they had been torturing out of gratitude…His pressure for the normalization of relations with Vietnam was a well known fact going into the only leadership role he’s ever held in government as the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA affairs in 1992. 591 POWs were returned in 1973, leaving 2200 soldiers still unaccounted for. By 1992 when Kerry’s committee took over, the Defense Intelligence Agency had received over 1600 firsthand sightings of POWs and 14000 secondhand reports. Through the 1980s, intelligence agencies routinely intercepted radio messages from Laos and Vietnam speaking of transferring American POWs from one location to another. There were also over 300 sightings of words, names, and secret 4 digit authentication codes known only by bomber pilots carved into hillsides in Vietnam and Laos.

In Kerry’s committee’s 1223 page report on the subject, they drew the conclusion that no POW was left alive. Interestingly enough, many staff documents prepared by the committee’s investigators and analysts insisted that without a doubt some American POWs were alive as late as 1989, the latest their data went. Two of the senators, Bob Smith and Charles Grassley dissented with the committee’s conclusion and stated vocally that live-sighting and amassed data indicated that POWs were still alive. In the final report, this objection was relegated to a tiny footnote.

Now, what would John Kerry’s motive be to so strongly run roughshod over any and all data about the existence of POW/MIAs? He was a soldier advocate after all...But then again his first cousin was CEO of Colliers Intl, a real estate company only awaiting the normalization of relations between Vietnam and the US to become the sole broker of deals within Vietnam, a deal worth some 905 million dollars.

Even more damming is the fact that on April 9, 1992, John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, ordered the systematic shredding of copies of live sighting reports, preventing them from entering the National Archives and becoming available to the public. John F. McReary, a member of the Committee would file impeachment charges with both the senate ethics committee and the Massachusetts Bar association. McReary also made several depositions during his tenure as part of the committee about suspicious leaking of information to the Vietnamese throughout the Committee’s life.

In 1994, Kerry was named Co-chairman of the US/Russia joint commission on POW/MIA affairs. The intelligence liason for Congress and the DoD during that time period has been gracious enough to tell this author about the commision and the men involved in it. In the 4 years he worked for the project, he met with congressional staff and members of congress themselves many times a month. Mr. Kerry never once made an appearance. As the individual responsible for writing and delivering the weekly intelligence briefings to the Russian Ambassador, the congressmen, and their staff, he had a lot of contact with everyone, but never met Kerry. In fact, for ten months, Kerry's staff informed the liason not to bother sending the briefings. A soldier's advocate in action. Kerry also didn't bother to attend the prayer organized in honor of the POWs by members of the commission in both 1997 and in 1998. Although many guest speakers, POWs, and family members, all people not part of the commission, found it worthy of their time to attend the meetings, John Kerry didn't once manage to make it to his seat at the head of the table.

John Kerry mentions to us with every other breath that he served in Vietnam, but I wonder what he learned from his time there. When he came back to this country he characterized the troops as the modern Frankenstein's monster. He called them war criminals, and he called them drug addicts, all flying in the face of actual facts. I guess that's part of the much-vaunted band of brothers' mentality. John Kerry, as a soldier, should have clung to any little chance that his brothers in Vietnam were still alive. Instead he shredded the evidence that they really were alive. I'd have expected the re-enactment of the movie 'Uncommon Valor' from a passionate soldier's advocate, not 'Kerrygate'.

Although not a soldier myself, I've had the pleasure of knowing quite a few over the years. Many served in the same war as Kerry, some of them with medals, some without, but none are as boastful. Some are blinded by Kerry's “By the way, i served in Vietnam” rhetoric, some are not. But all actually believe in and understand what it means to be a part of the military and to share that trial by fire. If John F'ing Kerry meant to stop the war, he sure had a strange way of doing it. You don't ask for sympathy and you don't expect to win people to your side by characterizing yourself as a monster, a war criminal, and a drug addict. You certainly don't mock the American flag and then ask for the help of the American people. And if you are a soldiers' advocate, you might actually show up to the POW/MIA committee you're supposed to be the chairman of. Kerry's only leadership position in government is characterized by duplicity, nepotism, and enough coverup activity to get two fellow senators to stand up on the floor and mention it in the record. John F'ing Kerry has proven, time and again, that he lacks the character to lead; he may be a traitor, he may be part of the reason Vietnam vets were treated so badly, and he may have abandoned 1400 POWs for 1 billion in sales for his cousin, how much is enough before 'Anybody But Bush' stops making sense?

it's looong but I think we have plenty of space. lemme know where it's awkward, stupid, or I could be even more mean. I intend to leave all the "John F'ing Kerry"s in for the printing, ther are some benefits to writing for a college paper.

[brotherofvietvet]

"As the spokesman of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he was perhaps the most powerful firebrand in the entire anti-war protesting community. It was he who first used the word ‘baby killers’ to describe returning vets"

I remember that line, it was frequently used back then. Does anyone have references, where Kerry used the term "baby killers".

It could be that he was indicting himself, as Swiftees have said that John Kerry was the only baby killer that he knew of. Referring to the Sampan incident.
_________________
Philip H. Sanchez

[Indianbaboon]

that was the one thing in the article I was least sure of, but i threw it in anyway

[noc]

Personally though I would replace the f'ing with forbes. I think you will influence more people if you stick to the information and not personally attack him.

[Stevie]

that is great! I do agree about the f... g word

I just can't understand how this guy has survived all these years... he should have been tried and hung for treason!

maybe it isn't to late.....

I say when he loses the election, we should keep after him until he's run out of public office! of course, out of the country would be better....

I'm sure he'd be welcome in France or N Vietnam....

Tommy Franks is on fox.... I love that guy!

Franks says that what Kerry said in 1971 really bothers him....go Franks!

[GT]

Great article! College students need to know the facts on Kerry. Here are some Vietnam Warrior statistics from The Veteran Leader Vol. 17, 1998 you might want to use.

1) "97% of Vietnam era veterans were honorably discharged."
2) "Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population" (Contrast these statistics to Kerry's 1971 testimony in which he said this was a war of racism and blacks were disproportionately killed in combat.)
3) "82% of veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost because of lack of political will."
4) "Missing in Action: 2,496."

[cipher]

I'd be very wary of attributing "baby killers" to Kerry. I sincerely doubt he was the first to use the term, and I don't recall a quote directly attributed to him where he used that specific term.

I do remember the grim humor popular at the time was "Q: How can you kill babies? A: Drop your sights and don't lead them so much."

Spell check your document. "damming" is spelled "damning", for example. A lot of people get turned off by spelling errors. Avoid hyperbole, "every other breath" is a bit much. If you cite figures and statistics, then have your sources handy.

If you've ever been fisked, you learn REAL quickly to keep your ducks in a row. This election is too important to have your arguments invalidated on mechanical grounds, or bad references. Do your research.

This is *friendly* criticism. I could be brutal, but I don't want to discourage you from trying.
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92

[baldeagl]

Here's some "rules" I use for writing.

1) Stick to the facts you can prove and double check your proofs
2) Avoid accusatory terms, let the reader come to the conclusions you want naturally
3) Eliminate perjoratives wherever possible. Be dispassionate.
4) Organize your thoughts so they move logically

Here's how I would apply these rules to your article - 1 example for each

1) Don't use baby killers unless you can document it. Saying he "originated" the term puts you on the spot. He "used" the term is accurate and can be documented. (Of course, if you can document that he was the first to use the term, then by all means, do so.)

2) Don't say "he has ignored 19 years of service" - say "he apparently chose to ignore...." (In fact, if you aren't going to address the subject, then don't even bring it up.) Saying "He chose to make his service the centerpiece of his campaign" is better than "He chose.....and he has apparently ignored..."

3) Don't say "Today he spins it" - say "Today he claims" or "Today he expresses" or even "Today he says"

4) You start out by defining what you're going to address - that's good - but then you mix the subject areas throughout the article. Complete one, then move to the next, then summarize.

I find it often helps to outline the points I'm trying to make and then examine each paragraph to see if I actually address them. I also find that being ruthless with the red pen makes my writing much tighter and more impactful. If you can say it in 10 words instead of 20, do so.

Hope this helps. It's meant as constructive criticism from someone who has been paid for writing articles.
_________________
antimedia
USN OST-6 68-74
http://antimedia.blogspot.com/

[lrb111]

Although the "soldiers" on the cover of the "New Soldier" were real people, there is little doubt they were chosen for their looks. Inspired by one of kerry's heros, Che Guevara.
kerry even asked Felix Rodriquez why he had not saved Che's life, when he could have.
Of course, Che is a lead-in for yet another communist support action by kerry, the Sandinista's.

Pop Felix Rodriquez into google. here are a few starters..
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/1786_0_4_0_C/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/29/113445.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200405040828.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1174288/posts
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=180
_________________
said Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "It is inexcusable to mock service and sacrifice."
well, when even the DNC can see it,,,,, then kerry is toast.

[Indianbaboon]

thanks for all the help. it's a hack job at the moment and full of errors. It'll be polished up by me and then a couple of editors up the chain and hopefully be in print in the next couple of weeks. I'll post the final thing when it's ready