John Kerry's Congressional Testimony

[Augustus]

Simple Question:

Did John Kerry commit atrocities in Vietnam, or did he lie in testimony to Congress?

Transcript of Kerry's Testimony:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/ ... 231047.asp

[Keevan_Colton]

Are you ever so slightly hard of thinking?

[Augustus]

From "Meet The Press" April 18th, 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): 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-caliber 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. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

So Kerry was either a willing participant or guiltly of a felony.

[Keevan_Colton]

Oh, and if it will help you and the others that ride the short bus, read the first paragraph of what Kerry said:

Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

[Keevan_Colton]

So Kerry was either a willing participant or guiltly of a felony.

Or, perhaps shit for brains, there is no case to be made about lying to congress based upon a statment to the press....since guess what, they arent congress. I sense shades of the whole bullshit with Clinton here....

[Augustus]

Or, perhaps shit for brains, there is no case to be made about lying to congress based upon a statment to the press....since guess what, they arent congress.

His statement to "Meet the Press" indicates he was a willing participant in atrocities, it has nothing to do with lying to Congress.

[Howedar]

What he described in Meet the Press does not necessarily mean he committed atrocities. The Geneva Conventions are a crock of crap. I believe Kerry did fire .50cal on people, did burn villiages, and did take part in search-and-destroy missions. Calling those actions "atrocities" is amusing at best.

[Durandal]

Who even cares? It was over 30 years ago, and what he described are hardly what I'd call "atrocities." He was a young idealist who opposed the war, and he was trying to end it. Do I think he did the things he said? Sure. Do I think that thousands of other soldiers did? Yes. Do I disagree with his labeling them of atrocities? Yes. Does this mean he lied to Congress? Um ... how about no.

[Ma Deuce]

*snip*I believe Kerry did fire .50cal on people*snip*

Contrary to the mistaken belief of some (including Kerry), there is no Geneva Convention prohibition on the use .50cals on personnel, so long as you use FMJ (ball) ammo, not explosive or incindiary rounds.

[Howedar]

Is that so?

[Joe]

Who even cares? It was over 30 years ago, and what he described are hardly what I'd call "atrocities." He was a young idealist who opposed the war, and he was trying to end it. Do I think he did the things he said? Sure. Do I think that thousands of other soldiers did? Yes. Do I disagree with his labeling them of atrocities? Yes. Does this mean he lied to Congress? Um ... how about no.

Nobody cared. Nobody cared until John Kerry decided to make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign.

[Elfdart]

*snip*I believe Kerry did fire .50cal on people*snip*

Contrary to the mistaken belief of some (including Kerry), there is no Geneva Convention prohibition on the use .50cals on personnel, so long as you use FMJ (ball) ammo, not explosive or incindiary rounds.

But weren't many M2HBs loaded with incendiary rounds like in WW2? Does the standard tracer count as an incendiary?

Destroying houses or other buildings in and of itself is NOT a war crime. If it's done to destroy stockpiles of weapons, to kill enemy troops hiding inside, to clear the way for vehicles -in other words actual military necessity, IT IS NOT A WAR CRIME!. Now if it's done for kicks, or to murder innocent people, or as a reprisal against the village where guerillas or their families live, it is.

The Geneva Conventions are not hogwash. But they are like the Balk Rule in baseball: It's only mentioned when people flout it.

[Ma Deuce]

Is that so?

Yep... Read here. Besides, if .50cal weapons can't be used against personnel, why even bother with ball ammo?

But weren't many M2HBs loaded with incendiary rounds like in WW2? Does the standard tracer count as an incendiary?

Yes they were, and in fact ball ammo was not as commonly used in .50cal weapons thean as today, and there presents a problem: If you're manning an M2HB loaded with HEI rounds and a wave of enemy soldiers suddenly attacks, what are you gonna do? I don't know if tracers count as incindiary rounds, but they are said to be able to ignite only "readily flammable" targets (I assume this means stuff like fuel), but given the effect even .50 cal ball ammo has on human flesh, I doubt this would make much difference to the wound...

Destroying houses or other buildings in and of itself is NOT a war crime. If it's done to destroy stockpiles of weapons, to kill enemy troops hiding inside, to clear the way for vehicles -in other words actual military necessity, IT IS NOT A WAR CRIME!. Now if it's done for kicks, or to murder innocent people, or as a reprisal against the village where guerillas or their families live, it is.

Certainly there should be some form of "rules of war" to establish a legal framework to ensure that those who do commit atrocities during wartime can be prosecuted and punished by a court of law. There are, however some items in the Geneva convention that need revising, like the restriction of any other round but FMJ against personnel: I see no reason not to allow the use soft-point (JSF) or hollow-point (JHP) rounds, especially for SMGs and sidearms, which are much weaker than rifles.

[Augustus]

The question of if Kerry lied to Congress really boils down to weather or not gross atrocities were commited by the US in Vietnam in a systematic fashion.

If Kerry was a witness to the 'atrocities' as he asserts in front of Congress, being commited in Vietnam then why did'nt he inform his immediate Chain of Command of the crime? That sort of behavior got people hung at Nuremberg.

Kerry's testimony only makes sense if the DOD specified that criminal actions be undertaken as a matter of policy, and were willingly enacted en-mass by servicemen in Vietnam.

[Edi]

The question of if Kerry lied to Congress really boils down to weather or not gross atrocities were commited by the US in Vietnam in a systematic fashion.

If Kerry was a witness to the 'atrocities' as he asserts in front of Congress, being commited in Vietnam then why did'nt he inform his immediate Chain of Command of the crime? That sort of behavior got people hung at Nuremberg.

Kerry's testimony only makes sense if the DOD specified that criminal actions be undertaken as a matter of policy, and were willingly enacted en-mass by servicemen in Vietnam.

Given recent events re: criminal activity by US servicemen and the flatout stonewallng and denial by the US armed forces, and given the past history of punishments (or more properly lack thereof) in confirmed cases of atrocities and/or criminal negligence by US soldiers, what the hell makes you think anybody who reported something like that would have been rewarded instead of just drummed out of service as troublemaker? You have a far too naive view of how things have been demonstrated to work in the US military.

Edi

[Talon Karrde]

The problem I have with Kerry is the fact that he is using his military service as political springboard, when it is questionable at best. Why doesn't he open his records? The media was clammering when Bush's service (or lack of) came into question, but the only part of the media asking to see his records opened are political talk show hosts, and it's not hard for Kerry to say no to them.

[Iceberg]

The problem I have with Kerry is the fact that he is using his military service as political springboard, when it is questionable at best. Why doesn't he open his records? The media was clammering when Bush's service (or lack of) came into question, but the only part of the media asking to see his records opened are political talk show hosts, and it's not hard for Kerry to say no to them.

Kerry did open his records. They're available on his campaign website. The fact that the opposition has been reduced to claiming that his records are falsified should suggest how badly-based their claims regarding him are.

[Augustus]

Kerry did open his records. They're available on his campaign website. The fact that the opposition has been reduced to claiming that his records are falsified should suggest how badly-based their claims regarding him are.

People on the opposite end of the political spectrum have been claiming the exact same thing about Bush's Guard records for the better part of 3. years. (e.g. 'even if all his pay records are present it does'nt prove that he did his duty) Why should Kerry be immune to such basless critisism?

[Talon Karrde]

The problem I have with Kerry is the fact that he is using his military service as political springboard, when it is questionable at best. Why doesn't he open his records? The media was clammering when Bush's service (or lack of) came into question, but the only part of the media asking to see his records opened are political talk show hosts, and it's not hard for Kerry to say no to them.

Kerry did open his records. They're available on his campaign website. The fact that the opposition has been reduced to claiming that his records are falsified should suggest how badly-based their claims regarding him are.

Ah, didn't realize he had opened them. Thanks for correcting me. However Ice, don't act like this is just something conservatives are doing to Kerry. I think you know as well as I that liberals have done the same thing to Bush and claiming he doctored his records and hid them to avoid scrutiny.

[Augustus]

Given recent events re: criminal activity by US servicemen and the flatout stonewallng and denial by the US armed forces, and given the past history of punishments (or more properly lack thereof) in confirmed cases of atrocities and/or criminal negligence by US soldiers, what the hell makes you think anybody who reported something like that would have been rewarded instead of just drummed out of service as troublemaker?

Rewarded? No, reward is nessesary. That is one of the Jobs of NCO's and Officers on the battlefield, not just in the US forces but in EVERY western military.

You have a far too naive view of how things have been demonstrated to work in the US military.

Bullshit Asshat. I was in uniform for over 6 years with the US Army.

[Iceberg]

Nobody's claiming that Bush falsified his records, oh no.

What's being claimed is that he committed a crime - desertion is a crime under the UMJC - and got away with it because he was a member of a very well-placed and well-connected family (please no invocation of the golden mean, Ted Kennedy's alleged crime of murder has nothing to do with Bush's alleged crime of desertion). And is still getting away with it.

What's being asked of Mr. Bush is that he show where he was in the questioned time period, where the military's records show that he was not present for duty. And, if there is a discrepancy between the two records, to reconcile them.

[Glocksman]

There's an interesting discussion going on about Kerry claiming he was in Cambodia over at the Ars Technica Forums




Full page from Congressional Record

In the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979 he wrote:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

One obvious problem with this scenario is that in December of 1968, Richard Nixon was not yet the President of the United States. Another issue is that everyone from the top to the bottom of the chain of command is happy to swear under oath that Kerry was never within 50 miles of the Cambodian border, and that upriver from him was a different unit, with a different commander, and no reason to cover for him. In his latest biography, Kerry remembers a completely different story of that Christmas, in spite of this one about being in Cambodia having been seared - seared - in him.

If he is making this up, how much else about his service is he making up?

Interesting.

[Elfdart]

Kerry did open his records. They're available on his campaign website. The fact that the opposition has been reduced to claiming that his records are falsified should suggest how badly-based their claims regarding him are.

People on the opposite end of the political spectrum have been claiming the exact same thing about Bush's Guard records for the better part of 3. years. (e.g. 'even if all his pay records are present it does'nt prove that he did his duty) Why should Kerry be immune to such basless critisism?

Bullshit. Bush's records show a huge gap where he was supposed to be in the Alabama Air National Guard. Not one of the pilots or crew from a unit of twenty or so pilots remembers seeing Bush attend any meetings, drills or anything else.

There is nothing "questionable" about Kerry's service. The men who served on the boat with him all testified to how he earned his medals. If Kerry lied about how he was wounded and who pulled Lt. Rassman out of the river during a gun battle, so did the rest of his crew.

BY JIM RASSMANN
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.


Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.
But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.

If you believe the charlatans and crackpots from the TV ad, this guy and the other crew made up a story back in the late 1960s on the off chance Kerry might run for President 35 years later. If you believe that, I've got some Enron stock I'd like to sell you.

[Iceberg]

McCain: "And yet... I still support... the President... *SIGH*"

One wonders how much longer McCain can actually stomach this charade.

[Iceberg]

The problem with Bush's records is not that Bush is publishing his records and people are claiming they're falsified: It's that Bush's claims of what happened, and the military records of what happened, are not congruent. Bush claims that he served his obligation fully, and that he served it with honor. The military's records claim there's a two year period when Bush did not show up for duty. The two claims are irreconcilable at present, which means one of them is incorrect.

To contrast, Kerry's claims and the military records of his service are congruent, but those criticizing him (the ineptly-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) claim that the military records were falsified at the time they were reported. In other words, they ask us to trust their word, and disregard the congruent claims of the military records and the records of Senator Kerry.