Kerry as traitor, aiding the communists

[Pure]

Hi Couture,

Yeah, it's a good thing that this guy[Compenni] and Bush were around [in the Air National Guard] to save us from sharks and the brutally cold waters of the North Atlantic.

Meanwhile Kerry was playing war games in Vietnam and getting his ass shot.

For the best accounts of Kerry early years and Viet Nam see the Boston Globe series.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061503.shtml

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

***
Yeah, dirt man, it's dick swingin alright; patrician vs patrician's ne'er do well son.
====

Couture, In a sense Compenni is correct about timing. Kerry did time in Viet Nam, in 68 and 69, having trained in 1967. He was organizing against the war in the early 70s. Bush was in the Guard, or supposed to be, in the 1972-3 period.

 

[Couture]

Who'd of thought this would get into a "MY-DICK-IS-BIGGER-THAN-YOUR-DICK," kinda thing. Any person who serves their country in the armed forces should be given the respect that is due them no matter what their rank, occupation, or area of duty is involved. These people make it possible for the rest of their comtry to sleep peacefully every night because they are the vanguard, and custodians of our security.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. These days, that's true. But during the Vietnam era, those who didn't want to go, found some way to get out of it and one of those ways was to join the National Guard. And really, I'm not saying anything bad about those people. Fuck Vietnam. I would have done the same thing.

But his guy who wrote the article acts like George joined the National Guard to for some patriotic duty so that National Guardsmen could get called into combat thirty years later, and thats bullshit. The reason they called into combat now is cause they stopped drafting people for the war. So the rich didn't need this back door anymore.

 

[Weird Harold]

A simple question: Would you call the Kerry speech i reproduced here, today (above), traitorous, or 'giving aid and comfort' to the enemy'?

Yes and No.

That speech by itself is not traitorous, but it is a slander against the good nature of the vast majority of Vietnam Vets because it generalizes from the testimony of small percentage to characterize ALL Vietnam Vets as barbarians and war criminals.

As a part of a larger pattern of lobbying for policies changes that favored the enemy cause, it is just one bit of evidence for a charge of "giving aid and comfort."

Has anti-war speech taking place in the US, in and of itself ever been been previously classified, by the US gov. as 'giving aid and comfort'? and/or prosecuted as a crime?

YES. Although it was later ruled unconstitutional, the Sedition Act made speaking against the government a federal crime. IIRC, it included specific wording about speaking in favor of an enemy nation.

It seems you take 'aid and comfort' in psychological sense, unless I misread you: If I (hypothetically), a veteran, say (once I've arrived back home), "our military and political leaders are totally fucking up," then this hypothetical enemy hears it and says

"Gee, I'm pleased to hear of that sort of thing, it shows the US gov is weakening its resolve." In that sense he's 'comforted'.

No, I do NOT mean "Aid and Comfort" in a purely psychological,"morale boosting" sense, although there is an element of that to all of the Vietnam protests.

Kerry, Fonda, and VVAW were lobbying for specific action and policies from the government that affected the prosecution of the war. Their lobbying were, in part, responsible for some of the assinine Rules Of Engagement that caused the deaths of many servicemen -- assinine rules like not bombing SAM sites under construction because they weren't operational and firing at our aircraft.

Kerry, as a decorated Vietnam Vet and spokesman for VVAW, was influential in prolonging the war by promoting policies that limited the military's ability to act effectively against the enemy -- that constitutes "Material Aid and Comfort" in my opinion (and in the opinions of many Vietnam Vets). "MaterialAidand Comfort to the enemy in a time of war" is one definiton of Treason and only the lack of a Declaration to make Vietnam a "WAR" instead of a "Conflict" saved Kerry, Fonda, and others from prosecution.

Would you consider the US Senators that ended up speaking against the war (during it) traitors? Should they have been arrested for giving 'aid and comfort'. (After all, voting for withdrawal may be a pretty big comfort, if the enemy wins).

NO.

Debate in the Senate (and House) is a part of the process of formulating Government policy. Senators who voted their conscience and represented the interests and desires of their constituents were simply doing their job.

There is a difference between following the desires of a constituency and shaping the opinion of someone else's constituency.

Indeed all the posters to this board who want withdrawal from Iraq, and say it publicly--especially those who've served in Iraq-- would then be 'giving aid and comfort' and justly subject to arrest.

I have no problem with dissent over Iraq and a desire to see our forces withdrawn -- it's the conditions of withdrawal that many advocate that bother me.

Personally, I'm in favor of getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, but I do NOT advocate simply throwing up our hands and leaving in disgust.

There are many parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, but thankfully, stupid and suicidal Rules Of Engagement aren't a part of them -- Yet.

 

[kellycummings]

I understand how people feel about Vietnam and those who protested it. You can make an argument for the vets and the protestors (in some cases they are one-in-the-same). The thing is, it was 30 years ago. It was a terrible time and a terrible war but it's over. If people made mistakes either stateside or in Vietnam then it is unfortunate but it's in the past. It's not even the recent past, it's ancient fucking history! If Kerry said things that maybe he shouldn't have said then I'm sure that over time he has learned. The same goes for Bush. If he skipped out on a year of duty in the Guard 30 years ago, it was a mistake that he probably regrets. Should he be punished for it? I don't think so. The draft dodgers have been mostly forgiven, hell, one was president not so long ago.
Should Kerry have words he said as a bitter veteran of a wrong war shoved back in his face? No. He fought, he didn't like it, he thought it was wrong and he said so. I said in a previous post that people don't look down on Ron Kovic or his friends for protesting when they came home. Why should Kerry be any different. Who cares about Jane Fonda. She was and still is a bitch but her relationship with Kerry was minimal at best. She said herself that she could barely remember him.
I find it difficult to believe that he prolonged the war all by himself. He was not in a position of power or to make policy. He was just another verteran who was angry. I would have been angry too.
I can't blame Bush for wanting to avoid the war. I would have tried the same thing. Maybe he was wrong but his actions can be understood if not condoned.
War is a horrible thing that changes everyone who is a part of it. I find it difficult to blame anyone for speaking against it or trying to avoid it.
Clinton wasn't a bad president. He was a pervert and a liar but he did a competent job. He never served a day. There is no reason to think that Kerry or Bush can't do their job because of their opinion of the same war.
I won't vote for Bush but not because of a stupid missing year from the guard. I might vote for Kerry but not because he was vet or a protestor.

 

[shereads]

If a war hero doesn't have a right to free speech, who the f**k does? Kerry could have adopted a unit of VietCong as pen pals, and having had the courage to volunteer for combat in Vietnam he would have earned the right.

What is all this crap about supporting our troops as they fight for our freedom, if there's no freedom of speech for them when they get home?

Here's today's story on the National Guard mess. And DirtMan, btw, I think the point here is that GWB did NOT serve, but is pretending to have done so. I wouldn't care if he had danced the female lead in "Giselle" and wore a pink tutu, if that's what he put on his resume. But he calls himself a soldier and if he wasn't one then he isn't the man his supporters thought they elected. The Man of Character and Integrity. It's an illusion.

"Bad news doesn't get better with age"

The retired officer who saw Bush National Guard files in a trash can talks back as the White House tries to discredit him, and urges the president to finally come clean.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

Feb. 14, 2004 _|_ Fending off allegations that President Bush failed to honor his Texas Air National Guard service by taking unexplained months off at a time from serving, the White House also has to deal with the accusation from a retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard who claims aides to Bush went through his military file in 1997 and removed any embarrassing information, and tossed documents in the trash. They were allegedly the types of documents that might help answer many of the unanswered questions surrounding Bush’s Guard service today.

The retired officer, Bill Burkett, went public with his charges in 1998. But with renewed interest in Bush’s Guard service, and specifically the contents of his personal military file, Burkett’s story about tampering has taken on greater urgency, and attracted national notice. “I don’t like the attention,” he said from his home near Abilene, Texas, during an interview with Salon. “If you think 15 minutes of fame is worth it, that’s damn sure no motivation for this kind of crap,” referring to the constant press inquiries. (Burkett’s story is also detailed it in the upcoming book by James Moore, “Bush’s War for Re-Election.”)

----------


also from salon.com:

According to the Associated Press, the administration has now released hundreds of pages of documents detailing Bush's service in the Guard in Texas and Alabama during the early 1970s. While many of the pages were "duplicates," and "there were no new documents about Bush's serving in Alabama," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush had fulfilled his pledge to release all his records, according to AP. "Our understanding is that this is the entire file," McClellan said.

 

[Pure]

Hi Weird H.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. The difficulty is in your statement:

Kerry, Fonda, and VVAW were lobbying for specific action and policies from the government that affected the prosecution of the war. Their lobbying were, in part, responsible for some of the assinine Rules Of Engagement that caused the deaths of many servicemen -- assinine rules like not bombing SAM sites under construction because they weren't operational and firing at our aircraft.

Kerry, as a decorated Vietnam Vet and spokesman for VVAW, was influential in prolonging the war by promoting policies that limited the military's ability to act effectively against the enemy -- that constitutes "Material Aid and Comfort" in my opinion (and in the opinions of many Vietnam Vets). "Material Aidand Comfort to the enemy in a time of war" is one definiton of Treason ....

I ask you to consider the following passage (from the Globe articles referenced above) about an incident and a representation; Kerry and others talked to Zumvalt and Abrams.

//But Kerry does recall a harrowing incident, which he has never previously publicly discussed, in which he said a crew member shot and killed a Vietnamese boy of perhaps 12 years of age.

A member of Kerry's crew announced he was shooting, and the air filled with the ack-ack-ack of gunfire. The rounds blasted into a sampan, hurling the child into the rice paddy. The mother screamed as the flimsy craft began to sink, and Kerry, shining a searchlight, yelled, "Cease fire! Cease fire!"

Kerry said his crew rescued the mother, took her aboard the Navy vessel for questioning, and left the child behind. Due to the dangerous location, and the possibility that the gunfire had drawn the notice of Viet Cong, Kerry never had a chance to see whether the woman was hiding weaponry in the sunken boat, and does not know to this day whether his crew faced a real threat.

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

"It angered me," Kerry said. "But, look, the Viet Cong used women and children." He said there might have been a satchel containing explosives. "Who knows if they had -- under the rice -- a satchel, and if we had come along beside them they had thrown the satchel in the boat. ... So it was a terrible thing, but I've never thought we were somehow at fault or guilty. There wasn't anybody in that area that didn't know you don't move at night, that you don't go out in a sampan on the rivers, and there's a curfew."

The details of the episode are murky, however, because none of Kerry's crewmates remembers it the way Kerry does. The closest recollection comes from William Zaladonis, a crewmate on No. 44 who vividly recalls killing a 15-year-old boy, but does not remember a mother being rescued. "I myself took out a 15-year-old" when the crew came across a sampan in a free-fire zone, Zaladonis said. "It was all legitimate. We told them to stop. When we fired across the bow, people started jumping from the boat. At that time my officer, whoever it was, told me to open up on them, and I did. And there was one body still in the boat, a 15-year-old kid. But over there, 15-year-old kids were soldiers."

In any case, Kerry said he was appalled that the Navy's ''free fire zone'' policy put civilians at such high risk. So, on Jan. 22, 1969, Kerry and several dozen fellow skippers and officers traveled to Saigon to complain about the policy in an extraordinary meeting with Zumwalt and the overall commander of the war, General Creighton W. Abrams Jr.

''We were fighting the [free fire] policy very, very hard, to the point that many of the members were refusing to carry out orders on some of their missions, to the point where crews were starting to mutiny, [to] say, `I would not go back in the rivers again,''' Kerry recalled during a 1971 television appearance on the Dick Cavett Show.

But Kerry went back in the rivers. Indeed, it was after this meeting that he began his most deadly round of combat. Within days of the Saigon meeting, he joined a five-man crew on swift boat No. 94 on a series of missions in which he won the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and two of his three Purple Hearts. //

=======

Question: Would you consider the Kerry attempts to influence Zumvalt and Abrams "giving material aid and comfort to the enemy", if we assume Kerry was successful: that the rules for shooting at possible targets in the 'free fire' zones were possibily tightened (in part) as a result?

You say the ''Rules of Engagement", as tightened, caused the deaths of some servicemen, hence the 'aid and comfort to the enemy.'

This argument has been advanced by Colleen T also. In a sense it's valid and sound. If you say, "You can't shoot at a moving item in a free fire zone unless you have reasonable grounds... etc.. " there will be less shooting (if the directive is followed).

If one out of 50 shot is an enemy, about to inflict damage on a US person, then the US casualty toll has risen. The enemy has, as it were, be aided. (One more American death.)

The problem is that this arguement applies to ANY rules of engagement, insofar as they limit possible shooting at the possible enemy. For instance the rule "Make certain the building you bomb is not a school" may cause a ammunition depot NOT to be bombed occasionally, and this ammo might be used on US soldiers.

I think you can see the main problem: Like Colly, you focus only on one side's losses--and in the small picture. As if the 'rules of engagement' were solely for tactical effectiveness. Yet the rules specify a marginally civilized conduct. 'Don't shoot a fellow who's surrendered, lying on the ground tied, and helpless.' Why not? Maybe he'll escape and shoot and American.

The answer is that the army, air force, etc. do not want to be known, in Kerry's words, like butchers of children (who might grow up and kill) or Genghiz Khan's troops. Moral and psychological stability are affected. The conduct of an army affects the larger picture, including the willingness of the enemy to surrender, as opposed to fighting to the death.

I'm not saying every part of the VN rules of engagement makes sense overall. Maybe incipient SAM sites should have been bombed, even if they occasionally turn out to be underground air raid bunkers.

But the general point is that restriction of--even existence of-- rules of engagement, does not necessarily in itself-- except in an tactical sense--give 'aid' to the enemy in the relevant and overall sense. The sense specified in the law. Indeed violating reasonable rules of engagement, in the absence of annihilation, may cause more casualties (a bit like the LA PD of old).

In Israel is the same debate. In your sense, restrictions on soldiers shooting 'suspicious' targets cause more soldiers' deaths. Yet the overall reasons for such rules is to encourage surrender, and to protect the soldiers' view of themselves (ability to live with themselves) and maintain the reputation of the Israeli army, and the reputation of the nation itself.

The same problem is arising in Iraq; soldiers' hands are sometimes 'tied'. etc. And there are overall military and political reasons for this.

I deeply appreciate the dilemma at the individual level. The foot soldier wants to survive. Yet, besides the problem of 'friendly fire'--killing your own out of nervousness-- the soldier's conduct affects the overall effectiveness and reputation of the army. Hence the burdensome--sometime life threatening-- order, "make sure before you fire." Hence it's generally a mistake to argue that, in the treasonous sense, a limitation in a 'rule of engagement' is an aid to the enemy.

Best,
J.

 

[Weird Harold]

I understand how people feel about Vietnam and those who protested it. You can make an argument for the vets and the protestors (in some cases they are one-in-the-same). The thing is, it was 30 years ago.
...

To some of us, the Vietnam War is as recent as last night.

How Vietnam Vets feel about anti-war protestors in general is as varied as the Vets, but most respect draft dodgers and protestors for having the courage of their convictions.

Some prominant anti-war figures, like Mohamed Ali, are highly respected by most Vets. Others, Like Jane Fonda, are almost universally reviled and hated. Most, like John Kerry fall somewhere between those two extremes.

I find it difficult to believe that he prolonged the war all by himself. He was not in a position of power or to make policy. He was just another verteran who was angry. I would have been angry too.

No, John Kerry did NOT prolong the war "all by himself." He was, however an influential figure who actively worked for policies that prolonged the war and benefitted the enemy.

No one person was solely responsible for the idiotic conduct of the war or the policies that prolonged it, but some people had more influence than others.

Shereads asked:
If a war hero doesn't have a right to free speech, who the f**k does? Kerry could have adopted a unit of VietCong as pen pals, and having had the courage to volunteer for combat in Vietnam he would have earned the right.

Volunteering for combat is irrelevant -- especially volunteering for combat in Vietnam! In fact, volunteering to go BACK to Vietnam, as Kerry did, could be seen as a lack of mental stability

Volunteering to serve IS relevant -- no matter which military service is chosen -- but volunteering for combat is just stupid, IMHO.

Excercising Free Speech is not without consequences for what you say and how you say it -- even if the consequences are delayed by 30 years.

John Kerry was free to say what he did, where he did it, ow he did it and when he did it, just as I'm free to detest what, when, where, and how he expressed himself. He was free to say what he did because there was no "War" declared to invoke the laws that would have imposed more serious consequences than the scorn of other veterans -- but even then he would have been free to speak his mind.

The issue is NOT whether he was free to speak, but the content of his speeches.

 

[Pure]

Sher, the following article made me think of your posting

Ashcroft on 'aiding' the enemy

"Still Standin'" by Harvey Silverglate**


http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02607813.htm

[start]
FREE-SPEECH RIGHTS have also remained more or less intact since September 11. The public debate over executive incursions into liberty has been vigorous — more so, it seems, than the debate in Congress. The administration now appears hesitant to exercise official power to quell dissent and criticism.

Perhaps this reluctance stems from the firestorm caused when, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 6 of last year, Attorney General Ashcroft had the temerity to suggest that criticism of the administration’s anti-terror initiatives should be equated with giving comfort to America’s enemies — a thinly veiled accusation of treason:

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against noncitizens, those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty," he railed, "my message is clear: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends."

At first, Judiciary Committee members offered pitifully little criticism of these incendiary remarks, but public criticism, even ridicule, was profound. One wonders if Ashcroft, though dizzy with the arrogance of power, would dare repeat such words now.
====

**Harvey A. Silverglate is the co-author of The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses (HarperPerennial, 1999), co-director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and a partner in the Boston law firm of Silverglate & Good.

 

[KenJames]

Harold, I have the utmost respect for the individuals who served in Vietnam and truly deplore the way many of you were treated when you returned home. As a member of your generation who did not serve and was active in the anti-war movement, I sincerely thank you for defending me and the country we both love.

Still, I must respectfully disagree with some of your points.

That speech by itself is not traitorous, but it is a slander against the good nature of the vast majority of Vietnam Vets because it generalizes from the testimony of small percentage to characterize ALL Vietnam Vets as barbarians and war criminals.

I don't feel that Kerry did generalize to the extent you feel he did, but that's a subjective interpretation. Those incidents did occur. A small number of American soldiers did commit war crimes. A lot of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers did too. The communist atrocities received a lot more exposure in the media I encountered.

Kerry, Fonda, and VVAW were lobbying for specific action and policies from the government that affected the prosecution of the war. Their lobbying were, in part, responsible for some of the asinine Rules Of Engagement that caused the deaths of many servicemen -- asinine rules like not bombing SAM sites under construction because they weren't operational and firing at our aircraft.

Kerry, as a decorated Vietnam Vet and spokesman for VVAW, was influential in prolonging the war by promoting policies that limited the military's ability to act effectively against the enemy -- that constitutes "Material Aid and Comfort" in my opinion (and in the opinions of many Vietnam Vets). "Material Aid and Comfort to the enemy in a time of war" is one definition of Treason and only the lack of a Declaration to make Vietnam a "WAR" instead of a "Conflict" saved Kerry, Fonda, and others from prosecution.

There were asinine Rules Of Engagement in Vietnam long before Kerry, Fonda and the VVAW engaged in any lobbying against the war. That's what turned people like me against the war before Kerry ever got into his boat.

Incidentally, I have no respect for Jane Fonda. At best, her behavior was contemptible. Leftists definitely tried to hijack the anti-Vietnam movement, but it's just plain wrong to characterize ALL, or even most, of the people who opposed the war as communists or traitors.

The Vietnam Veterans Against the War may have constituted a small percentage of those who served, but there were sure a lot of members in Wyoming, a state with a small, very conservative, population. They were the people I respected most in the anti-war movement.

There is a difference between following the desires of a constituency and shaping the opinion of someone else's constituency.

This is another area where I just flat disagree with you. To me, it's a citizen's duty to speak out when he or she feels the country is going in the wrong direction. I don't think you were fighting for an American's right to shut the fuck up, but I may be wrong.

I have no problem with dissent over Iraq and a desire to see our forces withdrawn -- it's the conditions of withdrawal that many advocate that bother me.

Personally, I'm in favor of getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, but I do NOT advocate simply throwing up our hands and leaving in disgust.

I completely agree with you about Iraq. It's both a moral duty and in our national interest to leave things better, not worse (which is a distinct possibility) when we finally withdraw.

I'm reluctant to post this, because I really don't like opening old wounds. This was painful to write, and it's painful to disagree with you.

Still, those who say Vietnam is part of the dim dead past are wrong. It defined our generation as surely as World War II defined our parents. The specter of Vietnam may die with us, but I hope not, because it is true that those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it.

 

[shereads]

Kerry, as a decorated Vietnam Vet and spokesman for VVAW, was influential in prolonging the war by promoting policies that limited the military's ability to act effectively against the enemy -- that constitutes "Material Aid and Comfort" in my opinion (and in the opinions of many Vietnam Vets).

Lobbying one's own government as "material aid and comfort?" Please. You might as well say that praying for the enemy's health provides material aid and comfort.

If I provide money for arms, if I smuggle in tents and blankets, if I shelter the enemy in my attic, I'm giving material aid and comfort. If I bake cookies for the enemy and deliver them, I'm giving material aid and comfort.

What you're sayinig is that if I don't give the enemy these home-made cookies, but I lobby my government to do so and they yield to pressure, they should then be able to hold me criminally accountable for putting them in an awkward political position, causing them to concede to my wishes and alter a policy that aided the enemy.

Please. You can't be serious. The phrase "material aid and comfort" contains the word "material" for a reason.

Finally, veterans have a real war hero who wants to be commander in chief. And he's going to be crucified for having spoken his mind after he risked his life.

Would you honestly prefer the man who said all the right things about the war except "Let me come too?"

 

[shereads]

I can't blame Bush for wanting to avoid the war. I would have tried the same thing. Maybe he was wrong but his actions can be understood if not condoned.
War is a horrible thing that changes everyone who is a part of it....
There is no reason to think that Kerry or Bush can't do their job because of their opinion of the same war.

Arrrrggghhhhh!

Kelly, the point is that Bush said he was IN FAVOR of the war and avoided it;

Clinton spoke out against the war and avoided it, and Bush's people labeled him a draft dodger! Don't you see the hypocrisy in this?

Now we have Kerry, who followed his conscience, twice: fighting in a war he didn't like because he felt it was his duty; lobbying against it because he felt it was his duty.

Of the three we've just discussed, one is not known to have avoided service or to have lied about it.

And it's not good enough. Bush is still getting by, never to be held accountable for behaving like a spoiled brat.

Will someone explain why this is acceptable behavior from Mr. Integrity.

 

[Weird Harold]

In any case, Kerry said he was appalled that the Navy's ''free fire zone'' policy put civilians at such high risk. So, on Jan. 22, 1969, Kerry and several dozen fellow skippers and officers traveled to Saigon to complain about the policy in an extraordinary meeting with Zumwalt and the overall commander of the war, General Creighton W. Abrams Jr. ''We were fighting the [free fire] policy very, very hard, to the point that many of the members were refusing to carry out orders on some of their missions, to the point where crews were starting to mutiny, [to] say, `I would not go back in the rivers again,'''

Question: Would you consider the Kerry attempts to influence Zumvalt and Abrams "giving material aid and comfort to the enemy", if we assume Kerry was successful: that the rules for shooting at possible targets in the 'free fire' zones were possibily tightened (in part) as a result?

Kerry's taking a legitimate concern over the rules of engagement to his superiors was the right thing to do, in fact the required thing to do since it was causing discipline and morale problems in his unit.

Where Kerry's actions cross the line to "giving aid and comfort" is when he "went over their heads" and took his case to Congress and the Public. Presenting a problem to knowledgable and responsible people is one thing. Presenting a biased and incomplete argument to "the ignorant unwashed masses" because you don't like the decision of the knowledgable and responsible people you presented theproblem to is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

The "Ignorant Unwashed Masses" are neither ignorant nor unwashed -- for the most part -- but neither are they knowledgable about military necessities.


The subject of "Free Fire Zones" -- and the more important "No Fire Zones" Rules of engangement -- are a sore subject with me.

I served two tours in SEA; one in Vietnam and One in Thailand. On both tours, I served as a "Security Augmentee" and stood periodic watches on the base perimeter.

On one such term of Augmentee duty, My post had three different "fire zones" involved; a free fire zone, a limited fire zone, and a NO Fire zone.

In one direction, I could fire at anything I felt needed to be fired on. However, that does NOT equate to being able to fire "at will" -- there had to be a perceived threat of some sort.

In the "limited fire zone" the requirements were that I could fire back if fired upon.

The problem was with the No Fire Zone.

I was told, "Even if there is a full battalion of VC charging from that direction, you will NOT fire back."

The reason for the absolute no fire zone? There was a friendly Vietnamese village SEVEN MILES AWAY in that direction.

(in perfect conditions, an M-16 (.223) round might travel that far and cause a mild bruise at that range. An M-60 (30-06) round is about as dangerous as a baseball at that range.)

Kerry sought, and to the best of my knowledge was influential in gaining, even stricter Rules Of Engagement the reduced the Free Fire Zones to what I knew as "Limited Fire" zones and expanded the No Fire zones accordingly.

It isn't the danger to "friendlies" from Free Fire Zones that endangered troops, it was the corresponding increase in limited fire and no fire zones that endangered them.

Some no fire zones make sense -- "don't fire in the direction of the next post," "don't fire into the ammo dump with tracers," and similar reasons -- and not bombing churches, hospital and schools makes sense as long as that's whatthey really are; if someone is shooting at you from them, all restrictions should be off except for common sense. (Which is the case for Iraq and Afghanistan's ROE. -- i.e. avoid civilian casualties wherever possible, but defending yourself comes first.)

 

[shereads]

All of which ought to be moot now that we know our boy Dubya lied to start a war.

That ought to be enough to unelect him. Hell, it ought to be enough to impeach him.

Yet there will be a debate about Kerry's integrity and fitness to be commander in chief.

It's a bit bizarre, isn't it?

 

[shereads]

Anyone who says the National Guard duty was not a way to get out of serving in Vietnam is conveniently avoiding the question of,

Why was there a waiting list to get into the National Guard? Nobody had to be drafted into it, they lined up to get in. GWB had to be put in line ahead of an 18-month waiting list because there were not enough posts in the National Guard for everybody who wanted them.

Was it a guaranteed way out? No, but it had a major advantage over any other way: someone like Bush whose father would have been embarrassed politically by a "draft dodger" son could fulfill his military service requirement and have a politically-correct resume when he was ready to enter the business world.

If you persist in thinking that GWB - since he was in favor of other men going to Vietnam - thought that the National Guard would be a good, direct route into combat, you still have to deal with the fact that he refuses to say what he was doing during the 5 missing months before his early discharge.

He says he "decided not to fly anymore." Wierd, you're a veteran. Does that seem odd to you?

from salon: ""There is no excuse for that," retired Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver Jr. told the Boston Globe. He's the former director of the Air National Guard. "Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals." By failing to take a physical and thereby losing his flying status, Bush should have been subject to a disciplinary review, copies of which would be contained in Bush's military file.

Nothing there. "They're searched everywhere for those records," he said on Meet the Press. Darn those military records. They just disappear. Not all of them, only the ones for the time after you missed your physical, right after the drug tests were included.

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold, I have the utmost respect for the individuals who served in Vietnam and truly deplore the way many of you were treated when you returned home. As a member of your generation who did not serve and was active in the anti-war movement, I sincerely thank you for defending me and the country we both love.

Still, I must respectfully disagree with some of your points.

Even during Vietnam, I didn't have any animosity to most of the anti-war protesters -- It was the relatively few radicals who spat on the troops and threw dung on them that gave the whole movement a bad name.

A small number of American soldiers did commit war crimes. A lot of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers did too. The communist atrocities received a lot more exposure in the media I encountered.

The South Vietnamese committed their share of atrocities, too. That doesn't excuse any of the atrocities in Vietnam or any other conflict. I think the main difference is that the US military does not engage in atrocities as a matter of policy or standard operating procedure. That was as true in Vietnam as it is today, despite the comments of John Kerry and others in the anti-war movement.

The US Military was more tolerant of actions taken "in the heat of battle" during Vietnam than they are today but the POLICY then was the same as it is now -- "Follow the Rules of Engagement."

Kerry's remarks, as cited above, make no qualifications or limitations when he talks about American personnel committing atrocities and the phrasing implies that it's done as a matter of policy -- that might have been true in his unit, or he might be mistaking tolerance for policy, but neither tolerance nor policy where I was stationed was the general rule.

There were asinine Rules Of Engagement in Vietnam long before Kerry, Fonda and the VVAW engaged in any lobbying against the war. That's what turned people like me against the war before Kerry ever got into his boat.

The ROE gradually got more assinine and restrictive as the war went on. They were noticeably more restrictive on my second tour than they were on the first -- that was one tour on each side of Kerry's testimony. I can't say that Kerry's testimony was all or part of the reason, but I experienced the changes that followed those hearings first-hand.

... it's just plain wrong to characterize ALL, or even most, of the people who opposed the war as communists or traitors.

The Vietnam Veterans Against the War may have constituted a small percentage of those who served, but there were sure a lot of members in Wyoming, a state with a small, very conservative, population. They were the people I respected most in the anti-war movement.

It's also wrong to characterize all of the membership in an organization as agreeing with every word their leaders put forth. Most of the members of VVAW were good people who wanted the war to end, but I suspect that none were in total agreement on just how that should be done.

This is another area where I just flat disagree with you. To me, it's a citizen's duty to speak out when he or she feels the country is going in the wrong direction. I don't think you were fighting for an American's right to shut the fuck up, but I may be wrong.

I don't think we disagree at all, except on what constitutes the "right way" to speak out. The words you disagreed with were part of a relative comparison between the duties and responsibilities of a congress person and the responsibility of a private citizen. It simply recognises that there is a difference in responsibility between the two circumstances.

There is nothing inherently wrong with shaping a constuency's opinion -- Madison Avenue does it every day for about 21 minutes out every hour (according to TV Guide's article on comercial times.)

However, there is also a difference between selling you toasters and trying to convince you that "the enemy" is really just misunderstood and a nice guy who onlycommits atrocities because we did first. That's NOT the same as trying to convince you that we're in a war that should be ended as soon as possible, BTW.

Still, those who say Vietnam is part of the dim dead past are wrong. It defined our generation as surely as World War II defined our parents. The specter of Vietnam may die with us, but I hope not, because it is true that those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it.

I think that the fifties, sixties and seventies area time period that aren't studied enough. Most of the mistakes the US made in Vietnam have their roots in the "Forgotten War" in Korea. The anti-war movement also has roots in the Korean Conflict.

I think WWII is better remembered because the veterans talked about their experiences mor than Korean and Vietnam Vets do. This discussion brings back some less than pleasant memories for me, but I think it's important -- I can certainly understand the reluctance to talk about Vietnam and am glad to see that reluctance fading in more and more of our generation. (at least if the History Channel can be believed, it declining.)

Shereads said:
Lobbying one's own government as "material aid and comfort?" Please. You might as well say that praying for the enemy's health provides material aid and comfort.

I'm not sure of which spelling has which meaning so I'm going to belabor the point that ther are two different kinds of "Material" (or "materiel.") One means physical goods and the other means "substantial and/or effective."

Material Aid and Comfort does not mean only support by physical means.

In WWII, the actions of Kerry, Fonda, and others were characterized as "The Third Column." Supporting an enemy with propaganda is just as much "material support" as smuggling guns to him is.

 

[Weird Harold]

He says he "decided not to fly anymore." Wierd, you're a veteran. Does that seem odd to you?

Nope, Flying status is and always has been pretty voluntary, especially in the ANG. It's called a "career path change."

It's really kind of similar to why I retired when I did -- I was faced with the necessity to retrain and incur an additional service commitment and felt that retirement was the better choice.

The change from 111 FIS to 111FTS -- ie from combat to training, would have presented the same sort of retrain and commit to mor eservice or stop flying and serve out the enlistment choice to GWB. He hadn't been flying when he missed the physical and it wasn't required if he wasn't going to be flying anymore.

 

[shereads]

Nope, Flying status is and always has been pretty voluntary, especially in the ANG. It's called a "career path change."

It's really kind of similar to why I retired when I did -- I was faced with the necessity to retrain and incur an additional service commitment and felt that retirement was the better choice.

He wasn't eligible for retirement, he was about to disappear from the radar for five months before his 8-months-early discharge.

What would he have to have done in his past and his present to make you view him as critically as you view John Kerry? Sleep with Jane Fonda?

He was AWOL during WARTIME!!!!!! He lied at a press conference when he was governor of Texas and said he had been to war?

Why don't you care?

And if it was okay for him to not show up, what is this about:

"There is no excuse for that," retired Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver Jr. told the Boston Globe. He's the former director of the Air National Guard. "Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals." By failing to take a physical and thereby losing his flying status, Bush should have been subject to a disciplinary review, copies of which would be contained in Bush's military file.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you wish, but it does not mean theat speaking is free from repercussion. I believe freedom of speech is actually protection from the government prohibiting you from speaking.

Kerry was free to say whatever he liked, but to say it is irrellevant what he chose to say and how he chose to say it it BS. Freedom of speech is not a bludgeon with which you can stiffle opposition to what he said or anger at him for saying it. He chose to run his mouth, he chose to paint his fellow vets in a bad light, he chose to exercise his freedom of speech.

Now, people are exercising their right to free speech and Vets in particular are telling the world exactly what they think of him. And that right is protected too. I find Liberals screaming he had freedom of speech as a defense for his words to be extremely hypocritical. It's like you wish to silence the voices raised against him by invoking his freedom of speech rights, and you choose to ignore the freedom of speech rights of those who think he's a jerk for having said what he did. You can't have it both ways people. If he was free to speak then stash your party loyalties and accept that people are free to criticise him for it. If they aren't free to do that, then he wasn't free to open his mouth.

The arguments I have seen seem to boil down to he was free to say what he wanted and that means you aren't free to hold it against him 30 years after the fact and that's just pure, unadulterated, cow puckies.

I wasn't there, I don't know what he said and in fact I don't care. My friends who are vets almost, not quite all, but almost all dislike him for what he did and more specifically for how he went about it. Saying he was a vet and thuse EARNED the right ignores the fact that the people most critical of his actions are vets too. Did they not EARN the right to speak out against him?

-Colly

 

[Couture]

What would he have to have done in his past and his present to make you view him as critically as you view John Kerry? Sleep with Jane Fonda?

He was AWOL during WARTIME!!!!!! He lied at a press conference when he was governor of Texas and said he had been to war?

Why don't you care?
[/i]

You said it sister! I just don't get it anymore. I think Colly has it right. If they discovered that had Bush pissed on the Alamo and had enslaved an intern, there are a lot of people who wouldn't care. They would say, "That George, he's a little too liberal for my tastes, but at least he's keepin' the gays from being able to marry and puttin' the religion back in schools etc.

So, really, it doesn't matter what George does. He could start another unnecessary war and there will still be plenty of folks who will think he's the greatest president ever. I mean, what other republican admistration has been able to wage such an effective attack on Roe vs Wade, the bill of rights, the environmental movement, unions, human rights, and those pesky queers?

 

[Couture]

Ann Coulter

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman –- or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

 

[Guest]

My dad is a Vietnam vet -

and has always voted Republican.

(I, however, have not - ever!)

Dad has never talked about his service experience to his family but lately has begun to get together with friends for yearly reunions. I think that's very healthy and I'm glad he's finally able to do that.

He and most of his military buddies share a mild contempt for those who used their daddies to help them avoid danger. Even today, when most are retired (he served 22 years) and nobody worries about former rank at the parties - calls the General Jerry - for example. LOL

But that "discrepancy in service records" really wasn't a problem for him until Bush began to use it for bragging rights.

Now he's disgusted.

(And don't get him started on Jane Fonda!)

I respect his opinion and that of other veterans more than the political whitewashing bullshit currently circulating on every TV channel.

 

[shereads]

Now, people are exercising their right to free speech and Vets in particular are telling the world exactly what they think of him. And that right is protected too. I find Liberals screaming he had freedom of speech as a defense for his words to be extremely hypocritical. It's like you wish to silence the voices raised against him by invoking his freedom of speech rights, and you choose to ignore the freedom of speech rights of those who think he's a jerk for having said what he did. You can't have it both ways people. If he was free to speak then stash your party loyalties and accept that people are free to criticise him for it. If they aren't free to do that, then he wasn't free to open his mouth.

No, Colly, I wish to understand why the voices raised against him for something said thirty years ago are not also raised against GWB.

The arguments I have seen seem to boil down to he was free to say what he wanted and that means you aren't free to hold it against him 30 years after the fact and that's just pure, unadulterated, cow puckies.

That's an amazing conclusion to have drawn, since the same argument was made in defending GWB by some of the very people who are condemning Kerry again. Let me try once more to ask the questions that I still haven't heard an answer to:

Why are so many veterans and nearly all conservatives refusing to hold GWB to the same standard for his actions 30 years ago that they held Bill Clinton's and now John Kerry's?

And why, when it is now clear that GWB sent our troops to war based on a false assumption and committed us to a war with no exit strategy, are veterans not questioning his fitness as commander in chief?

It's the same double standard that was applied to Reagan lying to Congress about Iran-Contra versus Clinton lying to a grand jury about adultery. I'm asking why. What's maddening about that is NOT that people are speaking their minds, Colly, but that in doing so they reveal a refusal to hold GWB accountable for his actions past or present, while wanting to condemn others for theirs.

Why?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

No, Colly, I wish to understand why the voices raised against him for something said thirty years ago are not also raised against GWB.



That's an amazing conclusion to have drawn, since the same argument was made in defending GWB by some of the very people who are condemning Kerry again. Let me try once more to ask the questions that I still haven't heard an answer to:

Why are so many veterans and nearly all conservatives refusing to hold GWB to the same standard for his actions 30 years ago that they held Bill Clinton's and now John Kerry's?

And why, when it is now clear that GWB sent our troops to war based on a false assumption and committed us to a war with no exit strategy, are veterans not questioning his fitness as commander in chief?

It's the same double standard that was applied to Reagan lying to Congress about Iran-Contra versus Clinton lying to a grand jury about adultery. I'm asking why. What's maddening about that is NOT that people are speaking their minds, Colly, but that in doing so they reveal a refusal to hold GWB accountable for his actions past or present, while wanting to condemn others for theirs.

Why?

Who is not holding him accountable? Nearly every person on this board is bashing him left right and up the middle. Just what are you looking for? A popular uprising? Party loyalists abandoning the Republican party? The religious right voting for a liberal?





-Colly

 

[shereads]

In summary, and not expecting an answer, I ask the veterans who are expressing their anger at Kerry, this about GWB - I'll even divide it into time periods so you eliminate ones that are irrelevant because they happened too long ago:

Past: He was AWOL during WARTIME!!!!!! and still offers no explanation.

Recent past: He lied at a press conference when he was governor of Texas and said he had been to war.

Present: He committed troops to a war with no clear exit strategy, and did so based on false assumptions.

Why don't you care? Veterans of all people - why aren't more of you outraged?



After that, a truce and happy Valentine's Day to our war vets.

We owe you. I'm not sure we owe you the benefit of the doubt on this issue, but for today I offer it.



Tomorrow I want some answers about your defense of this Teflon president.



But today,

 

[shereads]

After that, a truce and happy Valentine's Day to our war vets.

We owe you. I'm not sure we owe you the benefit of the doubt on this issue, but for today I offer it.

And let's none of us forget that our war vets include John Kerry.

"...but Kerry went back to the rivers." He hated it but he went back.

Don't exclude him from your brotherhood when he was there with you, shared what you endured, and carries scars of his own. Give him the benefit of the doubt. He is your brother in arms, WierdHarold. Don't deny him that honor.