posted on May 4, 2004 08:58:58 PM new
A loose cannon in VietNan would be a loose flip flopping cannon as President
Kerry Was a 'Loose Cannon' in Vietnam, Says Ex-Commander
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 04, 2004
(Editor's Note: Includes reaction from supporters of John Kerry)
Washington (CNSNews.com) - John Kerry's former swift boat commanders and colleagues on Tuesday described the presumptive Democrat nominee as a self-absorbed and devious sailor during the Vietnam War who was there merely to advance a future political career.
A group of 18 veterans gathered in the nation's capital asking Kerry to authorize the Department of the Navy to independently release his military records, including medical information, about his service during the Vietnam War. Many said Kerry was unfit to be commander-in-chief of the U.S. military
More than 200 veterans have signed a letter from the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking the release of records. Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann commanded the fleet of swift boats - the Navy's Task Force 115 - during Kerry's tour of duty. Today he serves as chairman of the veterans' group.
"He arrived in country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future," Hoffmann said. "He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard to specific tactical assignments. He was a loose cannon.
"In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days," Hoffmann added, "and with his specious medals secure, Lt. j.g. (junior grade) Kerry bugged out of Vietnam and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War."
Several other speakers also criticized Kerry for speaking out against the war. They said his association with Vietnam Veterans Against the War in the 1970s was disrespectful to the men and women who serve in the U.S. military.
"It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us," the letter states. "Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war."
Kerry campaign fights back
Kerry's campaign quickly fired back, organizing a press conference in which four Vietnam veterans disputed the allegations.
Wade Sanders, a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, sported a "Veterans for Kerry" pin on his suit jacket Tuesday and said Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has a partisan motive in its attack of Kerry.
Sanders served in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry, and he has recently campaigned for the Democrat presidential candidate.
Sanders pointed to favorable evaluations that Kerry's military superiors in Vietnam - retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard and retired Capt. George M. Elliott - gave Kerry, even though Hibbard and Elliot are now lined up against Kerry.
Elliott acknowledged that he stood alongside Kerry during his 1996 Senate re-election campaign to defend him from charges of war crimes, a fact the Kerry campaign subtly pointed out.
"I don't think that many of the people who are following this gentleman, Capt. (sic) Roy Hoffmann, really understand the political implications of what's going on here, I mean what's fronting this," Sanders said.
Sanders accused President Bush's re-election campaign of orchestrating a smear campaign against veterans. He cited Bush's 2000 primary fight against Sen. John McCain and former Sen. Max Cleland's loss in Georgia in 2002 as examples. McCain and Cleland are both Vietnam veterans.
"[Kerry] is a man who served honorably, who served with distinction, and then when he returned, followed his conscience at a time that was extremely difficult for all of us," Sanders said. "A lot of us came back angry, disappointed, disenchanted, not in our country, but in the leadership and conduct of the war."
A Kerry presidential campaign spokesman also responded to the demand by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Kerry direct the Department of the Navy to release his military records.
"Senator Kerry has asked the United States Navy for his entire official record. The United States Navy sent his entire official record," said campaign spokesman Michael Meehan. "All of these documents are available on the World Wide Web. You can go on to JohnKerry.com and look at everything the Navy sent to Kerry as his official record."
Veterans want more information
But according to Hibbard, one of Kerry's commanders in Vietnam, questions remain about the three Purple Hearts that Kerry was awarded for injuries in Vietnam. Based on Hibbard's recollection, one of Kerry's injuries didn't appear to warrant a medal.
"He showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s," Hibbard said. "He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom."
Another officer, retired Capt. Charley Plumly, said Kerry was under his command for two or three naval operations. He criticized Kerry's attitude and behavior.
"Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive," Plumly said, "but the most common phrase you would hear [was] 'requires constant supervision.' "
Leaders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth came prepared for the Kerry campaign's rebuttal. Vietnam veteran John O'Neill, who challenged Kerry's anti-war views in a 1971 televised debate, dismissed a 12-page document handed out to reporters questioning the group's tactics.
"We endorse nobody at all for president. If Kerry drops out and allows the Democratic Party a genuine choice, a fit choice to be commander-in-chief, we're all going home," O'Neill said. "We're unified on absolutely nothing, except one thing: John Kerry is not a fit commander-in-chief based on our experience with him."
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
[ edited by Bear1949 on May 4, 2004 09:00 PM ]
posted on May 4, 2004 09:12:37 PM new
all I can say is, Mike said he was an a s s h o l e in 'Nam, and screwed up a couple times...... thats all I'm saying......
__________________________________ In cyberspace, you can't hear a liberal scream.
posted on May 4, 2004 09:35:12 PM newSanders accused President Bush's re-election campaign of orchestrating a smear campaign against veterans.
Statements like this are laughable to me.
It's not this President whose leading a 'smear' campaign against veterans.....it was KERRY HIMSELF WHO SMEARED OUR VETS in 1971. It's in print.
It's not this President who is now smearing kerry's service....it's the vets kerry himself smeared who want the voters to know he took the enemy's side, accused them of atrocities - after he requested an early release with dubious injuries. After he left his own men there to run off to safety. Yea....real brave.
I'm still hopeful, sometime soon, pressure will be put on kerry to have his FBI files/records opened. That way we could see for ourselves just what his actions were during his post VN experience with those communists groups he was affiliated with.
posted on May 4, 2004 09:43:48 PM new
So which is worse? Are all of Kerry's atrocities as bad as what Bush has put everyone through and will continue doing so if elected?
posted on May 4, 2004 09:52:13 PM new
Pretending that atrocities have never occured, won't make it reality. It's when we try to sweep it under the rug & pretend it never happened that we do our military, our country and ourselves a disservice.
When people try so hard tocover up such things, as our government tried to do with the current mess in Iraq, people really start wondering what else is going on that we're not hearing about....
Perhaps nothing. But, then again, given the track record of this administration, it could be like roaches--if you find one or two the chances are good that that are many, many more lurking within your walls.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 4, 2004 10:05:08 PM new
KD - It's more than clear this President is willing to go after the terrorists. With kerry....we don't know what he'll do. Heck he may do what helen keeps calling for...admit defeat and run with our tail between our legs at the first sign of trouble.
But no matter who is president their main responsibility is to protect this nation. If they don't....because they believe terrorists link binladen, etc. can be 'reasoned' with....talked out of their promised goals...then this country is in deep trouble.
To me it all boils down to if we're going to continue this fight against global terrorism, and it's going to be a long, long fight, or be like Spain and let the terrorists know they're in charge and we'll do whatever they tell us to do....out of FEAR.
After 9-11 this President said this fight was going to be a long one. And it will be....unless the majority of American's think we can negociate with terrorists....as some here appear to think.
posted on May 4, 2004 10:07:42 PM new[But no matter who is president their main responsibility is to protect this nation.
Very true. It's just that Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11 or Osama bin Laden...
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 4, 2004 10:15:06 PM new
This is how I see kerry and the dems who show the world they are not in support of US policy.
They encourage our enemies....especially when our troops are over there fighting for their lives. Everyone here reads enough to be able to see how our disagreements on the path to take give hope to our enemies. It encourages them....and that in itself puts are soldiers more at risk. The same soldiers many here say they support.
Yes, bunni - these issues do need to see the light of day. But not while other soldiers are anywhere doing what they were sent to do. The anger that is now directed at our troops because of the behavior of a VERY FEW people have further put their lives in danger. Of course it's going to inflame the situation more that this has come out. Not saying anything should be 'hidden' under the rug....just there's a time and a place for everything....and during the VN war it wasn't the time and ....
the Communists admitted that they were 'that' close to giving up....but the anti-war group [in VN] encouraged them to hang on a little longer. They did....and we saw the results of that. More Vietnam citizens [who were on our side] and American soldiers killed during our withdrawl.
And most people don't affiliate themselves with communists groups ....making statements against their own country, it's military, etc. when its at war.....like kerry did.
posted on May 4, 2004 10:20:14 PM new
Yes, bunni - clinton didn't do anything about the threat he now says binladen presented to our nation. The 'warning' his administration supposedly gave to this administration, that bin laden and AQ was a huge threat...and should be paid attention too.
And the same with Iraq....the same threat the last three administratons felt was a threat to our nation and the world.
posted on May 5, 2004 02:17:50 AM newOf course it's going to inflame the situation more that this has come out. Not saying anything should be 'hidden' under the rug....just there's a time and a place for everything
Do you seriously believe that if no one on our side had said anything, or shown the pictures, that the enemy wouldn't have known? That the people of Iraq wouldn't have found out? Get real. People talk. Other people hear--and speak. It would have been much, much worse if this had been announced by the other side. Or by Iraqi civilians. At least this way we have some chance of regaining credibility by taking action on & responsibility for the actions of "these few."
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 5, 2004 02:24:10 AM new
Linda--countries should indeed go after someone that has proved themselves an enemy. But we have no right to go after a nation that, like Iraq, we feel might pose a threat. I see people everyday that might pose a threat to me--do I have the right to attack them based on that supposition? No--I'd find myself in jail quicker than a wink if I did that.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 5, 2004 02:45:16 AM new
Linda - how do you think that Iraqi people are supoosed to know that the american people do not condone the action of the offending soldiers if they do not express their disgust? Isn't silence a defacto form of endorsement?
The government tried to silence it for months and look what came of it when it was brought to the light of day. Do you think the outrage would be half as strong if back in January the military announced that they were taking legal action against members who had crossed the lines of human decency? The pictures that came out last week would have been shocking but no where near as infuriating as if people had been told from the very beginning that a problem had been identified and was being addressed. Instead they tried to hide it and are now answering for it but ten fold because now the seed of doubt is planted. What else have they been hiding from the people and from their superiors?
There is a time to deal with these situations and it is when they happen, not at some undetermiined point in the future.
This whole philosophy of questionning authority being unamerican is pure garbage. Questioning our leaders and holding them accountable for their actions, or inaction as the case may be, is the most patriotic thing a person can do. That is how you keep your government honest.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 5, 2004 02:46 AM ]
posted on May 5, 2004 06:25:55 AM newDo you seriously believe that if no one on our side had said anything, or shown the pictures, that the enemy wouldn't have known?
I was referring to kerry's actions in joining with anti-American communist groups - siding with the enemy when our soldiers were still fighting in VN.
I was not referring to the timing of this information in Iraq being released.
posted on May 5, 2004 06:33:23 AM new
bunni - But we have no right to go after a nation that, like Iraq, we feel might pose a threat.
That's your opinion and many disagree with that, me included.
Even our Congress voted to go to war with Iraq. INCLUDING JOHN KERRY - hillary clinton and all but 11 Senators....and a small majority in the House who ALL believed saddam presented a threat to our country.
posted on May 5, 2004 07:06:45 AM newEven our Congress voted to go to war with Iraq. INCLUDING JOHN KERRY - hillary clinton and all but 11 Senators....and a small majority in the House who ALL believed saddam presented a threat to our country.
And they so voted based on the lies Bush passed off as the truth, didn't they? My memory isn't as short as yours--I clearly remember how Bush & Co. were constantly in the news loudly proclaiming that they had proof positive that Iraq had WMD, that Iraq was a danger, danger, danger, Will Robinson! They pushed & harried, and anyone who dared speak up in opposition was loudly called "un-American" and a "traitor" and all but hanged in effigy.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 5, 2004 07:23:05 AM new
That statement always gives me a big laugh.
Like some people think these democrats are incapable of reading the intelligence reports from our country and others that supported this claim.
Like the democrats just believe whatever they're told by a Republican President they dislike [to say the least] - without doing their own homeword, like sheep.
Sure.....
They all had access to the same intelligence and this President nor his administration didn't put that information together himself.
posted on May 5, 2004 07:35:09 AM newLike some people think these democrats are incapable of reading the intelligence reports from our country and others that supported this claim.
Your memory really is short,Linda, not to remember that those intelligence reports were censored by the Bush administration (remember?). Guessthey didn't feel that Congress had a need to know.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 5, 2004 08:09:09 AM new
bunni - Those reports were available to any who sought to see them.
Do a google search on hillary and read what she did before deciding which way to vote. Check out what 'sources' she used that made her decide to vote yes. Do a google search on what the intelligence committee said....
AND remember the dems that voted for giving war powers to this President were doing so with the full knowledge that this is the exact same position, the exact same information the clinton administration had given to all previously. And that in 1996, during the clinton administration, the Iraq Freedom Act was passed.....stating a regime change was needed and the reasons why.
posted on May 5, 2004 08:19:56 AM new
Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been all over the map on the topic of the Iraq War.
In October 2002, he voted for the Iraq war resolution. Later, assaulted from his left on the campaign trail, he changed his mind, declaring that the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq, even stating that Bush "rushed to war against our warnings."
When confronted with his vote in favor of the war, Kerry has flip-flopped back, retreating to this position, which he gave this month to a reporter from Time: "I might have gone to war but not the way the President did."
Is that so? It sounds reasonable enough. But in fact we don’t have to rely on any such guesswork: we have a way of knowing exactly what Kerry would have done, had he been president.
On September 6, 2002, Kerry laid out a very specific plan for dealing with Iraq in an op-ed in the New York Times. And looking back now at that op-ed, it almost appears that Bush took his advice, step by step, through the entire process.
It is not unfair to hold Kerry to what he said, especially considering his comments to Time Magazine this month: “I refuse ever to accept the notion that anything I've suggested with respect to Iraq was nuanced. It was clear. It was precise. It was, in fact, prescient. It was ahead of the curve about what the difficulties were. And that is precisely what a President is supposed to be. I think I was right, 100% correct, about how you should have done Iraq.”
So what did Kerry suggest? On September 6, 2002, he wrote: "For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case."
This the administration did, and it received the support of Kerry and most others in Congress.
"Then," Kerry continued, "in concert with our allies, [the administration] must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council."
Again, exactly what Bush did in November 2002 by bringing resolution 1441 to the Security Council, giving Iraq a full four months to disarm completely and give inspectors proof thereof. The resolution passed unanimously.
Kerry's advice continued: "We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating."
This ultimatum was given, and at first Saddam appeared to blink. UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and his team returned to Iraq.
But they did not receive cooperation "without negotiation or compromise." To the contrary, as The New York Times reported on January 31, 2003: "Mr. Blix reiterated his report's key finding that Iraq had not provided anything like the wholehearted cooperation he needed to certify that Saddam Hussein was not concealing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. His concern about Iraq's attitude, he said, led him to refrain from explicitly asking for more time for inspections when he reported to the Security Council on Monday."
Even Blix, no fan of the war, knew at that point that the inspection process had failed, in spite of Hussein's public destruction of a few missiles he supposedly never had to begin with. In the following weeks, Hussein even made new demands of the UN--in other words, "negotiation and compromise," anathema to the Kerry plan.
But Kerry had foreseen this possiblity as well: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
And wouldn't you know it, that's exactly how things unfolded. Before any vote had been taken, unilateralist John Kerry had already endorsed everything Bush ended up doing, from start to finish.
Nor can Kerry claim he was fooled by sexed-up intelligence from the Bush administration about WMD. He is on the record talking about Iraq's WMD threat in 1998, when he said, simply, "Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction." As early as 1990, he stated in the Senate that "Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program."
One might believe that the Iraq War was a bad idea. Still, John Kerry is definitely in no position to criticize anyone for anything--he could practically be the author and architect of the Bush plan.
His constantly shifting position since then, though enigmatic to some, is easily explained in three words: transparent political opportunism.
David Freddoso is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS.
-------------
posted on May 5, 2004 08:34:49 AM new
And it appears that those on the opposite side of the war with Iraq are disappointed with kerry too.....for not speaking out...for not keeping his 'promise' to do what he said he'd do.
Published on Thursday, February 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
John Kerry's Broken Promise on the War
by John C. Bonifaz
Senator John F. Kerry is right to charge the president with "changing his story" about his justifications for the Iraq war. But George W. Bush is not the only Washington politician who has changed his story. So, too, has Senator Kerry.
On October 9, 2002, Senator Kerry made a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate announcing his intent to vote for the congressional resolution on the war. The speech, which has received little scrutiny during this presidential primary season, stands in stark contrast to statements the senator now makes about that vote.
Senator Kerry claims today that he voted for the October 2002 congressional resolution on the Iraq war based on a promise made by the president. The president, the senator said at a presidential debate on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, "had promised to go to the United Nations, to respect the building of an international coalition in truth, to exhaust the remedies of inspections and literally to only go to war as a last resort."
Senator Kerry also claimed during that debate that he would not have "gone to war the way George Bush did", but rather he "would have stood up and exhausted the remedies…" The senator has recently repeated these claims on the campaign trail.
But Senator Kerry has not revealed what he himself promised on the floor of the United States Senate when he announced his support for that October Resolution. "In giving the President this authority," the senator said at that time, "I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days – to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force."
"If he fails to do so," Senator Kerry continued, "I will be the first to speak out."
Senator Kerry broke that promise he made to the American people. In the crucial days after the president withdrew his efforts to gain United Nations support for his war and before the president launched his invasion, Senator Kerry remained silent. The president had, indeed, failed to build an international coalition, and yet the senator did not speak out.
And what if he had? What if Senator Kerry had returned to the floor of the United States Senate as the clouds of war loomed and withdrawn his support of the president's war? What if he had led other Members of Congress at that moment in history in demanding a new congressional debate on whether the president had the authority to launch a unilateral war against Iraq? What if the senator had kept his promise?
We will never know. But as he claims the qualities of leadership to be the next president of the United States, Senator Kerry should be held accountable for the failure to honor the commitment he made when he voted for the October Resolution.
"[T]here is a test as a commander in chief as to when you send young Americans off to war," Senator Kerry said at that New Hampshire debate. "[Y]ou got to be able to look in the eyes of a family and say you exhausted every possibility and you only sent their son or daughter to die because you had no other choice."
"I believe George Bush failed that test in Iraq," the senator continued. "I said so at the time…"
In fact, the senator did not say anything at the time. Like so many of his colleagues in Congress, Senator Kerry remained on the sidelines as the president marched the nation into this reckless war. And, because of that, the senator shares today the burden of responsibility for its consequences.
John C. Bonifaz is an attorney in Boston and the author of 'Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush' (NationBooks-NY, January, 2004)
----------------
posted on May 5, 2004 12:07:55 PM new
Linda, do a goodgle yourself to refresh your memory--what was available to be perused at the time was proven to be censored in some places, and just plain wrong in others. Remember? The big brouhaha at the time where the CIA and others kept coming forward tosay that the the info Bush was handing out wasn't right? Had come from faulty or unreliable sources?
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 5, 2004 04:59:33 PM new
On 7-23-03 CNN.com
Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
And hillary still defends her YES vote on the war in Iraq. As recently as 4-31-04 she's quoted as having NO regret on her Iraq vote.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on May 5, 2004 05:02 PM ]
posted on May 5, 2004 05:06:16 PM new
You should read that comment in context.
Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.
posted on May 5, 2004 05:10:39 PM newSo I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.
Which is exactly what President Bush did. And as clinton said "if you don't cooperate"....saddam didn't and then Bush went on to the regime change.
posted on May 5, 2004 05:34:05 PM new
LOL helen - Are you ever going to name the elected officials who voted *FOR* this Iraq war [either from the House or the Senate] that are now saying their vote was a mistake and we should withdraw? Let alone admit defeat like you've recommended.
