But Have You Ever Killed a Man, Mr. President?

I've mightily enjoyed John Kerry's bathetic tough-guy antics on the campaign trail--e.g. riding a Harley on the set of The Tonight Show, piloting a helicopter, etc.--and predict that if the Wisconsin primary gets tight enough, the candidate will strip off his shirt and attempt to bend iron bars, explode hot water bottles with his lung power, bench-press bikini-clad girls, the whole circus strongman shtick.

In an entertaining (if divorced from reality) column, the New York Daily News' Zev Chafets says that Kerry is running partly on the fact that he's a killer and that such macho, macho man stylings are counterproductive:

Kerry seems happy with the role of muscleman. Lately, he hardly utters a sentence without the word "fight" in it. He's going to "stand toe to toe" with Bush, and show him what combat is like "for real." Look out, Howard Dean. Jump back, Bill and Hillary. A man's man is now on the party premises.

[…]

Kerry's special appeal, to put it plainly, is that he is a killer. Thirty-five years ago, under fire, he turned his boat toward enemy soldiers, chased them down and shot them dead. Bush, for all his Texas swagger, can't match that. Hell, he doesn't have a single notch on his belt.

The Killer Qualification is a whole new thing in modern presidential politics.

[…]

He should cut it out. Kerry has had a distinguished career in public life, including nearly 20 years in the Senate. He is a thoughtful, intelligent man and a strong campaigner. There are good reasons to take his candidacy seriously. Having bagged some Viet Cong is not one of them.

I've yet to hear Kerry or any of his supporters play the killer-in-chief card, but here's hoping for an exchange about it during one of the presidential debates.

Comments

[Rick C]

Alma, would those be the three Purple Hearts he nominated himself for?

[Les]

Don, when did Kerry kill women and babies? I know Bob Kerrey had a somewhat gruesome military career and I confused the two early on.

[Mark Fox]

BabyKiller link:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html

[Don]

From the above mentioned website:

"While in command of Swift Boat 44, Kerry and crew operated without prudence in a Free Fire Zone, carelessly firing at targets of opportunity racking up a number of enemy kills and some civilians. His body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers.

"It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby. "But there was nothing that anybody could have done about it. It was the only instance of that happening."

Kerry said he was appalled that the Navy's ''free fire zone'' policy in Vietnam put civilians at such high risk."

[bigbigslacker]

There isn't not no record of Bush not being AWOL. Likewise, do Kerry's military records show he didn't kill babies? If not, I'm gonna have to assume he did.

(sorry, I'm taking an LD course in logic)

[Don]

Les,

I confused the two at first as well. In fact, I was surprised that the Dems were running someone who was responsible for what was clearly the massacre of a villiage, until I realized that it was a different guy. Both in the navy, both decorated 'nam vets, both Democratic politicians.

And, yes, both killed women and children. Bob's killings were pretty clear cut murder. Don't know the specifics about John's (except the B-40 rocketeer he "finished off", but IMO that was a reasonable act under the circumstances), so I can't say that what he did was murder.

[Mark Fox]

But there was nothing that anybody could have done about it.

"Anybody" could have, say, volunteered for the Guard, thus fulfilling some duty to Patriotism while minimizing the personal probability of pulling the trigger on a suckling babe.

[alma hadayn]

"'Anybody' could have, say, volunteered for the Guard, thus fulfilling some duty to Patriotism while minimizing the personal probability of pulling the trigger on a suckling babe."

Not unles "anybody"'s father was a prominent Republican congressman.

[chairm]

>>And BTW, from what Slate has said, only ~8,500 Guards actually went to Viet Nam.>He apparently had the connections to get into the Guards quickly.

[Les]

Thanks for the link, Mark. But I hope you're not implying that G.W. signed up for the National Guard so that he wouldn't kill any women or children. The military he presently commands doesn't have the balls necessary to even count the women and children it kills.

If you're not implying that, well then, nevermind.

[thoreau]

Civilian casualties are reprehensible, tragic, and inexcuseable.

They are also inevitable in war. It is the responsibility of soldiers and their leaders to minimize the number of casualties, but it is impossible to expect them to bring that number to zero.

Since it is impossible to guarantee zero civilian casualties, the only moral option for leaders is to refrain from war unless absolutely necessary to secure some greater good that protects more innocent lives than would be lost in the conflict.

Until I know otherwise, I conclude that John Kerry's civilian casualties were an inevitable part of war. I fault the leaders who initiated the war, and I applaud him for taking action to end the war once he returned to the US.

Some questions for those who criticize John Kerry's (not Bob Kerry's) actions in uniform and think he should have refused to serve:

1) Do you applaud those Americans who went to Canada, intentionally flunked their physicals (through all sorts of means), or resisted serving by some other means?

2) What do you think about Kerry's subsequent protests against the war? Were these the actions of a man who had seen how horrible war is and decided to try and stop it?

3) What do you think of soldiers in Iraq who may have caused civilian casualties through unintentional but perhaps ill-advised actions? Do you fault them, do you fault their leaders, or do you accept that these were the inevitable price of a more important goal?

[pchuck]

So is it now that Bush did or did not serve in the National Guard or is it being in the National Guard was not good enough? I'm confused.

[alma hadayn]

"While GWB tried to see action in Vietnam, Kerry tried to get permission to continue his education in Paris rather than be drafted."

I'm speechless, so I'll just quote w/o comment.

This is from slate.com: "To put it crudely, the mortality rate for National Guardsmen during the Vietnam War was lower than the mortality rate for rock-throwing antiwar protesters and bystanders in the Prentice Hall parking lot at Kent State on May 4, 1970, when Ohio National Guardsmen killed four of them."

[thoreau]

I might add that I was responding at least in part to Mark Fox's comment "Anybody" could have, say, volunteered for the Guard, thus fulfilling some duty to Patriotism while minimizing the personal probability of pulling the trigger on a suckling babe.

But I'm also intrigued by the comment:
While GWB tried to see action in Vietnam, Kerry tried to get permission to continue his education in Paris rather than be drafted. Failing to get approval from his draft board, Kerry joined the Navy.

However honorable Bush's guard service may or may not have been, there's no question that he could have all but guaranteed seeing action in Vietnam simply by enlisting in the Army or Marines. Sure, no guarantees (I know a guy whose father enlisted in the Army and wound up as a medic in Germany, because they say DoD works in mysterious ways...) but it would have been a pretty good bet.

If Kerry said to the gov't "I'd like to continue my education" and they say "sorry, but no" and he says "OK, I'll become a naval officer", well, that doesn't sound like a very strong effort to evade service. Sounds more like "Well, wasn't my first choice, but if I gotta do it then I'll volunteer rather than waiting for them to drag me." Nothing dishonorable about it.

Finally, Don's comment:
I know that naval aviation in particular provides lots of bullshit. Maybe Bush's reasons were as simple as that. If he wanted to avoid 'nam, he could have become a naval officier or airforce officier w/o becoming a pilot. That would have been a lot safer than joining the Guard.

Um, John Kerry became a naval officer, and he wound up in combat. John McCain was a naval officer, and he spent several years in a POW camp. Even Jesse Ventura joined the Navy, and he saw combat (or, I assume he did, since he was a SEAL). Clearly it's not always such a safe route to join the Navy.

[alma hadayn]

"While GWB tried to see action in Vietnam, Kerry tried to get permission to continue his education in Paris rather than be drafted."

I'm no longer speechless. Forgetting about the attendance question, GWB used political connections to skip a waiting list for the National Guard, left in the middle to work on a political campaign, missed a physical and lost flight status, and left eight months early to go to business school. And this is better than Kerry, who saw combat and was awarded a silver star, a bronze star, 3 purple hearts, and a presidential unit citation medal for extraordinary heroism. Speechless again.

[Mike H.]

"I'm no longer speechless. Forgetting about the attendance question, GWB used political connections to skip a waiting list for the National Guard, left in the middle to work on a political campaign, missed a physical and lost flight status, and left eight months early to go to business school. And this is better than Kerry, who saw combat and was awarded a silver star, a bronze star, 3 purple hearts, and a presidential unit citation medal for extraordinary heroism. Speechless again."

The missing of the flight physical thingy was apparently not a big deal as the F-102 was on it's way to retirement; another reason why Palace Alert was called off.

Also, apparently the Guard is very good at letting it's citizen-soldiers pursue their civilian careers, and Georgie-boy getting out 6 months early wasn't out of the ordinary for Guard service.

But then again, I could be wrong. 🙂

[Ruthless]

As an impartial anarchist observer, I do now hereby declare this killin'/pissin' contest between Kerry and Bush to be a draw.
Now looking at the bigger picture, killing is one of those things, like garbage collection, so brainless that even government can do it.
Another thing government has in its favor that mutually reinforces its facility in killing is the natural human tendency to form a "pack," like dogs, expressly for the purpose of killing.
Because war happens to be what government does best, it wants to declare a war on poverty, a war on drugs... ad nauseum.

[chairm]

alma hadayn, with your citation of Slate you seem to have conflated the general population of National Guardsmen in the Vietnam war period with the more select population of the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group in 1968 of whom 5 squadrons went to Vietnam the same year that GWB joined. Volunteering to fly in the 147th was not the way to evade serving in Vietnam. Later GWB was among the relatively few Guardsmen who might have qualified to pilot the fighter jets destined for Palace Alert. GWB served honorably.

He trained hard and enthusiastically for combat and did very well; he impressed his commander that he was willing and ready to go; and he volunteered for a dangerous mission during the later stages of his obligations to the Air Guard. By these voluntary actions, it is evident that GWB did not seek to avoid combat. The articles linked above are precursors of what will be more widely reported.

Today you have the benefit of Slate's particular variety of 50-50 hindsight on events that happened a few decades ago; that's a privelage that GWB and his squadron did not have in 1968.

thoreau, I didn't claim that Kerry's attempt to go to Paris rather than serve in the military was dishonorable. He didn't have to seek permission to avoid serving, but that was his first choice. He joined and served. And subsequently and falsely smeared others who had served. That latter part was dishonorable, even if one agrees with his desire to end the war.

[Walter Wallis]

Hey Jean Bart - I shot at the enemy, but did not have the luxury of skinning them out for trophies. I did take two prisoners but I had to turn them over, could not keep them.
I believe it is highly presumptuous for anyone to challenge honorable service of others, since very few of us were one man armies. We shared one charactoristic of service - we went where we were sent. THE OATH WE TOOK EXPLAINS IT ALL.
Once the challenge game is started. however, I can play as well as anyone. An officer's Silver Star and three Band-Aid Purple Hearts, likely self-inflicted, become subject to closer question. Kerry stinks to high heaven for his demonstrated cowardice to escape combat duty and leave his crew to fend for themselves.

[alma hadayn]

As I said before, I don't think Bush's service should be a major issue. But it was not the Democrats who made patriotic and military posturing into a political weapon.

Take this quote by Tom DeLay:

"To try to gauge just how out of touch the Democrat leadership is on the war on terror, just close your eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier. I don't know about you, I certainly don't want to see Teddy Kennedy in a Navy flight suit anytime soon."

This is the same Tom DeLay who came up with this explanation for why he didn't serve in Vietnam, according to the Houston Press:

"He and Quayle, DeLay explained to the assembled media in New Orleans, were victims of an unusual phenomenon back in the days of the undeclared Southeast Asian war. So many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself. Satisfied with the pronouncement, which dumbfounded more than a few of his listeners who had lived the sixties, DeLay marched off to the convention."

As someone commented in a previous thread, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Thorley Winston]

But it was not the Democrats who made patriotic and military posturing into a political weapon.

Actually they were. The whole ?what did you do during Vietnam? line of BS was first raised in the 1988 Presidential election against then Senator Dan Quayle who served in the National Guard.

[Mike H.]

"But it was not the Democrats who made patriotic and military posturing into a political weapon."

Alma, dear, do two wrongs then make a right?

[Daniel]

Teddy Kennedy killed a woman... does that count?

[alma hadayn]

"Actually they were. The whole ?what did you do during Vietnam? line of BS was first raised in the 1988 Presidential election against then Senator Dan Quayle who served in the National Guard."

I was talking about the current election cycle, but anyway "what did you do during Vietnam" is not the only form of patriotic posturing. The attacks on Quayle did not hold a candle to the Lee Atwater campaign against Dukakis, which included among a host of other dirty tricks (remember Willie Horton?) implicit attacks on Dukakis' patriotism. ("What is it about the Pledge of Allegiance that upsets him so much?")

When Newt Gingrich, who-surprise!-never served in Vietnam starts calling a decorated vet a "Jane Fonda antiwar liberal", it doesn't seem to me out of line to ask where all these hawks were during Vietnam.

[Ruthless]

Speaking of two thongs, er wrongs:

Politicians like to brag about their proficiency at killing and creating jobs.

The first they should be ashamed of; the latter's an activity at which they are impotent.

[Thorley Winston]

The attacks on Quayle did not hold a candle to the Lee Atwater campaign against Dukakis, which included among a host of other dirty tricks (remember Willie Horton?)

Yes I do, it was first raised by Albert Gore during the Democratic primary.

[Jean Bart]

chairm,

You claim that he volunteered to fly; there are no records to prove that he did indeed volunteer to fly.

[Gadfly]

Millions of dollars were sunk into training W to fly. In fact, he signed a form promising to fly for five years past his discharge, standard practice for all pilots. He then skipped his flight physical in '72 and never flew again. He could have been court martialed (some speculate that he was somehow disciplined) for that.

Whether a presidential candidate served or not is of no consequence. His record of performance during his life, though, whether it be civilian or military, is a legitimate piece of information when he's asking for your vote.

[Jean Bart]

Walter Wallis,

"I believe it is highly presumptuous for anyone to challenge honorable service of others, since very few of us were one man armies."

When did I question the honorable service of others? I did write that killing people is not a particularly glorious activity. If you find it glorious to do so, well, so be it; I know, however, that every experience I had in combat, where I killed someone, I regretted their deaths.

[Pavel]

Politicians like to brag about their proficiency at killing and creating jobs.

Killing creates jobs.

Just like tragedy brings a nation together.

We already know Kerry's a killer, but can he help cause another 9/11 to *really* pull us together?

[alma hadayn]

"Yes I do, it was first raised by Albert Gore during the Democratic primary."

Al Gore metioned "weekend passes for convicted criminals", a reference to the Horton incident. But it was the Republican campaign that seized on the racial subtext, airing television ads with pictures of Horton (Which contributed to the public's understanding of rapists how?), and campaign letters with pictures of Horton and Dukakis together. Sidney Blumenthal quoted a Bush campaign aide as saying "It's a wonderful mix of liberalism and a big black rapist."

Atwater himself said this: "There is a story about a fellow named Willie Horton who for all I know may end up to be Dukakis' running mate. Dukakis is making Hamlet look like the rock of Gibraltar in the way he's acted on this. The guy was on TV about a month ago and he said you'll never see me standing in the driveway of my house talking to these candidates. And guess what, on Monday, I saw in the driveway of his house? Jesse Jackson. So anyway, maybe he'll put this Willie Horton guy on the ticket after all is said and done."

Now what common qualities of Jesse Jackson and Willie Horton was Atwater referring to?

See Timothy Noah's piece:http://slate.msn.com/id/1003919/

[Critic]

How about we figure out which PARTY has killed the most? Let's narrow it down to the last century forward. Who was in charge? WWI: Wilson (Dem.) WWII: Roosevelt (Dem.) Korea: Truman (Dem.) Viet Nam: Kennedy, Johnson (Dems.) and Nixon (Rep.)

I'd say the Dems are in the lead.
Any rebuttals?

[thoreau]

So much for the notion that Democrats are a bunch of wimps. They done killed those foreigners real good!

[M1]

Yup. Kilt 'em dead!
Yee hah!

[Bean Counter]

I think the Clinton and Carter years brings down their average, but they must still be WAY in the lead.

[bigbigslacker]

"Now what common qualities of Jesse Jackson and Willie Horton was Atwater referring to?"

I know the answer. They're both criminals. Do I get the prize? Did you see that O.J. trial? I can't believe they showed pictures of him! Dirty racists! Why did they have to do that.

[Jean Bart]

Critic,

Panama (Bush - Republican); Gulf War I (Bush - Republican); Gulf War II (Bush - Republican)

(I exclude Kosovo because that was a "limited" war like Reagan's introduction of Marines into Lebanon or his invasion of Grenada.)

[dj of raleigh]

The last "Modern" president who pulled the trigger
was
in 1992, George Bush the father, in WWII.
The Silver Star, unlike the Bronze Star, is the real thing.
Not throwing it over a wall, not being anti-war,
takes nothing away from Kerry doing an act of bravery.
Kerry volunteering to fight in a war he thought wrong,
is disturbing, and he did two terms as well.

The democrats are firing everthing they have at Bush,
trying to take away the TRUST voters have in him.
Comedians surely helped take away trust from Dean.
and as they did before Nineleven, paint Bush as STUPID.
Kerry seems to have escaped the jokesters.

[chairm]

>>You claim that he volunteered to fly; there are no records to prove that he did indeed volunteer to fly.

Hee.

[Jean Bart]

Whatever happened to the "affair" story? This Drudge site continues to hint at scandal with a group of unnamed sources and the like, but there is the following statement from her here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040216/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_polier_statements&cid=694&ncid=2043

Also, Drudge states that National Enquirer says Kerry is a "womanizer." Is that a trustworthy source?

[Jean Bart]

chairm,

Well, there are none. It is merely your claim; it looks like a lame defense.

[chairm]

I really thought you were joking. You're serious?

1. The 147th flew. GWB volunteered for the 147th. He flew fighter jets.

2. A fellow pilot and their flight instructor agree with GWB on the Palace Alert mission.

Its in multiple news reports -- see links above (or maybe a google search).

You want a record (in triplicate presumably) for every action taken by each servicemember from thirty years ago? Yikes.

[Richard]

Doesn't anyone else just think that this whole business about the Vietnam War (started by the French and when they got their asses handed to them in Dien Bien Phu by communists and anti-French revolutionaries, Ike began a containment policy of the North by supplying advisors and weapons...Kennedy deepened it by supplying military advisors, weapons, and warships which gave us Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) is just a redherring for a complete lack of either side having a platform that anyone cares about?

[Richard]

The reason that there is a short history of the Vietnam War is so that it becomes more obvious that Republicans and Democrats start wars...don't forget, a President isn't dictator and needs Congressional approval for military budgets...Implicitly, Democrats, Republicans, Men, Women, and any number of other distinct minority groups have been or are members of Congress and any one of them could have filibustered an appropriation bill and ended the war by causing a Constitutional crises which naturally would result from the conflict between Congress as purse-holder and President as Commander-in-Chief.

Seriously, does this really change anyones vote?

If it does, then this country's public schools are really cranking out some dipshits.

[Ruthless]

Richard, I don't know if public schools can get ALL the credit for cranking some stuff out there, but for somebody on Hit & Run to do a statistical camparison of RePugnants vs. DemocRATS as to who should get the blame for war... whew!
The rush to war is like Archie and Meathead trying to get through a doorway simultaneously.

How 'bout this for starting a war: If you're not an anarchist, you love government. If you love government, you love wars.

(Justin Raimondo pays me a trifle of an emolument for each of my posts.)

[Ruthless]

Richard, I don't know if public schools can get ALL the credit for cranking some stuff out there, but for somebody on Hit & Run to do a statistical camparison of RePugnants vs. DemocRATS as to who should get the blame for war... whew!
The rush to war is like Archie and Meathead trying to get through a doorway simultaneously.

How 'bout this for starting a war: If you're not an anarchist, you love government. If you love government, you love wars.

(Justin Raimondo pays me a trifle of an emolument for each of my posts.)

[Jean Bart]

chairm,

You are making the claim that he volunteered to fight in Viet Nam; I expect some documentary evidence of this. Indeed, if this was a serious action some paperwork would likely be still extant.

Richard,

Apparently the U.S. and France have at least one thing in common; we both got our asses handed to each other their. France simply had the good sense to know when to stop before it became really bloody. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

US, UK spied on UN deliberations before Gulf War:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1148460,00.html

Why is Reason.com ignoring this story?

[dj of raleigh]

> US, UK spied on UN deliberations before Gulf War:
Why is Reason.com ignoring this story?

[dj of raleigh]

Some are making the claim that he didn't serve in Alabama; I expect some documentary evidence of this. Indeed, if this was a serious action some paperwork would likely be still extant.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Had Mr. Kerry been a rifle platoon commander, it's rather unlikely he would have been as highly decorated as he was. Had he been a PFC in the Army or Marines, humping around in the bush, it's unlikely he'd have received anything other than the three purple hearts - in fact it's unlikely he'd have gotten any purple hearts for the relatively mild injuries he received.

Compare, Bob Kerrey.

I would be really reluctant to criticize at all - who am I to throw stones? But as happens in a courtroom, when a person puts their record in issue, they invite cross examination.

Or, as Mr. Kerry's campaign chief said a week ago with respect to personal insults re: Bush - "everything is on the table." Fair 'nuff.

[Jean Bart]

Stephen Fetchet,

Actually, there is a simpler reason why Kerry may have have gotten less awards under other circumstances; that is, by the time the Viet Nam war occurred, American military commanders were requesting far more medals and decorations than were the case in the past. I am aware that since Viet Nam the awarding of medals for actions not deserving them has become a serious issue for the Navy and the Air Force and the Army (not the marines of course).

[Ruthless]

Below is from a friend of mine who knew Kerry at Yale.
My friend is like a low-profile Kerry in that he was a closet peacenik even as he did his duty as a Marine infantry officer in VN.

This quote is from before Kerry was a front-runner.

"...and his "war record" is pathetic...gets three purple hearts, all
scratches, and puts in for rotation out of combat?

...gets a silver star for beaching his PT and gunning down a 15 year old
carrying an RPG ?

I don't buy it all, or him...sorry..."

[Geotech]

Say what you will about the US in Vietnam, the military most definitely did not have their asses handed to them.

[Andy]

Well, as this is America, I think they should settle the presidential elections like men, outside, high noon, one pistol each. Who needs democracy?

[MALAK]

It is my opinion, as one who has also seen combat, that only a dilettante would brag about his heroism. I do not remember ever reading about Bush (the elder) bragging on his service. His campaign, as I recall, focussed more on Clinton's dodging of service, rather than on, "I'm a hero, vote for me" type of stuff. I am curious if Ike did anything of this sort, beyond the standard 'trusted in war' sort of sloganeering. No, most veterans of service at the sharp end are rather reticent to recount the tale, and do so with something akin to embarassment. Kerry's people would do well to remind him of this.

[Ruthless]

What Andy said plus whassa matter with glorifying the fact you were able to pull the trigger?
Don't we wonder if Bush ever could? (I mean without a host of neocons egging him on.)

[richard]

Jean Bart and Geotech,

Actually, the US and France did not have their asses handed to them in the war...both had a casualty ratio of about 17 to 1 or for every soldier killed or injured, we injured or killed 17 of theirs...some French, US and even Norwegian special forces (check your history books) had casualty ratios of about 500 to 1. This was not due to massive bombings but working hand in hand with the Montegards...the border peoples of the hills that separate North and South Vietnam...

Vietnam had never been a unified country until France united it under their colonial rule, and even then France had the good sense to rule the North differently than the South as they are historically and culturally different...the Communists used quasi-nationality to evoke nationalism and stir public opinion into their court, but that was a red herring for a massive power grab that extended into Thailand and Cambodia.

Argue all you want about the current war and its justifications, but since the Communists took over South Vietnam, over 1 million people have "disappeared." From the time Saddam took over Iraq, over 500,000 people have died from his wars and his gassings. At some point, someone has to stand up and say enough is enough and cut through the bullshit that is accepted for killing one's own people. We failed in Vietnam and only because we were focused on saving our lives to live in freedom while ignoring those who lived and continue to live in unbonded slavery.

A true hero is someone who is willing to lay down their life to save someone else's. If Kerry did that, he is a hero. If Bush was willing to do that by volunteering, he is a hero.

Now forget this Vietnam shit and focus on real issues...pretty please?

[Brian]

Jesus! Don't the 121 death warrants Bush signed as governor count for anything? I know he didn't personally shoot poison into anybody's veins, but he was willing to mock some woman he killed, which shows some serious sociopathic machismo. How high a body count must you have to run for president?

And no, I don't forget the mentally retarded guy Clinton put down so he could show he was tough.

[MALAK]

Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno once, just to watch him die . . .

I can't believe nobody beat me to this one.

[Mike H.]

What kind of "man" glorifies war in the first place? ...Except for politicians, I mean.

[Typo Girl]

This is actually a comment on typography.
Italic "killed" followed by non-italic "a" becomes "kilda". I usually solve this problem by inserting an n space between the two words, but this, too, is unsatisfactory. Is anyone else troubled by this?

[Ruthless]

Typo Girl,
Have you ever been kilda?

[Larry]

Been there, done that. It was an interesting experience, but not something I brag about during job interviews.

[Gadfly]

Compared with Bush, Kerry is a piker when it comes to killing. Bush has around 15,000 on his belt but, unlike Kerry, he had somebody else do it.

[R C Dean]

As for Kerry being able to run on anything other than Vietnam, that would be true if his 20 years of "thoughtful, distinguished" Senatorial service revealed anything other than a pandering opportunist. The man never missed an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in the Senate, and didn't even have the balls to sell his vote on the Iraq war in '91 for decent TV exposure, like Gore did.

Biography, and specifically that tiny slice of it relating to when he was fighting in Vietnam, not the periods before and after when he was protesting the war there, is all he has to run on. No wonder he is beating it into the ground.

For the record, anyone know of any figures on the casualty rates for pilots flying the high-altitude interceptors that Bush flew (F-102s, 106s, can't recall)? I understand it was a dangerous plane, but I would be interested in seeing just how risky they were.

[Mike H.]

-102. And there were apparently quickly on their way to becoming obsolete at the time.

[Rick Barton]

Kerry's war record...big deal. His voting record is what matters here, and it's hideous. He gets an "F" from the NTU: NTU.org and has received "F"s for most of his senate years. We're talking a hard core, big government man here. At least some Dems voted against the war, but not John Kerry. This guy has nothing at all to offer libertyphiles. (Hey, I just made up a new word for the political lexicon)

[Typo Girl]

Huh!
"Kilda" has become "killed a".
My voice IS heard!

[Jean Bart]

R.C. Dean,

Oh no, a politician as a pandering oppurtunist. Yes, the glorious, moral President Bush has never, ever pandered to anyone, such as perhaps, hmm, American steel workers! 🙂

On the issue of killing people; I've done this in combat; its not a particularly glorious experience and nothing to be triumphant about. War is waste and nothing to be proud about, especially in the details like killing another combatant.

[Jean Bart]

R.C. Dean,

Also, trying to make Bush out as some hero because he flew "dangerous jets" over Texas is a bit silly to the ear; it looks like he is a, what is the phrase, "hot rod" for the USA. Being "James Dean" for America's national guard doesn't all that patriotic, and your statement sounds like a lame attempt to make into some sort of "hero," when he was nothing of the kind. To be blunt, a real hero would have volunteered to fly in Viet Nam (not Texas), especially since he supported the war.

[nobody]

I haven't yet heard a reporter ask the President if he supported the Viet Nam war in principle.
Is Bush on record as having supported the war?
Many who "served" were against the war but still cannot or will not admit it. At least not in an election year...

[Mark Fox]

Youse guys fugget dat Kerry kild a baby 'n it mama, too? Maybe hen't wanna skwawk too much 'bout it afta all.

Dubya is the "nevah moyded a chillun" cannidate.

[chairm]

>>To be blunt, a real hero would have volunteered to fly in Viet Nam (not Texas), especially since he supported the war.

[Jean Bart]

chairm,

Then, why, pray reveal, did he not simply join the Air Force? Or become a naval aviator? He apparently had the connections to get into the Guards quickly.

And BTW, from what Slate has said, only ~8,500 Guards actually went to Viet Nam.

[Kraorh]

Criticize Bush all you want for his policies. I frankly think this obsession with his Vietnam-era service is crazy, and for the Dems who want to defeat him, self-destructive. The truth is that his squandron would have been on the frontlines had Russian bombers ever launched an attack on the US. As it was, as some above have noted, people in the National Guard, particularly pilots, were often called up and sent to Vietnam. Joining the Guard was no guarantee that you would evade Vietnam.

Granted, it was probably a safer course than, say, enlisting in the Army or Marines to be cannon fodder. All I know is, if I were in his position, I would've gone to Canada, or the Clinton route. I respect the fact that he didn't, and joined the Guard.

But that said, why do people care so much? Honestly? This was 40 years ago, people, and none of these choices really reflect on how good of a leader someone is today.

[chairm]

Added for clairification, because it could easily be missed between the two articles:

[The SAME YEAR that GWB volunteered to serve,]Guard aviators in five squadrons flying the F-100 Super Sabre fighter-bomber were called up for duty in Vietnam in 1968.

His flight instructor said that GWB was among the top 5% of pilots he had trained.

[Mark Fox]

Let's raise the standard in this shirker/hero debate. If you didn't carry the Colors at Gettysburg you must be a pussy.

http://rhet5662.class.umn.edu/heroes/1stmin2.html

[Thorley Winston]

He should cut it out. Kerry has had a distinguished career in public life, including nearly 20 years in the Senate. He is a thoughtful, intelligent man and a strong campaigner.

Can anyone name a specific piece of legislation he authored which became law?

[alma hadayn]

I think it's hilarious that the Republicans are so insulted that Kerry is flaunting his war service. Is this the party of Tom DeLay, who proved that the Democrats are out of touch with the "war on terror" by joking about Teddy Kennedy in a flight suit?

Bush's very unimpressive service would not be an issue but for the Republican obsession with deligitamizing Dem credentials on national security and patriotism. They've already started after "Hanoi John", who dared criticize the war he earned 3 purple hearts in while our current Comander-in Chief used his political connections to get the honor of patriotically defending Texas from foreign invasion.

"Is Bush on record as having supported the war?"

Well, he told MTP that he did, although he was disturbed that the politicians were too involved in the military side of things, a point of view that Donald Rumsfeld would no doubt find fascinating.

One thing that does disturb me about Kerry's tough guy posturing, which is clearly born of a determination not to be Dukakis'd, is when he brags of his days as a prosecutor, when he "locked people up for the rest of their lives", an accomplishment of whose boast I find in poor taste.

[Don]

"Then, why, pray reveal, did he not simply join the Air Force? Or become a naval aviator?"

Doesn't the Guard provide lots of flying relative to the level of bullshit?

I know that naval aviation in particular provides lots of bullshit. Maybe Bush's reasons were as simple as that. If he wanted to avoid 'nam, he could have become a naval officier or airforce officier w/o becoming a pilot. That would have been a lot safer than joining the Guard.

As for heros, Bush's Guard experience falls short. I'm not sure about Kerry. Something about killing women with babies doesn't make hero for me.

[chairm]

>>I expect some documentary evidence of this. Indeed, if this was a serious action some paperwork would likely be still extant.

[Don]

thoreau: "Um, John Kerry became a naval officer, and he wound up in combat. John McCain was a naval officer, and he spent several years in a POW camp. Even Jesse Ventura joined the Navy, and he saw combat (or, I assume he did, since he was a SEAL). Clearly it's not always such a safe route to join the Navy."

Kerry saw combat because he requested service with the fast river craft. His first tour in (near?) 'nam was on (IIRC) a destroyer, and he didn't see any action in that capacity.

McCain saw combat as a pilot. Actually, he spent a few hours in combat before being shot down and becoming a POW. His combat hours prior to shoot-down were very low, but as a POW he handled himself well, avoiding the advantages he was offered by the commie bastards because of his father's position.

Don't know about Jessie's combat record. I know he was a SEAL but don't know if he was ever in-country (one of my buddies back in the '70s was an ex Navy SEAL who was on a ship in the "war zone" but he never went in-country).

The point is, in a war like 'nam, yor chances of seeing combat as a Naval officier are essentially nill unless you are a pilot, river boat commander, SEAL, or similar. And these are all positions you have to request (really: work damn hard to achieve. Most men won't make the cut as a SEAL or fighter pilot). Basically, the USN and the Air Force were safe places to hide from 'nam service for officiers who didn't want combat.

[Don]

"Until I know otherwise, I conclude that John Kerry's civilian casualties were an inevitable part of war. I fault the leaders who initiated the war, and I applaud him for taking action to end the war once he returned to the US."

A basic rule, even in combat, is identify your target before you open fire. Killing 12 year olds, women with babies, and frendly forces suggests sloppy fire control, at a minimum.

[Don]

"A true hero is someone who is willing to lay down their life to save someone else's. If Kerry did that, he is a hero. If Bush was willing to do that by volunteering, he is a hero."

Kerry's "silver star" performance:

After a B-40 rocket was fired at his boat, he charged the position the rocket was fried on, grounding his boat on the shore. The B-40 roketeer, jumped up and ran towards a hut. Kerry's machine gunner opened fire on the man, and once in the hut the guy manning the twin .50s riddled the hut. Kerry jumped ashore, went into the hut, and finished the guy off.

1) Quick, aggresive action when faced with a threat.
2) gutsy.
3) Ruthless.

It's not clear that he was risking himself to save someone else. Definite silver star action I'd say. But the motive most likely was along the lines of "I'm gonna get that son-of-a-bitch".

[chairm]

Kerry has yet to denounced Welsely Clark's baseless "deserter" suggestion; he has yet to demand that the DNC Chairman retract the baseless "AWOL" accusation. Instead Kerry claims that *his* record isn't being questioned. That sounds like an open invitation to many war veterans who simply do not trust Kerry. He may be cynically counting on the reluctance of veterans to scrutinize and criticize each other's service. There are legitimate questions about his record during the war and these have been dragged into center stage by Kerry's flaunting of his 4 months in combat and the decorations he now uses as a shield against criticism of his national security credentials.

Kerry was honorably discharged. He went and got back alive. He did what he had to do and that's commendable, but was his service record "exceptional" in comparison with his commrades-in-arms?

Did Kerry kill a teenaged VC who was already disarmed and wounded (after having been the target of 50 rounds of gunboat fire) and was fleeing? How does that compare with the actions of a typical Silver Star recipient?

As a boat commander, was Kerry obliged to pick up anyone who might fall out of the boat he commanded? If he hadn't, would he not have faced a court-martial; but he performed his normal duties so he got a medal? How does his retrieval of Jim Rassman compare with the actions of a typical Bronze Star recipient?

Where are the hospital records that describe the "band-aid wounds" that Kerry reported for his Purple Hearts? How does Kerry explain his early exit (several months shorter than typical combat veteran) from his unit's obligations? Did his crew benefit from Kerry's accumulation of Purple Hearts? What was his reassignment? How'd his behavior compare with other's in Vietnam?

Did Kerry misrepresent the conduct of servicemen in Vietnam when he testified before Congress in 1971 that American soldiers committed "war crimes" on a daily basis and with full knowledge of officers at all levels of command?

Did Kerry throw his medals away? Has he changed his views since he helped found the V.V.A.W. in 1971? Did his cousin benefit financially from Kerry's long push to bury the POW/MIA issue and re-establish ties with Hanoi?

[Don]

"Apparently the U.S. and France have at least one thing in common; we both got our asses handed to each other their. France simply had the good sense to know when to stop before it became really bloody. :)"

Actually, France quit when it started loosing battles. The US never lost any major battles, but wasn't able to make apparent progress in the war, so we sought a political solution which included commie promises not to invade the South. When the commies broke the promise, Nixon lacked the political capital to aid the South with air support (as had been done very succesfully in the North's 1972 invasion of the South). If it wasn't for Watergate, the '75 invasion of South Vietnam might have turned out very different.

One other major difference between the French and US involvement: the US accepted commie North Vietnam, in the sense that we never sent in conventional ground forces to invade. A well though out invasion of North Vietnam by US forces would have likely worked, but it was off the table for political reasons (in particular, the recent memory of our invasion of North Korea and the Chinese response, and the nukes possesed by the Chinese and Soviets).

[Richard]

Jean Bart,

1) by labeling an argument as stupid, you neither address the merits or make a reasoned attack

2) I was arguing that the war was justified, both Vietnam and Iraq (I have a hard believing that the proper justification was the domino effect (Vietnam) or weapons of mass destruction (Iraq)

3) the argument about the history of Vietnam and its national identity was only to highlight that over 1 million South Vietnamese have disappeared since North Vietnam broke the Paris Peace Accord and raided the South. Your retort seems to suggest that it is ok to kill people to create a national identity...I know that isn't what you said, but it is implicit in the argument

4) Whether or not Vietnam was justified at the time, it was a justifiable war and those who fought or didn't fight cannot remake the past...so

5) drop it and move on to substantive issues like the massive wealth transfer of the new Medicare entitlements

Afterall, being one person's hero is being another's sworn enemy...at least in the context of war...so this debate over who is the hero is rather specious and utterly worthless.

[joe]

"Kerry's fraudulent accusations did no good then and will do no good now."

Kerry's "fraudulent" accusations of war crimes were repetitions of testimony offered before Congress by veterans talking about their own actions, and those of men in their units. Thanks for playing, have some Turtle Wax.

Don, Kerry's Bronze Star came from dragging a shot up Green Beret back into the boat while under fire and having been shot in the arm.

Chairm, you poor thing, your post makes me want to shout "Look out behind you!" like at a monster movie.

"Did Kerry kill a teenaged VC who was already disarmed and wounded (after having been the target of 50 rounds of gunboat fire) and was fleeing?" He shot a VC who was still carrying his rocket launcher, and was running away from the boat. RPGs need to be fired from a certain distance, or the grenade doesn't explode.

"How does Kerry explain his early exit (several months shorter than typical combat veteran) from his unit's obligations?" Naval officers were allowed to petition for reassignment after receiving two combat wounds that require hospitalization, or three combat wounds overall.

"Did Kerry misrepresent the conduct of servicemen in Vietnam when he testified before Congress in 1971 that American soldiers committed "war crimes" on a daily basis and with full knowledge of officers at all levels of command?" You mean, by summarizing the testimony of other veterans, who provided first hand accounts?

[Mark Fox]

Ruthless: I am amused and disturbed that I share a viewpoint with Raimondo. More to discuss with my therapist...

Generally, I tire of both notions that Kerry is an exalted hero and that Bush is an idiot shirker. Kerry is much less of a hero and Bush much less an idiot than mainstream blather is making them to be. Both represent a view that the state is smarter than its citizens, and must tax and regulate to protect the people from themselves.

To me, Kerry threw all his heroism away with that other soldier's medals. Bush hasn't claimed much more than a simple concept of good v. evil. Character and history are worthy of assessment, whether 30 years or 3 months ago. On balance, the predictability of Bush seems easier to work around than the shifting allegiances of Kerry. I would rally 'round neither man's flag.

More interesting to me, as one who gambles on the election, is that Kerry's record as baby killer has not yet been brought to the attention of the dorks on H&R, much less the general electorate. If JFK does become the Dem nominee, the Repugnants will gut him before the election.

Where are those "Libertarians for Dean" when we need a candidate untainted by military service? 🙂

[Grumpy Bob]

Come, come, come. What a bunch of pointless blather this all is.

Who gives a rat's turd what either Bush or Kerry were doing during the Vietnam period? That was then, this is now. I happen to be a lot more concerned about right now, which is disturbing enough.

[Don]

"Don, Kerry's Bronze Star came from dragging a shot up Green Beret back into the boat while under fire and having been shot in the arm."

I haven't heard the particulars, but I have heard that he didn't recieve the "V" device, indicating that he recieved it for "meritorious service", not a "heroic act".

[DanInAlabama]

History of the F102 http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f102_1.html
The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969. The F-102A established an excellent safety record in Vietnam. In almost ten years of flying air defense and a few combat air patrols for SAC B-52s, only 15 F-102As were lost. Although a few missions were flown over North Vietnam, the Southeast Asia-stationed F-102As are not thought to have actually engaged in air-to-air combat. However, one of my references has an F-102A of the 509th FIS being lost to an air-to-air missile fired by a MiG-21 while flying a CAP over Route Package IV on February 3, 1968. Two F-102As were lost to AAA/small arms fire and four were destroyed on the ground by the Viet Cong and eight were lost in operational accidents.
http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usloss.html
http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usvictor.html

[Walter Wallis]

I will stop when the democrats stop. The democrats have not yet given any indication of stopping. When the commies bought the democrats, they could not have known how well the democrats would stay bought.

[Doc]

No, but Laura did (her ex-boyfriend) with her car. Does that count for something?

[Jean Bart]

Richard,

"Actually, the US and France did not have their asses handed to them in the war...both had a casualty ratio of about 17 to 1 or for every soldier killed or injured, we injured or killed 17 of theirs...some French, US and even Norwegian special forces (check your history books) had casualty ratios of about 500 to 1. This was not due to massive bombings but working hand in hand with the Montegards...the border peoples of the hills that separate North and South Vietnam..."

To be blunt, in 1954, France could no longer successfully fight the war; yes the casualty ratio may have been on our side, but financially and materially we were unable to continue the fight. Indeed, at the siege of Dien Bien Phu, despite the casualty ratio you write of, it became readily apparent that we would never be able to rout the enemy in such a fashion as to destroy their fighting ability.

BTW, in Algeria France was never "defeated" in any military sense; yet the Algerians made the cost of victory (phyrric if it were) so high as to make war silly to continue. The case also true for Viet Nam.

"Vietnam had never been a unified country until France united it under their colonial rule, and even then France had the good sense to rule the North differently than the South as they are historically and culturally different...the Communists used quasi-nationality to evoke nationalism and stir public opinion into their court, but that was a red herring for a massive power grab that extended into Thailand and Cambodia."

No country has a national identity until it has such. Indeed, this criticism of yours in general is rather stupid.

[Walter Wallis]

Hey, Jean Bart -

"Also, trying to make Bush out as some hero because he flew "dangerous jets" over Texas is a bit silly to the ear; it looks like he is a, what is the phrase, "hot rod" for the USA. Being "James Dean" for America's national guard doesn't all that patriotic, and your statement sounds like a lame attempt to make into some sort of "hero," when he was nothing of the kind. To be blunt, a real hero would have volunteered to fly in Viet Nam (not Texas), especially since he supported the war. "

That sounds like challenging the honorable service of others to me. I agree with your later comment about medals for officers.
I call Kerry's service into question because and only because his minions invited such disscussion.
I believe you first brought up killing to add veracity to your own experience. How about the smell of dead soldiers?

[joe]

The "Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry" group linked to above is the same bunch of loons who accused John McCain of being a "Manchurian Candidate" in the 2000 primaries. As with several of the post above, they take the language of the old antiwar left to selectively impeach the service of certain veterans running for office.

Also, Kerry worked to get his crew transfered to safer duty when he got word of his rotation.

But please, keep up the "Kerry's a baby killer" and "Kerry's a hippie war protester" memes. It's good to see two opposing political groups flock to defend the same man simultaneously.

One last thought: "Kerry has had a distinguished career in public life, including nearly 20 years in the Senate. He is a thoughtful, intelligent man and a strong campaigner." If having a distinguished career and being thoughtful and intelligent got you elected preznit, we wouldn't be talking about about the Bush presidency. And I say this as a long-time Kerry fan (as in, since I was 11), strong campaigner my ass.

[Jean Bart]

Walter Wallis,

"That sounds like challenging the honorable service of others to me."

I was responding to another poster's statements concerning Bush being a hero for flying "dangerous" jets. It was me mocking the commentator, not Bush.

"I believe you first brought up killing to add veracity to your own experience. How about the smell of dead soldiers?"

How do they smell? Depends on the environment in which they are rotting and what killed them (a person dead flames is not the same as dead via bullets). What? Do you want me to get about the fine flavorings of rotting human flesh? In a word I would call it sweet and pungent; like some cheeses I have smelled; but also overpowering when fully in rot.

[chairm]

>>this debate over who is the hero is rather specious and utterly worthless.

That message needs to get through to Kerry who lamely evoked the debate again last night in Wisconson. He even used as a prop a one-armed war veteran. As Walter Wallis posted earlier, the Kerry supporters are shameless in not rebuking those who have made the "deserter" suggestion and the "AWOL" accusation.

Kerry has yet to satisfactorily answered nagging questions about his record during the Vietnam War. And he has yet to be held account for his abysmal Senate voting record on defense and national security during the past two decades.

>>Kerry's Bronze Star came from dragging a shot up Green Beret back into the boat while under fire and having been shot in the arm.

Kerry's account differs from Rassmann's on a key point: Kerry says that Rassman fell off another boat but Rassmann says he clearly remembers being on the boat that Kerry commanded. If Kerry had not retrieved Rassmann, would he have been subject to a court-martial?

>>He shot a VC who was still carrying his rocket launcher, and was running away from the boat. RPGs need to be fired from a certain distance, or the grenade doesn't explode.

So the VC was disarmed by virtue of proxmity to target. He was also wounded by the gunfire from the Swift-boat. He abandoned the launcher and ranaway. Kerry chased him down and "finished him off". In what way was this exceptional -- in terms of the Geneva Convention or in terms of combat in Vietnam? Who reported the incident for the medal?

>>Naval officers were allowed to petition for reassignment after receiving two combat wounds that require hospitalization, or three combat wounds overall.

Kerry apparently had 3 minimal wounds shortly after he got on his Swift-boat; by his own account these nicks and scratches had sidelined him for a total of just 2 days. Did not others return to combat after recovering far worse? Did 3 Purple Hearts mean an automatic early trip home for a soldier or did Kerry seek to quickly accumulate the minimal so that he could take advantage of a technicality?

>>You mean, by summarizing the testimony of other veterans, who provided first hand accounts?

The maligning *accusations* were in his own words and by his own volition. Has the historical record shown that Kerry repeated falsified accounts by men who did not actually go to Vietnam or were never soldiers in the first place? Isn't it true that the storytellers did not testify in-person before Congress and that Kerry was their mouthpiece?

In Kerry's official testimony did he not add his own error-filled analysis? Was there no reason for Kerry and his anti-war contemporaries to suspect that the outrageous stories were highly suspect? Did Kerry factcheck the identities of these men -- in 1971 or subsequently? Does Kerry still standby his accusations?

Did Kerry first seek a student deferment and when that was denied, did he not join the Navy so as to minimize the chances he'd see combat in Vietnam? Did he not serve on a destroyer off-shore? Did he not seek glamor (ala Jonh F. Kenedy) by requesting a command on a Swift-boat -- and expected to perform uneventual Coast Guard duty there? The mission changed and that thrust him into combat; did Kerry eagerly seek a rapid exit from combat in Vietnam?

Does he truly deserve the appellations, "highly decorated" and "hero" as compared with the typical officer who served in Vietnam? How much has Kerry's campaign overstated his appeal to actual Vietnam veterans in an effort to win the Democratic nomination? What does that say about the character of Kerry?

With that I'll leave off for now with the expectation that Kerry and his supporters will fail to answer satisfactorily these and many other questions about his service and his return to Vietnam in campaign theme.

[Jean Bart]

chairm,

"In Kerry's official testimony did he not add his own error-filled analysis? Was there no reason for Kerry and his anti-war contemporaries to suspect that the outrageous stories were highly suspect? Did Kerry factcheck the identities of these men -- in 1971 or subsequently? Does Kerry still standby his accusations?"

The U.S. military, in several commissions, documented numerous cases of war crimes - and I have provided numerous examples of this myself and given people like Shannon and others the names of operations and units notorious for them; and as I wrote above, establishing "free fire zones" is a war crime in itself, and not only in violation of the Geneva Convention, but also customary international law. I think your basic argument is that American soldiers could never commit war crimes; which is on its face a canard and is blantantly refuted by the history of American armed forces.

Let me repeat my statements on "free fire zones" for emphasis:

A "free fire zone" is by definition a violation of international law:

(1) It violates rules against direct attack of civilians by presuming that after civilians are warned to vacate an area or "zone," that anyone left may be attacked lawfully. International law allows for no such "burden shifting" as I have heard it called. Indeed, the basis of many war crimes in Viet Nam would be because of such a "burden shifting."

(2) Furthermore, it also violates the rules against indiscriminate attacks; since such a warning according to the DOD at the time eliminated discriminate one's fire.

The U.S. Navy specifically allowed for such a device to be used, and it is the "rules of engagement" that Kerry was working under when he was fighting in Viet Nam. In other words, your argument goes against U.S. military doctrine at the time, which in itself was a violation against by the Geneva Convention, as well as what are termed the "laws of war" - the latter being non-statutory "general law" [what I refer to above as "customary" international law].

[chairm]

Correction: "expected to perform *uneventful* and *relatively low-risk* Coast Guard duty".

And to add that Kerry said that remarkably gruesome war crimes were the rule, not the exception. The facts at that time, and shortly after his testimony, and three decades later do not support his accusation.

[Don]

JB: "So did France; which was the basis of the 1954 treaty."

Yes, but the US accepted the North all along (bombing & unconventional incursions notwithstanding, our efforts in the North were only aimed at winning the war in the South); the French only did as a part of their defeat.

[Don]

JB,

Re. free fire zones, it was not my knowledge that the US REQUIRED its forces to destroy anyone in a free fire zone, only that they had the option of doing so.

[Jean Bart]

Don,

Even if that were the case, the fact remains that such an option is a violation of laws of war; it is a war crime. To be blunt, indescriminate attacks on civilians is a war crime; a free fire zone is such an attack. Indeed, its these sorts of atrocities that has led to a great deal of reform in both the U.S., other Nato militaries, etc. In Algeria France set up what you would call such zones; they were equally violations. The Germans had such tactics as well during WWII; those were war crimes.

[Richard]

JB,

Since you reside in the US, Medicare taxes are your problem.

"4) Whether or not Vietnam was justified at the time, it was a justifiable war and those who fought or didn't fight cannot remake the past"...so

Exactly. The arguments that are going around about Kerry and Bush are implying that these men could have or should have done something different during the Vietnam War. They can't. They did what they did and nothing is going to change that. We can debate for hours on end that Kerry killed children or Bush used political connections to get out of harms way, but the truth is something we will never know. We may be able to prove Kerry's actions cost the life of a child or Bush's inaction/action kept him out of danger, but those were subjective actions that we as third-parties are incapable of determining unless we were there at the same moment in time. The danger presented by unknown armed Vietnamese is incapable of quantification or qualification. We should not, 40 years later, attempt to act more moral and condemn a man whose actions or inactions could have led to the deaths of himself and his men. Nor should we condemn a man whose choice of aircraft hindered his ability to participate actively as the F-102's were being phased out of use.

This sordid attempt at histrionics does a disservice to all.

[Don]

JB,

Also, I think you mentioned an American unit with "Tigers" in its title that commited attrocities in 'nam. Can you add some info, I've never heard of such a unit . . .

[Jean Bert]

Richard,

"1) by labeling an argument as stupid, you neither address the merits or make a reasoned attack"

If I have demonstrated that its stupid, then its stupid.

"2) I was arguing that the war was justified, both Vietnam and Iraq (I have a hard believing that the proper justification was the domino effect (Vietnam) or weapons of mass destruction (Iraq)"

Well, the war in Viet Nam was not justified; indeed, it has become apparent that the U.S. aided the South in breaking the cease-fire agreement that came out of the 1954 agreement for a 1956 election. What the U.S. did was undermine an international treaty (which it was of course not bound to I suppose) and set off a chain of events where it was partly complicit in the deaths of millions.

"3) the argument about the history of Vietnam and its national identity was only to highlight that over 1 million South Vietnamese have disappeared since North Vietnam broke the Paris Peace Accord and raided the South. Your retort seems to suggest that it is ok to kill people to create a national identity...I know that isn't what you said, but it is implicit in the argument"

Well, given your cavalier attitude about the role of the U.S. there, why should you care what the what the North Vietnamese were doing?

"4) Whether or not Vietnam was justified at the time, it was a justifiable war and those who fought or didn't fight cannot remake the past...so"

Hmm, this statement makes no sense.

"5) drop it and move on to substantive issues like the massive wealth transfer of the new Medicare entitlements"

Medicare is your problem; I'm not an American. 🙂

[Jean Bert]

Don,

A "free fire zone" is by definition a violation of international law:

(1) It violates rules against direct attack of civilians by presuming that after civilians are warned to vacate an area or "zone," that anyone left may be attacked lawfully. International law allows for no such "burden shifting" as I have heard it called. Indeed, the basis of many war crimes in Viet Nam would be because of such a "burden shifting."

(2) Furthermore, it also violates the rules against indiscriminate attacks; since such a warning according to the DOD at the time eliminated discriminate one's fire.

The U.S. Navy specifically allowed for such a device to be used, and it is the "rules of engagement" that Kerry was working under when he was fighting in Viet Nam. In other words, your argument goes against U.S. military doctrine at the time, which in itself was a violation against by the Geneva Convention, as well as what are termed the "laws of war" - the latter being non-statutory "general law."

[Jean Bert]

Don,

"One other major difference between the French and US involvement: the US accepted commie North Vietnam..."

So did France; which was the basis of the 1954 treaty.

[Jean Bert]

Don,

BTW, the rules of engagement that one is lawfully allowed do not deter you from killing civilians who engage in hostile acts; one may scatter one with a FAMAS all the time.

[chairm]

Whatever the merit of the various pov on the issue of "fire free zones", it was not the core of Kerry's false accusations.

Read the transcript of his testimony (or listen to it if you can find the audio) -- plus the Q & A with the Senate committee. And check his words against the facts. If he was duped, he was duped far too easily. He depended on stories told at a mock trial.

He slandered honorable men who served their country well. And his analysis disregarded or naively discounted the daily conduct, and the concrete threat, of the enemy. War crimes? Look to the terror tactics of Hanoi and their acknowledgement of winning the political war through propaganda that was based on the falsehoods spread by Kerry and company. Look to the way that the South Vietnamese fought for freedom even after we withdrew; look at the human cost of our later withdrawal of material support.

On the surface it would seem that revisiting Vietnam is foolish for Kerry. He daily speaks of "Nixon's war in Vietnam" despite the role that JFK and LBJ played. He wants to portray GWB as "another Nixon" and Iraq as another "Vietnam quagmire". He refers to "Reagan's illegal war" and seems to position himself foolishly on the wrong side of the Cold War. Politically, this might win the battle for the Democratic nomination but lose the bigger fight for the presidency. He's refighting the last 20 years of Democratic failures and harping on what he thinks is his biggest victory -- the propaganda war against the USA's commitment to South Vietnam. But Kerry's methods will detract from the nation's discourse on things that really matter.

>>We should not, 40 years later, attempt to act more moral and condemn a man whose actions or inactions could have led to the deaths of himself and his men. Nor should we condemn a man whose choice of aircraft hindered his ability to participate actively as the F-102's were being phased out of use.

Veterans in particular are reluctant to publicly tear into each other's war experiences. But isn't it Kerry who at every speech pointedly says that he "knows something about fighter planes *for real*" and sends proxies to be more explicit? By contrast, GWB has followed the honorable tradition that other presidential candidates have followed -- see Truman, Dole, McCain, just for starters. That's the fundamental reason that his team was slow to respond politically and forcefully to the baseless accusations.

How might this discussion of Kerry's war record connect with the choice that the country will face during a wartime presidential campaign? Is there more than superficial political tactics at stake?

1. The "deserter" accusation is false.
2. The "AWOL" accusation is false.
3. Kerry's still-standing accusation of "war crimes" against all Vietnam veterans remains as false today as it was in 1971.
4. Kerry let others believe he had thrown away his own medals -- a falsehood.
5. Kerry's puffed-up account of his service record rings false.
6. Kerry's Vietnam theme in his campaign is premised on falsehood.

By his campaign conduct, Kerry continues to imply that he endorses the repetition of blatant falsehoods, just as he did when he began his political career in the early 1970s.

If Kerry expects the American public to trust him at all, he ought to seize this historic opportunity to clearly state that his 1971 testimony before Congress was a tremendous error; and that he now appreciates the longterm adverse impact on the goodstanding of the men and women who served their country during the Vietnam war and subsequently. He needs to clear this up before he utters one more word on current national security matters.

If he cannot bring himself to do that, he doesn't deserve to be considered capable of potentially serving as Command-in-Chief. Especially while the country slugs it out against an enemy whose essential means of attack -- terrorism -- is aimed at the resolve in our hearts at home and in the hearts of fighting men and women on the frontline.

This will be my last post for awhile. Shipping out but will try to stay tuned.

[chairm]

>>I think your basic argument is that American soldiers could never commit war crimes; which is on its face a canard and is blantantly refuted by the history of American armed forces.

That is not my basic argument. One would need to assume the worst about my post to counter with such a straw man. The few documentated cases were prosecuted and punished. On a day-to-day basis, commanders disciplined errant American soldiers who committed crimes or broke with military policy. Our men in uniform conducted themselves with honor. They returned home to live lawful lives. That was the rule, not the exception.

However, attempts to deflect attention from Kerry's false charges to the few actual cases proves the exception to the rule. Still your response is like an echo from Kerry's anti-war protests.

>>The U.S. military, in several commissions, documented numerous cases of war ... establishing "free fire zones" is a war crime in itself....

These cases were the rare exceptions and not indicative of widespread atrocities described by Kerry. He regurgitated unsubstantiated accusations voiced in a mock trial -- Winter Soldier "investigation". This past weekend Kerry denied that he had said such things. He did. It's in his testimony and his other speeches are on the record. So why the denial? It is an acknowledgment, though mute, that he was wrong and fears to repeat the falsehoods, let alone defend his own testimony.

As for "free fire zones", one must assume the very worst about combat veterans (as per Kerry) to pursue the line that our military policy was by definition a promotion of war crimes. It is a very poor reason to defend Kerry's words and actions after the war.

Still, suppose that Kerry was correct on all points. Why does he now deny his own words? Doesn't that indicate he now considers his testimony to be false -- indefensible -- damaging to the Vietnam motif in his current campaign?

[chairm]

I meant to say "suppose that Kerry believed at the time that he was correct on all points..."