Kerry's Personal Vietnams
It seemed as if John Kerry's actual (and courageous) duty in Vietnam would give him some edge over George W. Bush on the matter of military service (especially given Bush's spotty record in a branch widely taken to be a way of avoiding the draft).
But two recent pieces that Vietnam may haunt Kerry still in a way it won't for Bush.
First, in The Village Voice, Sydney H. Schanberg accuses Kerry of leaving American POWs behind when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs:
What did Kerry do in furtherance of the cover-up [that U.S. soldiers had been left behind in Southeast Asia]? An overview would include the following: He allied himself with those carrying it out by treating the Pentagon and other prisoner debunkers as partners in the investigation instead of the targets they were supposed to be. In short, he did their bidding. When Defense Department officials were coming to testify, Kerry would have his staff director, Frances Zwenig, meet with them to "script" the hearings?as detailed in an internal Zwenig memo leaked by others. Zwenig also advised North Vietnamese officials on how to state their case. Further, Kerry never pushed or put up a fight to get key government documents unclassified; he just rolled over, no matter how obvious it was that the documents contained confirming data about prisoners. Moreover, after promising to turn over all committee records to the National Archives when the panel concluded its work, the senator destroyed crucial intelligence information the staff had gathered?to to keep the documents from becoming public. He refused to subpoena past presidents and other key witnesses.
(I should add that the biggest question raised by the Schanberg story is what the hell he's doing writing for the Voice.)
From the right, Kerry is starting to get pummeled for the (dubious) substance of his anti-Vietnam remarks he made as a young leader of vets against the war. There's this in National Review Online, for instance:
On April 12, 1971, Kerry told the U.S. Congress that American soldiers claimed to him that they had, "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
The exact sources of that assertion should be tracked down. Kerry also ought to be asked who, exactly, told him any such thing, and what it was, exactly, that they said they did in Vietnam. Statutes of limitation now protect these individuals from prosecution for any such admissions. Or did Senator Kerry merely hear allegations of that sort as hearsay bandied about by members of antiwar groups (much of which has since been discredited)? To me, this assertion sounds exactly like the disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietnam era. KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and "news reports" about invented American war atrocities. These tales were purveyed in KGB-operated magazines that would then flack them to reputable news organizations. Often enough, they would be picked up. News organizations are notoriously sloppy about verifying their sources. All in all, it was amazingly easy for Soviet-bloc spy organizations to fake many such reports and spread them around the free world.
The odds are looking good that when it comes to Vietnam, Kerry may end up as beaten up as the crew in The Green Berets.
[Thanks to reader Chuck Cole for the NRO link.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Did not Schandberg win a Pulitzer for his writing concerning Cambodia; and did he not write an article which was later turned into the movie "The Killing Fields?"
I was in country with the 4th ACS,Pleiku,
SVN during 65'~66'.Never heard or saw anything
like Kerry talks of.Only quite a bit of
verbal bigotry such as zipperhead, gook,slant,
slopehead.Everyone I talked to was scared
and looking to become a shorttimer in one
piece.maybe he`s trying to grow his nose as
long as W`s.
di di mao
Umm, NRO is confused about at least one thing: there is no statute of limitation for murder, or war crimes. Wasn't that long ago that they stopped looking for war criminals from WW2.
I'd love to finally see some of that alleged evidence of POWs in Vietnam. I guess they're in the archives next to the Ark of the Covenant, above the unedited Nixon tapes, and to the left of the crate containing the Roswell spacecraft. It's too bad we don't have access to the real Zapruder film, too.
Get the tinfoil covered forklift, boys! We got some research to do!
Hey, not to worry. Crimes against humanity aren't that big of a deal anyway - just ask Slobodan Milosovic! Afterall, in Serbian, Slobodan means freedom!
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2004/02/26/doubt_aired_on_genocide_case_against_milosevic/
jon, you'd better not pull any staffers off my John McCain/Manchurian Candidate project.
Or have They gotten to you, too?!?
I was in and out of Viet Nam from 1964 to 1972. I was a young, at least when I started, junior officer in the Navy. As with many of the young officers of the time, I was often disgruntled and figured I knew better than the brass how things should be done. When I read the article in Atlantic, excerpted from Kerry's book, I was struck by how much he sounded like the young know-it-alls that many of us were then. But I wasn't aware of any of the atrocities Kerry cited, and I don't know of any of us who would have done anything to obstruct the hunt for MIA's. If true, that is extremely damning in my view.
I don't see where the Democrats think they're going with continually trying to play up the fact that Kerry is a Veitnam vet and Bush isn't.
If they're trying to foist that idea that military combat experience should be a litmus test for the presidency then Clinton should have lost to both Bush Sr and Bob Dole.
Winter Soldier Investigation, 1971
There's his source.
> Kerry belittled the opposition, saying that those who still believed in abandoned P.O.W.'s were perpetrating a hoax. "This process," he declaimed, "has been led by a certain number of charlatans and exploiters, and we should not allow fiction to cloud what we are trying to do here."
I think it's important to mention the author of the NR piece: Ion Mihai Pacepa, acting chief of Romania's espionage service.
Anyone else starts rambling about the KGB, and I roll my eyes. This guy, though, is not talking about some story he heard -- he's talking about his own job, the things he was asked to do, his actual experiences as part of the Soviet intelligence community.
Sorry, that should be *former* acting chief.
LOR has covered the tiger force inquiries recently,
which seem to support Kerry's reports.
http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P1121_0_1_0_C
Agree with Hydroman that conflict doesn't exactly put a tuxedo on humankind and take him to the opera.
My time over there was 1969.
As I can barely recall, there were atrocities, but the majority were just trying to keep their heads down and do their jobs.
It's too far in the past, but what Kerry did after his service just might be brought to a head and piss off those of us who didn't appreciate being shot at with USSR heavy artillery and Chinese commie rifle grenades.
There's something baby boomers seldom realize; Gen X doesn't really get the hostility between veterans and war protestors, and doesn't see anything odd about the one becoming the other, as John Kerry did. Vietnam was a disaster, and it had a lot of victims. It just doesn't make sense that the left would hurl blame at soldiers in a conscript army. Nor does it make sense that questioning the wisdom of the war would be denounced as an anti-American position. The really vicious political attacks that Americans threw at each other just make people my age shake their heads.
"It just doesn't make sense that the left would hurl blame at soldiers in a conscript army."
It may not make sense, but it happened.
In terms of who Pacepa is, he is also the one who has accused the Russians of being involved in essentially every obstacle to US world domination, up to and including hiding Iraqi WMD in order to trick western intelligence services into thinking that they were wrong. The man's been entirely out of the loop for a solid 15 years, but he desperately still needs to appear relevant. I'm somewhat unsure why NRO keeps publishing him.
The guy's mildly nuts, but just remember; just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
i remember my father telling me about being off the plane in 1972 (after fulfilling the last months of his enlistment as an MP in iran) and within an hour being harassed by three youngish college hippie type folks (two girls and a guy). it does blow my mind for a number of reasons, but first and foremost do you really want to be within arms length of a marine recently released from active duty while you're insulting him?
no matter how much you could oppose a war or an action confusing the people on the ground with the people who make the larger decisions is stupid. it's like flying a plane into an office building to fight a government not located in that building.
hmm.
A funny thing happened the other day. I was reading an article in the February 26, 2004 addition fo NRO Online; Kerry?s Soviet Rhetoric, The Vietnam-era antiwar movement got its spin from the Kremlin, By Ion Mihai Pacepa. In the article I found the following quote:
A former prisoner of war in Vietnam tells the following story about one pathetic pawn of KGB disinformation, Jane Fonda. In 1978, there was a meeting in Hanoi between American POWs and a "peace delegation" led by Fonda, who had gone to north Vietnam without U.S. approval. In order to let the world know that they were still alive, the American prisoners secretly palmed tiny slips of paper with their Social Security numbers on them. As they were paraded before Jane Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line and asked polite little questions, such as: "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and, "Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?" Believing this had to be an act, the prisoners all slipped her their messages. She took them all, but once the camera stopped rolling, she turned to the north Vietnamese officer in charge and handed him the little pile of papers. Three prisoners died from their subsequent beatings.
I immediately looked this matter up on the Web and found information that contradicts Mr. Paepa's claim. Then I returned to the National Review article, copied the offending text into what was to be an angry email to NRO Online. When I returned to the article sometime later I found that the above paragraph had been deleted. Am I mad or something? Did anyone else see this paragraph? It seems to be rather libelous. What do you think?
Are you suggesting that someone who was a professional liar for one party might become a professional liar for someone else?
I hadn't thought about Viet Nam seriously in a very long time, but for some reason this thread has brought back a lot of old memories. They aren't all bad, but the one that sticks in my craw the most is one that happened after I left. It's the TV shot of the last helo leaving the embassy in Saigon. I was so ashamed of being an American. And so ashamed and enraged at the politicians who brought that scene about. I had learned in 1972 that we were going to surrender, but I never expected it to be like that.
I never voted for a Republican or a Democrat since then. And I never will.
And I'm still ashamed.
"I find it hard to believe
Kerry, or any good American, any good person,
would lie about MIAs and POWs for political reasons."
Really, dj? In that case, I've got some prime real estate you might be interested in buying.
I doubt the POW story will hurt Kerry much, simply because his Senate colleagues wished to agree with his conclusions at the time (and since).
The Winter Soldier stuff WILL hurt, because his contentions (clearly unfounded as concerns any real evidence he was acquainted with) were and still are controversial...and essentially untrue.
NR is asking a bit much. Bringing charges against people based on memories from 33 years ago is prone to error; what if Kerry remembers a name wrong and damages the reputation of an innocent person? On the other hand, it is reasonable to ask him to provide as many specifics as he reasonably can. He's a leading presidential candidate, and thus should be presumed a liar in general.
Here's the intoduction of the actual statement Kerry made:
"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."
Please, quit spreading the lie that Kerry just made all this shit up.
Glen -- I never voted for a Republican or a Democrat since then. And I never will.
If old parties ended, and new parties arose,
it would be the same people as were in the old ones.
However, for the most part, the politicans today
are not the politicians of 1972...hmmm, for the most part.
Republicans
Domenici since 72
Stevens 68
Democrats
Biden 72
Byrd 58
Kennedy 62
Leahy 75
Hollings 66
Inouye 62
Inouye is leaving now...
Byrd should have...
Kennedy should never have been...
Strom Thurmmond has been gone...the only person I know who after death, after living to be a hundred, was scandalized by an illegimate child.
"It may not make sense, but it happened."
I know it happened, Doug. But it just seems so otherwordly and removed from my experience. On antiwar blogs I visited, people who condemned the soldiers in Iraq were shouted down - by other war opponents! And this isn't even a conscript army.
Which is one reason why we end up with the mindblowing formulation of:
"We shouldn't have sent 50,000 men to die in that jungle."
"You hate America! You hate veterans!"
"Huh - wuzza?"
>>>Please, quit spreading the lie that Kerry just made all this shit up.
joe: If your assesment of Xers applies outside of NEastern blogophiles, there are still far more voting Boomers than Xers, and (too) many are still fighting the Vietnam war somewhere in their souls.
True points, both. And it's frustrating to see the sides drawn up along lines that don't make any sense to me.
It just occurred to me that the above sentiment is probably not completely foreign to libertarians.
The line, "As far as I'm concerned, the KGB gave birth to the antiwar movement in America," should raise some red flags. There's been an anti-war movement in the US longer than KGB existed. It's a tad arrogant for him to think that everyone that opposes war is a commie dupe.
Since his ?critique? appears to consist of slandering the people who served in Vietnam with false accusations of war crimes, then hopefully everyone would lambaste him regardless of his or their party affiliation.
Still I agree with the larger point that it was foolish for Kerry to drudge up the Vietnam War, especially given that his post-service actions (particularly his Congressional testimony) seem far more damaging to him than the benefits from his four months of combat service.
Here's a quote from the NYT today. Kerry may have been politically dumb in the way he presented it but he did NOT make the shit up. So, fuck you.
"But Gary Solis, a former Marine lieutenant colonel, Vietnam veteran and expert on war crimes who is an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center here, said Mr. Kerry had made a grave error.
"Sure it's true," Mr. Solis said. "Sure there were people raped, ears cut off and so on. Each one of the things that he mentioned happened, in some cases I know, and in others I'm confident. But when you put them all together in one sentence and say this was well known at every level of command, it impugns, it seems to me, everyone who fought over there and it gives the impression that everyone who fought over there was a war criminal and that's just not true."
Gadfly, Kerry did make up the very part that your quoted veteran says was not true. It was Kerry, the author of his own premeditated words, who impugned everyone over there. Dismissive expletitives do not advance the denial.
thoreau, if Kerry was a liberal Democrat running against President Bush, how many here would defend Kerry's false accusations and make excuses for his error-laden critique of the Vietnam war?
As for his being held to account for his record, it's his discrepancies that bring it on. He continues to revisit Vietnam as his theme; his critics here are not refighting the War but answering his open invitation to consider how his experience has shaped his presidential vision.
Look, the Dems kicked things off by making false "deserter" and "AWOL" accusations and stubbornly refusing to accept the facts. This pattern is a repeat from Kerry's past. The questioning of Kerry's record is not based on falsehoods uttered by today's opponents; it is based on uncorrected falsehoods from the horse's mouth.
Was he on both sides of the Salmon War in '97, too? I thought it was just the fish that were flipping and flopping, but I wasn't there. [smiles]
Kerry was against the war when he came back a hero,
but he was against the war before he enlisted.
Someone put a link to a college news site with specifics.
What was that link again?
"Still I agree with the larger point that it was foolish for Kerry to drudge up the Vietnam War,"
Drudge not, lest ye be drudged.
Maybe you meant dredge up?
I never saw any evidence of Kerry's involvement in the salmon war. With such a big hairdo and chin, I think he would have been clearly visible across all of WA.
If Kerry were a conservative Republican and loyal to the Bush administration, how many people here would lambast his critique of the Vietnam war?
One other thought:
At one point last year some threads degenerated into refighting of the civil war. (states' rights and whatnot) Then for a while a lot of threads degenerated into "Should we have invaded Iraq?" Which was better, because it's a more contemporary war. Now we're refighting the Vietnam War because Kerry's Vietnam service gets a high profile on the campaign trail, and because of allegations concerning Bush's National Guard service.
Let me know when the Salmon War of 1997 becomes a hot topic, because I was in-country for it. OK, I didn't see any action, but I felt the vibe on the street with all that tension.
(For those who don't know, in the summer of 1997 I was working in Washington state while some drunken fishermen in the US and Canada argued over the rights to some salmon that go back and forth between US and Canadian waters. At one point some fishermen from one country blockaded a ferry boat heading over from the other country. Some Canadian fishermen burned a US flag, causing one of my friends who saw it on TV to jump up and demand that the US military intervene! The governor of WA asked for State Department intervention, but nothing much came of it. The salmon remained oblivious and delicious.)
Anti-war is a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of a war. Treason is knowingly advocating the defeat of the United States, waving the enemy's flag, chanting slogans about our enemy winning.
We held the line in Korea, South Korea is free and prosperous while North Korea is a slave pen. We did not hold the line in Vietnam, so all of Vietnam is a slave pen.
Opposition to the war in Vietnam is prima faci evidence of evil ignorance.
The poor judgement of Kerry is now equated to the principled leadership of Washington? Oye.
Kerry's conduct was not exactly treasonous, but very nearly.
Protesting the war is not the central problem with his post-service record. Kerry was a leading advocate of falsehoods that aided the political battles of our enemy; his was a profound betrayal that might never be remedied even with a full-hearted retraction and apology to veterans and to South Vietnamese.
While Washington's wartime leadership was rewarded with his being twice-elected President and with being revered as a historical giant, Kerry's abysmal record will be punished in the 2004 presidential campaign and he will be reduced to a footnote in presidential politics. He has already left his lasting mark during the Vietnam years; his Senate record was a mere echo.
I agree, while I think that there are some serious moral questions about protesting against your country during a time of war - in that it usually emboldens the enemy while demoralizing your own troops - Kerry's problem is that he helped to smear the people serving by making and/or promulgating false charges of war crimes. That is a whole different level and not something that he can easily walk away from. If Kerry wants to tout his four months of combat service during Vietnam, it seems fair to evaluate it against the potential harm he caused by the lies he spread afterwards.
"Treason is knowingly advocating the defeat of the United States, waving the enemy's flag, chanting slogans about our enemy winning."
Did George Washington commit treason against the Crown? Sometimes treason is called for.
>>it seems fair to evaluate it against the potential harm he caused by the lies he spread afterwards
Yes. And potential harm he may do if he takes the White House.
Speaking of Kerry's dull echo...
Miami Herald's telephone interview of Kerry a couple of days ago:
[Quote]
Asked if he believed the U.S. government engineered the overthrow of Aristide [in Haiti], Kerry said: "I don't have evidence of it personally. I've heard stories of it."
[/Quote]
The next day Kerry revealed that his fact-checking was as vigorous as it has ever been prior to giving airtime to wild accusations. NBC "Today" interview:
[/Quote]
"I have a very close friend in Massachusetts who talked directly to people who made that allegation."
[/Quote]
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/8074992.htm
This isn't about Vietnam per se, nor is it about Haiti per se.
Kerry's 1971 testimony needs to be viewed in light of his recurring pattern of lending his voice to stuff he can't backup. Today he shows that he has mastered the two-steps forward and one-step backward approach to such accusations. That raises questions about his alleged gravitas as a potential president.