The War Against Vietnam Veterans

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=648&POSTNUKESID=71e5f975ee80e6bb80001a3c9975188b

John Kerry?s Vietnam service is dismissed, Max Cleland?s triple amputation is dissed -- Vietnam veterans are being assaulted by fanatics who never served and never bled.
By Stewart Nusbaumer

?They?re trying to make Kerry into some type of hero,? Joe says bitterly.
?Well, he was in Nam,? I reply, ?wounded three times, has several medals. That's the truth.?
?And now they?re trying to say George Bush didn?t perform his duty in the military,? the World War II veteran says, his mouth twisting.
?Did he?? I ask.

Many World War II veterans have a problem with Vietnam veterans, always have. It?s not surprising that when returning home from Vietnam few of us joined traditional veterans groups such as the VFW and American Legion. We just didn?t get along. Maybe the older veterans blamed us for not winning the Vietnam War, or maybe they blamed themselves (subconsciously) for sending their children to a war that was not winnable. Maybe Vietnam veterans were oversensitive to their victory and our, well, not victory. I don't really know, but I do know Joe?s voice carried that old animosity when dismissing John Kerry?s Vietnam War record and defending George Bush?s less than stellar military record. It resonated with a past war that I thought was finished. It?s not.

?He wasn?t any damn hero, I can tell you that!? Joe is really heating up.
?So George Bush was a hero for getting drunk every night?? I retort, my voice straining.
?That?s just liberal propaganda.?
?And its liberal propaganda that Kerry was wounded three times in Nam??

According to the New York Times, on Friday Republican John McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran, and a POW for 5 years, came to the aid of John Kerry, criticizing the coordinated campaign to smear his reputation. It?s very unusual that during a presidential election year a Republican steps forward to defend the reputation of the leading Democratic nominee. But this is not a normal presidential election.

Max Cleland is a man who lost a lot in Vietnam. Disembarking from a helicopter, a grenade -- either his or another soldier?s -- exploded, ripping off most of his three limbs. That?s right, three: two legs, and one arm.

I lost one limb in Vietnam, a leg. I can tell you that for years the mental pain was excruciating. Forget the physical pain; mental pain is the real terror. I can?t image how a man can put himself back together after losing three limbs.

That did not stop Ann Coulter from publishing a vicious piece on Max Cleland that is being widely circulated and celebrated on the political Right. Entitled Dropping Political Grenades -- a reference to the dropped grenade that crippled Cleland, she writes, ?But he didn't ?give his limbs for his country,? or leave them ?on the battlefield.? There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard -- which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.?

First, it did happen on a battlefield, one called Vietnam. Hasn?t Ann Coulter heard of the Vietnam War? Second, Max Cleland did give his limbs for his country, everyone who loses limbs in a war does. And regardless of the war, popular or unpopular, right or wrong, because youth fight wars and lose body parts, if not their lives, it is others who create the wars and profit handsomely from them.

Let?s not forget, unlike liberal antiwar opponents of the Vietnam War who on principle refused to fight in Vietnam, such as Bill Clinton, which I find an honorable position, Ann Coulter's older Right-wing hawks approved of the Vietnam War yet very few of them went to Vietnam. The young George Bush was certainly a strong defender of fighting the war, as long as he didn?t have to do the fighting. That is not being brave, but giving in to one?s weaker impulses. Yet, when Max Cleland showed up in Vietnam, and stepped off that helicopter in the Southeast Asian jungle, that was being brave. Bravery, evidently, is something the Right has problems understanding.

As for Coulter?s statement, ?That could have happened in the Texas National Guard.? Again she is wrong. The Texas National Guard did not carry live grenades; it was removed from the violence by half the planet earth. This is why George Bush was in the Texas National Guard. It is also, maybe, why today George Bush has all his limbs, while Max Cleland and I as well as tens of thousands of other war veterans don?t.

There are certain simple facts here that need to be understood clearly in this intensifying political season. John Kerry fought in Vietnam, but George Bush chose not to fight. Yet, Joe the World War II veteran, like many in his generation who are loyal Republicans, dismisses the combat veteran and defends the combat evader. Max Cleland sacrificed three limbs in Vietnam, while George Bush only sacrificed part of his liver on whisky binges in Texas. Yet, the right-wing starlet and her army of Republican attack dogs ridicule his combat sacrifices and embrace the overindulgence of a spoiled, selfish rich kid.

The political Right wanted that war in Vietnam, but what it did not want was the truth about the war as told by the warriors who suffered in the war. And today this same Right will do anything to shut up these graying warriors who insist upon telling the truth.

But dismissing war heroes contradicts everything the Right supposedly stands for; hiding when the nation calls is exactly what the Republicans supposedly detest. This is why when the Left pointed out that Kerry served in war and Bush did not, and pointed out Cleland?s sacrifices and Bush?s escapism, the Republican Right went berserk. Nothing outrages liars more than truth.

For some people, winning in politics is more important than common decency, more important than genuine patriotism, more important than truth -- even more important than the words of their God. Liberals need to understand this and must realize that attacking the opposition?s policies is not enough, not today. They must go after the Republicans' hypocrisy and immorality. Attack the Right-wing ruthlessness that is now slashing our political culture as it denigrates the reputation of good Americans.

But none of this is new. Joseph Welch, the counsel during the Army-McCarthy hearings, said to Joseph McCarthy, ?Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?? We know that Joseph McCarthy didn?t.

What we have, then, is this: The past has become today, and tomorrow will probably be even worse. We are experiencing the nasty regurgitation of not only the 1950s, but more so, the 1960s -- a regurgitation that is turning the presidential election into a historical battle for the direction of America at this most critical time. This election is certainly about the past as much as the present, the past being a weapon to control the future.

Take a step back in time, back some 35 years, and you will hear right-wing Americans slamming combat veterans after their return home. I said right-wing, not the antiwar movement. You will hear the hateful Right discrediting the battlefield sacrifices of the crippled, dismissing the mentally devastated that became know as PTSD, because of what they no longer believed. What they no longer believed in was the Vietnam War.

Then return to today, listen to the voices claiming John Kerry is a buddy of Hanoi Jane (Fonda). And hear the silence that the Vietnam War was wrong, notice the indifference from the Right as Republicans attempt to slash the Veterans Administration's budget. In the last election, in George what they heard was Senator Max Cleland is not patriotic enough, did not support defense enough. Georgians heard little or nothing about his nightmares in the service of our nation. The past is irrelevant -- unless to discredit Vietnam combat veterans!

In the past, the ?you?re either with us or against us? extended shamefully to even those who fought a war in a far-off jungle called Vietnam. And today it extends shamefully to John Kerry and Max Cleland, two aging warriors of that war now on a campaign to redirect America. And the shameful attacks will visit any Vietnam veteran -- regardless of sacrifice on the battlefield and regardless of insight from fire -- who dares to challenge the Republican Right's demand that all veterans fall in line behind them.

Well, John Kerry and Max Cleland are challenging them, and so should we.


Stewart Nusbaumer is editor of Intervention Magazine. He served with the 3rd Marine Division in Vietnam. You can email Stewart at stewart@interventionmag.com

Or click "Post comment" below right and tell us what you think.

[Gimptster]

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for posting this excellent account of what is actually taking place today.

It's disgusting, revolting and a damn shame that Kerry and Cleland are being "trashed" by the right-wing the way they are!

[blues clues]

Larry & gimpy the reason the viet nan vet is never going to be put in the white house because we've got too many out there to busy stabbing the one's that could be there in the back.

razz

[BLUEHAWK]

1) It is irrelevant whose grenade took off Max Cleland's limbs or how it happened... a man was asked to carry arms into battle against an enemy of this nation, he did so and was terribly injured.
2) Ms. Coulter needs to keep her mouth closed on topics of which she has zero comprehension.
3) It was not just the Right that wanted that war... to assert anything of the kind is nonsense.
4) It is not Kerry's conduct in Vietnam that is at issue, so far as I am aware.
5) If the DoD had seen fit to call up Bush's unit, he would have flown sorties in Vietnam. He enlisted, don't fault a man for taking advantage of an available avenue of service. As many VN vets around PF say, "Why in the name of God would you WANT to!"

It's a dead horse, so, let us cease kicking it.

[Arrow]

1. My problem is not with John Kerry's service in Vietnam.The record states that he served honorably and it is not my placeto question his service or the service ofany honorably discharged Veteran of these United States.

2.I don't read Ann Coulter. I'm furious that anyone left or rightor center wouldeven thinksuch dispicable thoughts in regard to Max Cleland, his serviceand hisloss of limbs in service to this country. What kind of a human being is she? Not only to think these things but towrite and publishthem for all the world to see. Someone needs to fry her hard drive.I question that her statements are being highly celebrated or circulatednotby decent folks and not in the Vietnam Veteranscommunity.

3.Irefuse to forgetwhatJohn Kerry did to every Vietnam Veteran when he testified in regard to the Winter Soldiers Investigation.He cast doubt on the integrity of the service ofevery Vietnam Veteranthat servedbefore, during and after he served in Vietnamwith histestimony and lies in regard to atrocities being the norm in Vietnam.He gave strength to thelie of the anti-war movement that all Vietnam Veterans were baby killing psycho maniacs.

4.Irefuse toforget that President Bill Clinton and John Kerry and this present administration along with members from both sides of the islesold out our POW-MIA and their families by pushing for and maintaining normal trade relations with Vietnam thereby taking away the leverage for a complete accounting of those still held and missing.

No one on this board that wants to put JohnKerry in the White House has even attempted to explain the actions of John Kerry and my objecton to them. If you are going to defend him by killing the messenger (namely me) or by attacking the opposingparty and can't address the issues directly thenjust give it a pass. I just want to hear your personal reasonedview of his statements and his actions concerning these two issues.

Arrow>>>>>>>>

[Arrow]

Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

[Arrow]

Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam..-Mackubin Thomas Owens, professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-1969.-

[Arrow]

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

I don't appreciate John Kerry's arrogance in pretending to speak for my family with that ridiculous sob story at the end of his little speech.We were never ashamed ofbeing part of the US Military. My husband carried himself with dignityin his living and his dying in or out of uniform.On the daywe put him in the groundGod gave me the grace tostand up like a womanand recieve with pridethe folded flag that he servedunder.There were no sob stories on that day about how the government did us wrong and what vicitms we were. Every member ofour family was proud of my husbands service to this country on that day.

I don't knowwho John Kerry and his motley crew of winter soldiers thought they were speaking for but I can tell you it wasn't us.

Arrow>>>>>>>>>

[MM38084]

John Kerry must start looking in the mirror if he feels he has any chance of winning the white house in 2004. Not because he can?t handle the job but what he did to get to this point is nothing less then disgraceful. The old saying goes ?You cannot hide from the truth? and the sooner Mr. Kerry understands this, the better off he will be.

He first must admit that he lied about the winter meetings in Detroit or stretched the truth in a feeble attempt to shorten the war in Vietnam. I understand the method of the madness, but disagree with his moral obligation to his brothers still in fields of Vietnam. The true code of the American fighting man is ?Duty before self? and ?Never leave a comrade behind? Mr. Kerry failed at both, and doing so wiped out any honor he might have gained on or off the battlefield.

The next thing he must do is apologize to every man or women who ever put on a uniform, for his part of portraying them as pot smoking baby killing freaks who were the lowest life America had to offer. Because this portrayal did not stop in 1973 or 1975 with the wars end but lingered for at least two decades or beyond.

Mr. Kerry needs to stop using his experience in Vietnam for his own personal gain. He himself said he was not proud to be there, and he was rather ashamed of it. So leave it alone and start running on issues that affect all Americans. He can start with repelling NAFTA and the WTO and work more towards a common sense fair trade policy.

At the present time just to get though the primary Mr. Kerry has peaked in his run for the white house, about six months to early. Soon the momentum will shift back to president Bush, and Mr. Kerry has to be ready for the truth. Because if he thinks he can just side step the truth he is in for a sad demise.

[BLUEHAWK]

Thank you Sis, if I may so name thee, and MM... thank you.

:q:

[Seascamp]

If Sen. Kerry?s intention was to bitterly divide VN Vets then he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He has sent out his emissary; Rep. Ford of Tennessee, to offer up a flag of truce and is trying to call of the DNC dogs of war. But too late as the Genie is out of the bottle now and he shall reap what he has sown. He wasn?t the only one in Navy Operation Market Time; RVN, that operated along the coast, estuaries and wider rivers. In the coming times we shall speak out and be heard and the saga will be significantly different from his. And for my part I never heard of anyone in the USN engaged in the butchery, rape and mayhem or cadaver desecration or POW murder, ever. But evidently Kerry was into wounded/defacto POW capping and whatever else he purports to have happened.

Need I paint a frigging picture, there were plenty of cadavers and all I ever saw was efforts to get them out of the water using a small cargo net and then transport the remains to an appropriate cemetery facility, and a few to US facilities. Regardless, the remains were covered by a blanket carrying the USN logo.

I truly hate to see us VN Vets walk this sorrowful ground and ply these dark waters again, but I have never shrunk from a fight yet and don?t plan to now. If Kerry is hell bent for election to give the USN in VN a bad name then he will stand alone, very alone. Two thousand USN names on our wall demand we set this wrong right.

Scamp,
Operation Market Time, RVN.
And proudly so.

[BLUEHAWK]

Scampness, I do believe we are getting somewhere now... thank you, thank you, thank you...

:a::q:

[SuperScout]

OK, boys and girls, it's story time, except the story teller this time is John Fonda Kerry. In an interview with Judy Woodruff of CNN, he is now denying his earlier statements of accusing US soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam. So what is it, Johnnie, did we or didn't we? Is your memory fading now, or were you lying then, or are you lying now? And remember, you delivered these indictments of US soldiers' actions under oath, as if that means anything these days - or shall we trot out the federal prosecutors and charge you with perjury. Here's part of Kerry's statement to Woodruff:

"No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership. I said to the Senate, where is the leadership of our country? And it's the leaders who are responsible, not the soldiers. I never said that." An examination of the transcript of 22 April 1971 reveals that Kerry in fact and in sworn testimony, stated that US forces committed all manner of atrocities, charges he based on interviews of returning Vietnam vets earlier that year at the Winter Soldier Investigation, an event Kerry organized with anti-American actress Jane Fonda.

Kerry told the Senate that Winter Soldier witnesses "testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Speaking under oath, Kerry continued: "They told stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires with portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

A few days before his Senate testimony, Kerry gave the following account on NBC's "Meet the Press": "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."

So what version of which story are we being asked to believe by Kerry? Sounds like he's trying to dazzle us with his BS, as he certainly can't baffle us with his brilliance.

[BLUEHAWK]

Methinks JFK Kerry joined the wrong side... and has not yet buyer's remorse.

[Arrow]

1. My problem is not with John Kerry's service in Vietnam.The record states that he served honorably and it is not my placeto question his service or the service ofany honorably discharged Veteran of these United States.

2.I don't read Ann Coulter. I'm furious that anyone left or rightor center wouldeven thinksuch dispicable thoughts in regard to Max Cleland, his serviceand hisloss of limbs in service to this country. What kind of a human being is she? Not only to think these things but towrite and publishthem for all the world to see. Someone needs to fry her hard drive.I question that her statements are being highly celebrated or circulatednotby decent folks and not in the Vietnam Veteranscommunity.

3.Irefuse to forgetwhatJohn Kerry did to every Vietnam Veteran when he testified in regard to the Winter Soldiers Investigation.He cast doubt on the integrity of the service ofevery Vietnam Veteranthat servedbefore, during and after he served in Vietnamwith histestimony and lies in regard to atrocities being the norm in Vietnam.He gave strength to thelie of the anti-war movement that all Vietnam Veterans were baby killing psycho maniacs.

4.Irefuse toforget that President Bill Clinton and John Kerry and this present administration along with members from both sides of the islesold out our POW-MIA and their families by pushing for and maintaining normal trade relations with Vietnam thereby taking away the leverage for a complete accounting of those still held and missing.

No one on this board that wants to put JohnKerry in the White House has even attempted to explain the actions of John Kerry and my objecton to them. If you are going to defend him by killing the messenger (namely me) or by attacking the opposingparty and can't address the issues directly thenjust give it a pass. I just want to hear your personal reasonedview of his statements and his actions concerning these two issues. Arrow

No incoming communique on my previous post on this thread. Just as I thought it would be.

Arrow>>>>>>

[BLUEHAWK]

Arrow - I just don't think very many people have much doubt at all about what you reported... I mean, what CAN one say :D

[Gimptster]

Wrong again Blue!

I'll have PLENTY to say when I have the time to adequately and fully answer what I believe to be an incorrect and false persecution of John Kerry.

Lil Sparrow, I have not had the time to give your post the attention and thorough documentation I feel that you deserve and should be afforded. It would be less than insensitive for me to simply shrug it off without atempting to show you the full measure of respect that you deserve. I and my wife, Jackie, are in the process of monitoring and caring for my daughter right now in Atlanta as she is having difficulty in her last term of pregnancy with her second child......she is due in early March, but it appears she will need to be hospilized in the next day or so with a C-section probably in the next few days. As our family crisis situation improves, I will certainly be more than glad to offer a varying viewpoint that I hope would be sufficient to offer you and others a conclusive counterpoint that some will see fit to accept.....while I'm sure there will be others who won't.

Till then, God bless and I'll be "talkin" at ya later!

[BLUEHAWK]

I am actually going to respond to this one Gimpy...

a. Best wishes to you and your family.

b.

[Arrow]

Thank you Steve. I appreciate very much you taking the time to answer given the crisis you and yours are having at this moment. I am truly sorry to hear this news. I pray that all goes well and you will have a good report for us in a few days.

Arrow>>>>>>>

[colmurph]

Well written Little Sparrow.....Kerry will definitely not get this Vietnam veteran's vote, now or ever. I do not denigrate his Vietnam service or his Silver Strar and 3 Purple Hearts. What makes me hate the man is what he did to the rest of us when he came home and testified before congress, accusing the rest of us of hennious war crimes and atrocities. My bumper sticker says KERRY/FONDA and the names are separated by a North Vietnamese Flag. Most people who see it are clueless and say "I didn't know Jane Fonda was running with Kerry". But I hope my message gets through to a few Vietnam Vets who see it.

[SuperScout]

Prayers from here to you for the healing within your family. Hurry back!
Brice

[phuloi]

Gimp

praying for your little girl and the baby.

[Gimpy]

a lot to Sparrow, Superscout and Griz for your kind words. I've posted a notice on the Vietnam thread describing the past weeks events.

Again....thank you from the bottom of my heart!

[Gimpy]

"No incoming communique on my previous post on this thread. Just as I thought it would be.

Arrow>>>>>>".......end quote.


And, I am NOT "shooting the messenger". Just attempting to give some reasoned information to reply.

Well...........it's time to set the "record " straight!

Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. ? The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. ? And now we're adding to that another $50 billion ? of so-called peace dividend."

In the years under Cheney the budgets proposed and the final outcomes followed patterns similar to the FY 1990 budget experience. Early in 1991 the secretary unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared to 2.2 million when he entered office . In his budget proposal for FY 1993, his last one, Cheney asked for termination of the B-2 program at 20 aircraft, cancellation of the Midgetman, and limitations on advanced cruise missile purchases to those already authorized.

When introducing this budget, Cheney complained that Congress had directed Defense to buy weapons it did not want, including the V-22, M-1 tanks, and F-14 and F-16 aircraft, and required it to maintain some unneeded reserve forces. His plan outlined about $50 billion less in budget authority over the next 5 years than the Bush administration had proposed in 1991.

Over Cheney's four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent , from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. ? You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s?all great systems ? but we have enough of them."

And then, in the last election he (Cheney) had the unmitigated GALL to say, "?I do not presume to speak for the military, but I am now speaking to them,? Cheney said. ?To all of our men and women in uniform, and to their parents and families: Help is on the way!?, end quote! Man did THAT turn out to be a WHOPPER of a LIE! What a HYPOCITE!


The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context . A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut?the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive to look at the footnotes however. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans, you don't see the administration screaming about THEM though, DO YOU?)) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank and complete dishonesty .

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference recently, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, informs what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money?not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself. HUH???) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq?but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an aircraft that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s?modified to carry conventional munitions?were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars?the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions?there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But not the ones the republicans keep misleading us about!
######

Now, if you want to focus on something John Kerry said in 1971, that's fine. I said some things back then that I or you might not agree with now. But I would also point to something else John Kerry (and I when entering the Army) said earlier, back in the 60's when he joined the Navy: "I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." I am certain that he has remained steadfast and he will never waver from that oath. Neither will I.

I don't mind painful facts. But, I deeply resent selective memory and falsehood. I resent it even more when it comes from second stringers and bench sitters like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, etc, etc,....... who never got in the game.

Everyone needs to also read the Book "Home to War, A history of the Vietnam Veterans Movement" by Gerald Nicosta, Corte Madera, Calif Crown Publisher, 2001, of which many have called it one of the best books of the Vietnam era.

Gerald Nicosia spent 12 years researching and writing his massive history, HOME TO WAR, a comprehensive, 33-year chronicle of Vietnam veteran activism, readjustment, and healing.

It has already garnered great praise, including starred reviews in PUBLISHERS WEEKLY and LIBRARY JOURNAL, which BTW, wrote:?The frequently heroic, more often tragic saga of the veterans who fought in the war and then fought against it is told in this gripping narrative, which takes hold of the reader with its haunting cover and doesn't let go for almost 700 pages.?

It has been called ?an epic, narrative history that chronicles, for the first time, the experience of America?s Vietnam veterans, who returned home to fight a different kind of war.?

As we all know, the 3.4 million Americans who served in Vietnam fought two wars: one on the other side of the world and one for the hearts and minds of their countrymen when they returned home. Based on 600 interviews and 12 years of research, HOME TO WAR is the definitive history of that second war.

HOME TO WAR paints a fresh picture of the American war heroes who were rejected by the nation in whose name they fought and by the government that sent them to risk life, limb, and spirit in Southeast Asia. It chronicles their heroic?and ultimately victorious? battle on the home front, from their role in the anti-war movement to their campaign for medical help and compensation for Agent Orange exposure and post-traumatic stress wounds.

And, as this book states...............John Kerry did "not" emcee the winter soldier investigation in Detroit. It was emceed by several Vietnam veterans leaders of the VVAW, includingScott Moore, Mike Oliver, and AL Hubbard. The veterans testifying were carefully screened by the VVAW, and no "imposters" have ever been uncovered.

It is true that Jane Fonda did fund the Winter Soldier Investigation, but she did not finance the VVAW in any of it's other activities. John Kerry was not one of the original founding members of VVAW in 1967.

Furthermore Sen. Kerry's reference to atrocities was a very small part of his landmark speech to the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Mainly he spoke of American troops who felt abandoned by their government, and of their "sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped". Anybody can read the speech themselves

Several versions of stories about Kerry throwing his medals back, at the Vow's Dewey Canyon Convention Demonstration at the Capitol in April 1971. Records of his speech indicate he was quite clear about throwing back the medals of two close friends who had asked him to do so, one of them was still in a VA hospital.
####


Below are some more reviews for the book, Home to War:

?Home to War is a superbly researched book that needed to be written. It sets forth in compelling detail a whole other dimension of America?s tragic war in Vietnam, which, until now, has never been completely captured.?

-General Harold G. Moore, author of We Were Soldiers Once?And Young ###

?Home to War is simply the best. Gerry Nicosia has written the definitive story of the deep sense of human and humane conscience among ordinary soldiers during an extraordinary time in American history. Read this book and discover why the epoch of our war in Vietnam still keenly reverberates from the kitchen tables and porches, newspapers and journals, as well as classrooms all across this country.?

-Larry Heinemann, author of PAC's Story
###


?Gerry Nicosia has an uncommon understanding of the struggle of veterans to give meaning to their war and a struggle, too, to redeem themselves. Home to War is a powerful history of our times.?

-Gloria Emerson, author of Winners and Losers
###

?Home to War is a fascinating account of the generation of young Americans whose lives were thrown into turmoil and put at risk by the Vietnam War, of their bravery under enemy fire over there and their bravery under political fire at home.?

-Senator Alan Cranston, Chair, Veterans? Affairs Committee
###

?Every Vietnam veteran should read this remarkable book. It?s a part of our history that a lot of us don?t know anything about, and it?s essential for an understanding of how the war finally came to an end and what happened to the soldiers who fought it.?

-Angelo J. ?Charlie? Liteky, awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for ?exceptional heroism? while serving with the 199th Light Infantry Brigade on December 6, 1967, in Bien Hoa Province, Republic of Vietnam. ###

?After war, we forget. We lose history. Home to War is about veterans of the war in Vietnam who take on the responsibility of remembering. They serve again by telling the consequences of war. Gerald Nicosia has written a history that we as a nation have not faced. This book is a must-read if we are to understand the America we have become.?

-Maxine Hong Kingston, author of The Woman Warrior
###

?Home to War is an extraordinary achievement of research and writing. Its eloquence and power will serve the cause of justice for veterans, but also give to all Americans a sobering lesson about war, peace, and broken promises. I hope it will be widely read.?

-Howard Zinn, author of A People?s History of the United States
###

Blurbs for Home to War -- Page 3?A quarter century after the Vietnam War ended, the story of the Vietnam Veterans? Movement remains compelling. In this captivating work by Gerry Nicosia, the voices and stories of these American veterans force us to confront the issues of the war and the question of why soldiers who came home to peace could find none. The sense of loss and waste that pervades Home to War is overwhelming.?

-Duong Van Mai Elliott, author of The Sacred Willow: Four Generations in the
Life of a Vietnamese Family ###

?Home to War describes the complex history of those Vietnam veterans who returned to America (long before the 58,000-plus names of those killed-in-action were etched on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial) with the sincere conviction that the war was both misdirected and poorly-led. Refusing to be silent about the things they had learned, this generation of veterans protested in ways both creative and destructive?and Nicosia portrays it all in a book that is well-researched, well-written and ultimately courageous.?

-Asa Baber, ?Men? columnist, Playboy Magazine
###

?Home to War captures America?s struggle to heal the wounds of a war too many?particularly those at the highest levels of our government?would have preferred to forget. From triple canopy jungles along the Ho Chi Minh trail and the waters of the Mekong Delta, to VA hospitals across the nation, heated debates in both chambers of Congress, and an incredible grassroots movement led by Vietnam veterans aiming to keep faith with their brothers and sisters in arms"Gerry Nicosia?s important new book ties together the many threads of a difficult period in our history every American should take the time to understand in its totality.? ?He for the first time puts together a history that has been an intimate part of the lives of thousands of us in the veterans? community over the past 30 years?makes a coherent whole of that journey toward healing and recognition, which otherwise would probably have been forgotten. Thanks to Gerald Nicosia, these people and events are now preserved and will be remembered. This book needs to be on every library shelf in America.?

-Colonel David H. Hackworth, author of About Face
####


I HAVE TO SAY THAT SINCE THOSE PROTESTS BY THE VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR WE HAVE WITNESSED BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES (I'M NOT AFAID TO SAY THAT!) ALLOW THE BENEFITS OF OUR VETERANS, MILITARY RETIREES, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES DETERIORATE. BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESSES AND ADMINISTRATIONS ARE TO BLAIM FOR ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FOR NOT TAKING NOTICE UNTIL WARTIME. HOWEVER, THIS LATEST REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESS HAVE FAILED EVEN MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS POLITICIANS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS AFTER MAKING PROMISE AFTER PROMISE TO CORRECT THE SHORTCOMINGS AND DISARAY IN THE VA SYSTEM. NOT TO MENTION THE OUTRAGEOUS TREATMENT OF OUR CURRENT ACTIVE DUTY TROOPS!

VIETNAM VETS ROLE IN THE VIETNAM ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT MAY BE OVER, BUT IT IS EVIDENT BY THE PRONOUNCEMENTS COMING OUT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND ONE WHO LED THE VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR THAT OUR CAMPAIGN FOR MEDICAL HELP NOT ONLY FOR VETERANS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, BUT FOR THE NATION AS WELL, COMPENSATION AND TREATMENT FOR ALL VETERANS WHO SUFFER AS A RESULT OF WAR, AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF THOSE WHO SERVE TODAY AND THEIR FAMILIES STILL GOES ON.

GETTING A VETERANS-VETERAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS ONLY A FIRST STEP. GIVING HIM A MANDATE IN THE CONGRESS WITH A GRASS ROOTS EFFORT TO FORCE THE CONGRESS TO PASS JOHN KERRY'S AGENDA IS WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD. AND...............THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO BE DOING IN THESE NEXT FEW MONTHS!

HELPING THAT HAPPEN!

IT IS FAR PAST TIME FOR THE REPUBLICANS TO ....................GO!

[BLUEHAWK]

Stick with the CINC in time of war...

[Arrow]

Gimpy,

I don't want to hurt your feelings but my questions were simple and included only two issues. The POW-MIA issue and the Winter Soldier Investigation.I amdisappointed that you did not deal with the POW-MIA question. If you agree with the Winter Soldier Investigation and the protest of the Vietnam War thatview does not represent all Vietnam Veterans or their families. John Kerry nor the VVAW spoke for my Vietnam Veteran nor his family

I did read the full testimony in regard to the Winter Soldier Investigation andit is posted on this thread. Your sourcestates that the findings of the Winter Soldier Investigation was a "small part" of John Kerry's testimony but it is also the most damning in regard to how American Combat troops conducted themselves during that war. John Kerry gave strength to the lie in regard to all combat troops in Vietnam being undisciplined, baby killing, psycho maniacs. You say that was long ago and doesn't matter today.It matters to me.And to many others that have family membersthatserved in that warwho can not speak because they are six feet under the ground. Lest We Forget.

You state that the VVAW found no imposters in regard to the Winter Soldier Investigation but in the book America in Vietnam Guenter records,the NIS after an investigation of the sources requested by the Commadant of the Marine Corp states,"that an attempt to interview the witnesses found them unwilling to cooperate even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have personally committed, those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnessess who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam Veterans."

It is only fair thatI find the NIS report and post it here rather than take it on the word of another author. I'll do my best to find that.

I am disappointed that you did not deal with the POW-MIA question but can understand why. It's been a political hot potato for every administration on both sides of the isle since the end of the Vietnam War.

John Kerryand people on both sides of the isle including this present administrationundercut the leverage ourPOW-MIA families had toobtain a full accounting for their lost loved oneswith trade agreements.Lest We Forget.

I am not sure if you are addressing me as having selective memory or someone else.On my part that is simply not true.


Arrow>>>>>>>

[MORTARDUDE]

"Stick with the CINC in time of War"...? By that measure we should have voted LBJ four more blood-soaked years, which we got from Tricky Dick anyway....I do not follow your logic at all.

Larry

[Gimpy]

You're not "hurting my feelings".

I will however stick with the "sources" I've mentioned (along with many, many other veterans as well) regarding the "Winter Soldier Investigation". I told you earlier that some folks would probably not agree with these facts, and that's OK. I truly believe that Kerry felt he was doing the right thing when he started opposing the war.

What I do know about the POW/MIA issue.

1. I do not see what Senator Kerry would gain by "hiding" any information. He was told to NOT get involved as it was a career killer committee, but he choose to anyway. Knowing full well what might be found.

2. The committe was composed of a diverse group of people who agreed and helped create the report issued. Senator Kerry did not come to these conclusions on his own.

3. Using the knowlege that the survival rate of our servicemen in Japanese prisons in the 40s, and some first hand accounts of our brothers held by the North and/or VC, I don't see how anyone would have survived over 10 years.

4. You would be talking about people, who as a race (white-anglo-american or black-americans), would have stood out if they were still there. Someone, somewhere, somehow would have knowlege of them.

An emotional issue yes, but it is not Senator Kerry's to carry.

I realize people always need someone to blame, but would that blame not be better placed on the men in the government at the time who put our young men in harms way, rather than a man (or men, McCain served there also)who served in Vietnam?


Many POW/MIA so-called "advocates" such as Ted Sampley (a real jerk if there ever was one) have been beating this drum since the committee finished it's work. There are two opposing camps: Kerry and McCain et al, who investigated the wider issue of POW/MIA's (not simply the DoD as Sampley alludes to) and the POW/MIA advocates who first drove the investigation then turned on it (with a vengeance) when Kerry's committee came to conclusions they didn't like.

Two important facts that Sampley never reveals are: the lucrative(and immoral) cottage industry of POW/MIA exploitation, and the extensive traveling and working with the Vietnamese government that Kerry, McCain and the committee did. It's not sufficient to rely on the accusation that Kerry treated the DoD with 'kid gloves', when in fact he and McCain did extensive fact checking and sanity testing of what the DoD had reported.The 'examination' of the DoD was only part of what went on there.

I doubt that this will sufficiently answer your concerns, but it sure does for me. I don't believe that Kerry OR McCain are made of the stuff that would allow them to abandon any vestige of hope for finding any of our brothers left over there.

PS-----Larry............I haven't been able to follow Blues "logic" on that issue either??

[Arrow]

John Kerryand people on both sides of the isle including this present administrationundercut the leverage ourPOW-MIA families had toobtain a full accounting for their lost loved oneswith trade agreements.

I'll have to stand with that statement Gimpyand with the Pow-MIA families that believe itand all the good men and women that stand with them. The transcript to the hearingsis online if you anyone cares to read. I believe I have the website posted in the POW/MIA forum.

Thank you for taking the time to answer me given all the stress you have been under. Please take care and God Bless you and your beautiful family.

Arrow>>>>>>>

[BLUEHAWK]

Larry, I just offer that addage because it seems to me one really must stick with the CINC in war time... that it was a major mistake some Americans made to go against LBJ, as your example, it probably extended the war, and even if it COULD have made the CINC's job harder, then that alone constitutes a threat to our people in the field. During peacetime, or if the CINC is criminally insane, then no political holds barred.

I for sure do not "know" ALL there is to know about Dubya's conduct as CINC, but from what I am able to discern, he has the correct relationship with his Commanders and they appear to be handling their job with the troops just about as well as any war can be managed, which LBJ did not as far as I can recall. I'm far more concerned about our President's advisors than I am about him... of course, that could probably also have been true for LBJ from what McNamara has been "confessing" these past several years... to which I reply, "Gee, thanks Mr. Secretary! You KNEW it was a botch job, and you went ahead and did it anyway! See ya at The Wall JERK!"... or words to that effect.