Formal Complaint Filed Over Senator’s Vietnam Awards, Post-Service Activities

[kat]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/3794.shtml
*snip*

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today filed a request with the U.S. Navy and the Defense Department for an investigation into the awards granted to Sen. John Kerry during his service with the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. Judicial Watch also requested that military authorities investigate Kerry’s anti-war activities, including his meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations in Paris, while a member of the Naval Reserve.

*snip*

“The allegations concerning Kerry’s conduct during the Vietnam War are credible, serious and shocking,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The sooner an investigation begins, the better.”

I think this calls for a "wow" moment.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yeah, "Wow!" how low can the repubicans go. Why do I suspect the hand of Richard Mellon Scaife in this. And Judicial Watch is not an equal opportunity gadfly; else why hasn't it been on John Ashcroft's case?

Edit: Gee I got it right!

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/11/klayman.jackson/

 

[JohnDubYa]

Judicial Watch hardly looks like a conservative organization:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases.shtml

It appears they have been on George W.'s case quite often. If anything, their focus on Republican presidents is so intense that they come across as Leftist muckrakers.

 

[kat]

Tom Fitton is a conservative (which doesn't neccesarily make him a republican shill) but JW is non-partisian. Even if that were not the case, it doesn't diminish the possible ramifications of this request.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I still say this has all the earmarks of a Scaife operation, indeed I wonder about the funding for the whole swift boats enterprise. The JW thing is high-profile and virtually empty of content, a perfect Scaife weapon. And the fact that they accepted funding from him in the past indicates that they are not as pristine as they would like us to believe. I acknowledge that they have done good work on the Cheney energy controversy.

 

[amp]

A NY Times article asserts that many deriders who question Kerry's war record hardly knew him or served near him peripherally none of them were crewmates.

 

[kat]

A NY Times article asserts that many deriders who question Kerry's war record hardly knew him or served near him peripherally none of them were crewmates.

"Served near him peripherally" Could you define this?
and what is the exact quantifier and quantity of "many deriders"?
I question his war record, do I count?

 

[Gokul43201]

This is ridiculous. Here's a guy that volunteered for service.

On the other hand, you have someone who ran away and hid and ran away again - and then used daddy to cover it up. The number of inconsistencies in his records are astounding! But as he said to Tim Russert : "he worked it out with the military, so he could be let off early". Yeah, it was more important that he go to Yale so he could have crazy, drunken parties than to have him make himself accountable to the country.

Funny !

 

[amp]

Your one, the Q & Q of many includes those who are saying the opposite of what the men who served with him are saying. "("Served near him peripherally" )Could you define this? ". My definition is (you asked) they just happened to be in the same generally location but as far as I know, wasn't there close/near/ajacent/on the same boat or in the same situations as Kerry, I could be wrong and admit that possibility but IMHO these accusations are unsubstantiated.

 

[kat]

I don't remember Bush sitting in a meeting and voting on whether or not there should be an attempt to assassinate United States Senators.

including his meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations in Paris, while a member of the Naval Reserve.

This is also a biggie, IMO. Not to mention his admitted war crimes. My father serverd 2 tours in Vietnam, full tours and he didn't need to shoot naked boys in the back or collude with the enemy. Nor did he get and purple hearts for li'l scratches. This guy is a poser. He shouldn't be using his limited service in Vietnam as his basis for election. I'd rather hear about his Senate record. Oh wait, it's far to liberal to garner the undecided votes he needs to win the election. Give me a break Goku.

 

[amp]

KAT:

I don't remember Bush sitting in a meeting and voting on whether or not there should be an attempt to assassinate United States Senators.

Enlighten me Kat, what does that have to do with anything and is there any truth to it. If, I'm right in guessing your referring to Kerry.

 

[JohnDubYa]

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/03/15&ID=Ar00402

Admittedly, I know little about the New York Sun. But I think the following needs to be asked.

Did Kerry belong to the group? (I think even he admits it.)

Did the group ever vote on whether or not to assassinate US politicians? (Looks to be the case)

Was Kerry a member of the group at the time? (Not sure)

Did Kerry participate in the vote? (Not sure)

What was Kerry doing belonging to a group that would even put such a question up for vote in the first place? (I would love to hear his explanation for this one.)

 

[JohnDubYa]

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/kerry_kan_plot1.htm

Again, this doesn't constitute proof, or even evidence, of anything.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't remember Bush sitting in a meeting and voting on whether or not there should be an attempt to assassinate United States Senators.

Only the Drudge Reports of this world will still carry that nonsense.

My father serverd 2 tours in Vietnam, full tours and he didn't need to shoot naked boys in the back or collude with the enemy.

Please don't try to establish a generalization based on ONE data point. Kerry was not the only one to talk about war crimes, nor the first.

Nor did he get and purple hearts for li'l scratches. This guy is a poser. He shouldn't be using his limited service in Vietnam as his basis for election. I'd rather hear about his Senate record. Oh wait, it's far to liberal to garner the undecided votes he needs to win the election. Give me a break Goku.

And if Bush wants to call himself a strong military leader, that's okay, given his history ? "Strength under fire ", my you-know-what. He choked under fire. When the country was under fire, he sat about for 7 minutes without reacting. He froze, and didn't know what to do. That's pathetic, and it's exactly what you want a leader to NOT BE.

And we know who made all the real decisions anyway !

 

[kat]

Only the Drudge Reports of this world will still carry that nonsense.

FBI reports = Drudge...mmm didn't know that.

Please don't try to establish a generalization based on ONE data point. Kerry was not the only one to talk about war crimes, nor the first.

Kerry's a presidential nominee who's admitted committing war crimes in the Vietnam war...and is also attempting to get elected based on that service.

And if Bush wants to call himself a strong military leader, that's okay, given his history ? "Strength under fire ", my you-know-what. He choked under fire. When the country was under fire, he sat about for 7 minutes without reacting. He froze, and didn't know what to do. That's pathetic, and it's exactly what you want a leader to NOT BE.

I think he reacted...he continued to read for 7 minutes and then calmly did his job. On the other hand..Kerry admittedly sat there for 40 minutes without being able to think about anything.

And we know who made all the real decisions anyway !

Well, we also know that kerry agreed with them all...before he didn't :rofl:

 

[kat]

Your one, the Q & Q of many includes those who are saying the opposite of what the men who served with him are saying. "("Served near him peripherally" )Could you define this? ". My definition is (you asked) they just happened to be in the same generally location but as far as I know, wasn't there close/near/ajacent/on the same boat or in the same situations as Kerry, I could be wrong and admit that possibility but IMHO these accusations are unsubstantiated.

These are men that served "close/near/adjacent/on" the same boat...I believe three of the men in the swift vets book were actually serving ON the same boat. One was Steve Gardner I believe. I'll look and see if I can confirm that later this evening.

 

[Gokul43201]

FBI reports = Drudge...mmm didn't know that.

I'd like to see the FBI report that says that Kerry sat in a meeting and voted on whether or not to assasinate senators.

I think he reacted...he continued to read for 7 minutes and then calmly did his job.

This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen ! Reading 'My Pet Goat' instead of calmly telling the school kids that he's got "Presidential work" to do, is being applauded ?! What if there were several more attacks during the minutes following ? Doesn't it take a Presidential order to shoot down a commercial airliner ? Shouldn't a President be convening immediately with the NSC to figure out wat to do next ? No, maybe he should continue to read for a little longer, and that only to serve the Nation's interest.

Yes, he wants to prove that he can read, but this is the limit !

On the other hand..Kerry admittedly sat there for 40 minutes without being able to think about anything.

Clearly, this is argument for the sake of it. Someone as knowledgeable as you could not say this in their right mind. Bush is the President of the United States. He is ultimately responsible for protecting his people. He can take decisions that result in actions, minutes if not seconds later. A senator does not have that kind of power or responsibility.

Well, we also know that kerry agreed with them all...before he didn't :rofl:

Again, Kat, this does not become of you. Surely, you're saying these things only because you have a deep, emotional resentment for Kerry.

 

[amp]

What are you attempting to imply here, "Kerry's a presidential nominee who's admitted committing war crimes in the Vietnam war...and is also attempting to get elected based on that service.", Its public knowledge that 'War Crimes' were committed in Vietnam, Kerry seems to have the moral courage to admit he was a part of it and that with the knowledge he had subsquently gained after serving to oppose the war.

I think he reacted...he continued to read for 7 minutes and then calmly did his job. On the other hand..Kerry admittedly sat there for 40 minutes without being able to think about anything.

The difference being that ones the CIC and the other was getting info as to what was happening since he was a senator and not privy to much of the info the prez should have been acting on.

 

[BobG]

These are men that served "close/near/adjacent/on" the same boat...I believe three of the men in the swift vets book were actually serving ON the same boat. One was Steve Gardner I believe. I'll look and see if I can confirm that later this evening.

I don't believe any them actually served on Kerry's boat in that battle. One, Thurlow, did fight in the same battle on another swift boat. Thurlow, like Kerry, received the Bronze Star for actions in that battle. Thurlow's citation also cite's Thurlow's courage in helping to aid another swift boat despite enemy fire.

Evidently Thurlow had misplaced his citation around 20 years ago and didn't recall the details of his own citation. He still stands by his claim that there was no enemy fire and that, if his citation was awarded solely because of enemy fire, then it, too, was awarded fraudulently.

Most, if not all of the men in the swift vets book have a bias against Kerry because of his anti-war actions after leaving active duty. I think that bias is unfounded. No one asks military members to agree with all of the politics that go into going to war or not going to war. The military just has to abide by and vigourously execute whatever decision their country makes.

 

[Entheos]

What I find funny about this is Bush's record, oh wait there isn't one :rofl:

All this criticism towards Kerry's record, yet no matter what the outcome, it is still better than Bush's.

I have tremendous respect for anyone that fights in a war. Kerry did that. Bush did not. :surprise:

 

[JohnDubYa]

Kerry seems to have the moral courage to admit he was a part of it and that with the knowledge he had subsquently gained after serving to oppose the war.

Ted Bundy had the courage to admit he killed his victims. Does that lessen his actions?

Keep in mind that I am not railing against John Kerry. I understand that war is Hell. But I find it amusing that many on the Left, who usually do not appreciate the sentiment behind the phrase "war is Hell," are willing to forgive his admitted atrocities simply because he admitted to them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ted Bundy had the courage to admit he killed his victims. Does that lessen his actions?

Keep in mind that I am not railing against John Kerry. I understand that war is Hell. But I find it amusing that many on the Left, who usually do not appreciate the sentiment behind the phrase "war is Hell," are willing to forgive his admitted atrocities simply because he admitted to them.

You need to learn a lot about Vietnam. It was brave people like Kerry that brought the war to an end.

 

[JohnDubYa]

It was brave people like Kerry that brought the war to an end.

One of the reasons people wanted the war to end centered around atrocities committed by our troops that Kerry apparently took part in. And why did he do it? What prevented him from simply refusing? And how does your answer to this question reflect his bravery?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What exactly did he do?

 

[russ_watters]

What if there were several more attacks during the minutes following ?

You tell me: what. precisely could he have done?

Doesn't it take a Presidential order to shoot down a commercial airliner ?

Yes, it does - but it also requires an armed fighter plane in range of said airliner. The decision to launch these planes comes from much lower and happens (or is supposed to happen) much faster).

Shouldn't a President be convening immediately with the NSC to figure out wat to do next ?

Sure - if he's in the oval office and the NSC is just down the hall.

No, it didn't look presidential. I'll agree with that. But really - what specifically could he have done that would have changed anything?

The way the government/military handles a crisis is via pre-programmed responses - and rightly so. There is virtually nothing anyone can do to make off-the-cuff decisions. Things just happen too fast and information is too disjointed. In this situation, the pre-programmed responses failed (or rather, were inadequate to the task) and nothing he or anyone else could have reasonably done (once the attack was underway) could have changed the outcome.

 

[wasteofo2]

Russ, on 9/11 Bush was the leader of our country, and the head of the executive branch. Kerry, while an important member of the government, was part of the legislative branch. As far as I know, there was little Kerry could have done if he wanted to, however, Bush was the president. He wasn't told that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, but that the nation was under attack. Kerry saw video of the attacks, and was paralyzed, as many would have been, but all Bush knew was that the nation was under attack, and he sat there, reading a book. I'm not an expert on exactly what the president could have done, but when the nation's under attack, I'd like the president to do SOMETHING! At least go and find out what is happening. As I said before, he didn't know any specifics, he could have said he had to leave politely, gone and found out what was going on and see if he could do anything. I don't think anyone knows everything he could have done, but surely when the nation is under attack there would be a reason for the president to be doing something, making some sort of decisions about something, not just sitting there.

You made it seem like the president couldn't talk to the NSC without actually being near them, but by 2001, there was already an invention out there called the cell phone, and I'm sure that with the abundance of the cell phone, that somehow, some way, the President of the United States could have found a way to contact his security counsel.

There's a big difference about what the President's responsibilities are and what a Senator's responsibilities are. While he may not have been able to do anything directly to stop a plane from crashing into a building, he didn't know this was what was happening, he just knew that we were being attacked, I'd personally prefer a president who'd at least want to figure out what was happening and try to do something.

 

[wasteofo2]

What exactly did he do?

Kerry on his war crimes:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages...

I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.

And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."

One of the reasons people wanted the war to end centered around atrocities committed by our troops that Kerry apparently took part in. And why did he do it? What prevented him from simply refusing? And how does your answer to this question reflect his bravery?

John Dubya, according to Kerry's own words, yes, he committed war crimes, but only became aware that his actions were actually considered war crimes after he'd partaken in them. His war-crimes show nothing of his bravery, but I think the fact that he signed up to go to Vietnam when he easily could have avoided it, along with winning a bronze and silver star would show some indication of his bravery. But perhaps not, perhaps signing up to fight in a war wasn't an act of bravery, and he was just trying to get some credentials to help him run political campaigns, and perhaps the Navy just gives out medals to people who don't deserve them.

 

[JohnDubYa]

So he didn't think there was anything wrong with burning villages, until they told him later that it violated international law. Is that right? Exactly where is his moral compass if right/wrong only take on meaning once he discovers the law? If these are truly atrocities, then wouldn't a normal man realize he was doing wrong while committing them?

How can someone rail against atrocities, and then claim that he didn't know there was anything wrong with his own atrocites until told later?

 

[wasteofo2]

So he didn't think there was anything wrong with burning villages, until they told him later that it violated international law. Is that right? Exactly where is his moral compass if right/wrong only take on meaning once he discovers the law? If these are truly atrocities, then wouldn't a normal man realize he was doing wrong while committing them?

How can someone rail against atrocities, and then claim that he didn't know there was anything wrong with his own atrocites until told later?

I don't know what the circumstances were that led him to burn a village, perhaps it was uninhabbited by anyone buy viet-cong, perhaps it wasn't inhabbited at all, but I don't know. I'd really like someone to ask him flat out what circumstances led him to burn a village, because it's really disturbing to me too. I doubt Kerry one day woke up and decided to go burn down a village, it was likely part of a mission he was assigned, maybe part of a search and destroy mission where everyone had left and anyone who fired at them was killed, but again, I'd like to see this cleared up by Kerry himself instead of people just speculating.

I believe that Kerry was railing against atrocities in vietnam in hopes of the USA leaving vietnam. Also, I believe he thought, there were people like him in vietnam, doing things (like he did) that they were commanded to do, or weren't being stopped from doing, which were indeed atrocious and violated international law.

[EDIT] John, because of your post, I've emailed the people at www.johnkerry.com with the following suggestion:

"Hello, my name is Jacob, and I think it would do Mr. Kerry a GREAT service if he would get ready to clarify one huge point. Mr. Kerry admitted to committing war crimes in Vietnam, some of which were excusable because he was unaware of their status as war crimes, but most notably, he admitted to burning villages. Regardless of how this is classified legally, when people hear that someone has burned a village, it is a huge turnoff, and makes people question Mr. Kerry's morals. I doubt Mr. Kerry woke up one morning with the goal of burning a village in mind, but I'd really like Mr. Kerry to clarify exactly what were the circumstances under which he burned a village. Was it inhabited? If so, who was in inhabited by? Was he ordered to do it, did he give the order to do it, did he do it on his own? Are there any military reports on the incident, which could add some clarity to it?

While Mr. Kerry may never directly be asked this in a situation where he's forced to answer, people are definitely talking about it and it is definitely hurting Mr. Kerry. If he were to clarify what lead to this, it could make many more people feel comfortable with his record in Vietnam and help him considerably.

If a public announcement about this won't happen unless there's a huge outcry for it, could someone at least respond to my email to let me know what happened?

Thanks for your time; I hope this point is clarified
Jacob"
[/EDIT]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Kerry on his war crimes:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages...

I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.

And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."

The key to the paradox of Vietnam is that people like Kerry went over believing that the war was just. We were fighting the spread of the [later dubbed by Reagan] evil empire of the Soviet Union which sought to destroy us - as was announced in the UN - and the spread of communism generally through the "domino effect". Vietnam was our battlefield. After seeing what was happening in 'nam, many soldiers came away feeling bitter and betrayed. Like Kerry they saw the injustices, and patriotism and all of the “right reasons” for fighting the war were turned to vapor. Men of conscience, like Kerry, then took action to stop the terrible injustice to not only our own soldiers and their families, but also the Vietnamese people. To turn this all against Kerry is to betray a shallow, dishonest, or at least an uninformed point of view.

 

[wasteofo2]

The key to the paradox of Vietnam is that people like Kerry went over believing that the war was just. We were fighting the spread of the [later dubbed by Reagan] evil empire of the Soviet Union which sought to destroy us - as was announced in the UN - and the spread of communism generally through the "domino effect". Vietnam was our battlefield. After seeing what was happening in 'nam, many soldiers came away feeling bitter and betrayed. Like Kerry they saw the injustices, and patriotism and all of the “right reasons” for fighting the war were turned to vapor. Men of conscience, like Kerry, then took action to stop the terrible injustice to not only our own soldiers and their families, but also the Vietnamese people. To turn this all against Kerry is to betray a shallow, dishonest, or at least an uninformed point of view.

While this is true, you're ignoring the part about Kerry admitting to participating in the burning of a village.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have never talked with a seasoned foot soldier from 'nam who didn't participate in these activities. Do you think any war is fought without burning villages? Consider Dresdon in WWII, or the bombing of Hanoi for that matter. This is war. What made Vietnam particularly terrible is that the people that we protected mostly hated us, you couldn't tell who the enemy was - it was everyone - and we never tried to win because of the ever present Soviet threat. It was a constant game of cat and mouse with a terrible price for all concerned. Also, the basis for the war was a lie. Communism would not spread like a great plague, and the cold war [the real reason for Vietnam] was won though economic warfare, not military warfare. The crime of Vietnam was the bill of good sold to the US public and the tens of thousands of dead Americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead Vietnamese. It was all for nothing. It was a big lie. That was the crime.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, it does - but it also requires an armed fighter plane in range of said airliner. The decision to launch these planes comes from much lower and happens (or is supposed to happen) much faster).

This is a phony argument ! Okay, say, it takes 30 minutes to scramble a jet to some particular location, and say there was a hijacked planed about to crash into some big building 33 minutes after GW first heard. His 7 minutes of inaction hurt.

In any case, I don't see how you can explain that sitting about for 7 minutes was the best thing to do, in the national interest ?

Sure - if he's in the oval office and the NSC is just down the hall.

You're kidding ! He just has to get into his car to get reports from people in the know and be in communication with heads of FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.

No, it didn't look presidential. I'll agree with that. But really - what specifically could he have done that would have changed anything?

This is NOT about looking Presidential. Anyone would want to know what the hell is going on, if they hear about what just happened. You and I were glued to our TV sets. This is the President. He can do more than just get the news from CNN - but apparently, he wasn't even interested in that !

The way the government/military handles a crisis is via pre-programmed responses - and rightly so. There is virtually nothing anyone can do to make off-the-cuff decisions. Things just happen too fast and information is too disjointed. In this situation, the pre-programmed responses failed (or rather, were inadequate to the task) and nothing he or anyone else could have reasonably done (once the attack was underway) could have changed the outcome.

One screw up doesn't excuse another.

Okay, simply put : "What would you have done, if you were President ? Would you sit about reading, or would you try and find out, as soon as possible, what the hell is happening, and what needs to be done" ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

The Swift Boat Smear

Back on the thread topic, see this article in today's NYT. Connections of the swift boat funders to Bush and Rove, and inconsistencies and lies of the swift boat partisans are richly documented.

 

[russ_watters]

Um, wasteofo2, I didn't mention Kerry in my post. What are you arguing against?

This is a phony argument ! Okay, say, it takes 30 minutes to scramble a jet to some particular location, and say there was a hijacked planed about to crash into some big building 33 minutes after GW first heard. His 7 minutes of inaction hurt.

Only if you assume he's the one who is supposed to scramble the jets. Like I said, he isn't.

In any case, I don't see how you can explain that sitting about for 7 minutes was the best thing to do, in the national interest ?

I didn't say "best thing to do" I said nothing he could have done in those 7 minutes would have mattered. If you disagree, please tell me what you think he could have done and what difference it would have made (I already asked before).

You're kidding ! He just has to get into his car to get reports from people in the know and be in communication with heads of FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.

The word used was "convening." You can't "convene" if the people you need to sit down with are 1,000 miles away. As for getting reports: that's exactly what the Secret Service guy did - he gave Bush a report. And again, what do you think the FBI, CIA, and NSA heads could have told him in those 7 minutes that would have mattered?

Anyone would want to know what the hell is going on, if they hear about what just happened. You and I were glued to our TV sets. This is the President. He can do more than just get the news from CNN - but apparently, he wasn't even interested in that !

As president, he probably knew that the information given to him was the only information available. The government is not this all-knowing entity people think it is. And again, what, specifically could he have learned that would have changed anything?

One screw up doesn't excuse another.

Unless you can show me that his inaction in those 7 minutes mattered, you can't call it a screw-up.

Okay, simply put : "What would you have done, if you were President ? Would you sit about reading, or would you try and find out, as soon as possible, what the hell is happening, and what needs to be done" ?

I probably would have excused myself and left, hoping it would matter, but knowing it would not. Now you answer my question: what could he have done in those 7 minutes that could have mattered?