Setting Straight Kerry’s War Record

By Thomas Lipscomb
The New York Sun | March 1, 2004

Senator Kerry recently wrote a letter to President Bush complaining, “You and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war,” and warning, “I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged.”

In the absence of any evidence from Mr. Kerry of an attack from the Bush campaign, Mr. Kerry seems to have originated his own doctrine of “pre-emption.” How valid are his concerns?

No one denies Mr. Kerry’s four bemedaled months in “Swiftboats” or his seven-months’ service as an electrical officer on board the USS Gridley, during its cruises back and forth to California, or even his months as an admiral’s aide in Brooklyn, before he was able get out of the Navy six months early to run for office.

Taking a look at Mr. Kerry’s much-promoted Vietnam service, his military record was, indeed, remarkable in many ways. Last week, the former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor, W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Mr. Kerry’s recollection of their discussions:

“[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO —that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.‘We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,’ the admiral said. ‘Bud’ Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions — but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.” And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry.


Excerpted
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12386

I dont know what to think of the guy.

His Winter Soldier investigations were filled with phony Veterans who never served, people who did serve but never went to Vietnam, yet his own record:

He admits to killing men, women and children. his own boat crew denies it in a way, one said he could not understand why Kerry would say such things.

Yet now, we have one of the highest ranking people who knew John Kerry come forth with information about Kerry, and he confirms that Kerry killed civilians.

So, Kerry is a WAR CRIMINAL. This confirms it. It cannot be denied. He admits it. People who knew him confirm it.

And all the libs talk about is Bush in the National Guard.

pfff ...
When you find it convenient, Nam veterans are heros, and shooting unarmed adults is ok as long as they are communists (dixit contra ...): they're just true partiots doing their duty to protect america . Then, if he is a dem, he's a monster, while a conniver who slipped away from said war is a hero because from his desk he indirectly caused the death of thousands civilians through waging an illegal war ...
Your logic escapes me ...

Originally posted by Von Apfelstrudel
pfff ...
When you find it convenient, Nam veterans are heros, and shooting unarmed adults is ok as long as they are communists (dixit contra ...): they're just true partiots doing their duty to protect america . Then, if he is a dem, he's a monster, while a conniver who slipped away from said war is a hero because from his desk he indirectly caused the death of thousands civilians through waging an illegal war ...
Your logic escapes me ...
Show me where I defended the intentional killing of civilians?

Show me where I said the killiing of civilians wasnt murder when done intentionally?

I defend defending yourself, especially when done in proportion.

I defend the bombing of cities through Air Power to achieve a more strategic objective, like we did to Germany, Japan, and Hanoi.

I also defend going to war against a mademan who rapes women for fun, who supports terrorists like Saddam did, especially those terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 like Saddam supported and provided training and phony Visa's for the way he did, the way he tied to kill one of our former Presidents through asassination the way Saddam did...yeah, I support going to war to get rid of that guy, while it seems you support letting those people just kill more or something...

BUT, when it is mano-a-mano, that is clearly murder. Killing civilians on a personal basis just to kill them, for no strategic gain, that is what Kerry did.

The fact that some need this explained to them is sad.

Were you ever in the service?

John Kerry also negotiated with Communist leaders in Paris, telling them to KEEP FIGHTING AND KILLING American troops during Vietnam.

Kerry is a traitor!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1081292/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091943/posts



LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1971

UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Fulbright, Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case, and Javits.



Thank you. [Applause]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you properly said in the beginning.


COMMENDATION OF WITNESS
You said you wished to communicate. I can't imagine anyone communicating more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and beneficial to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.

You said you had been awake all night. I can see that you spent that time very well indeed. [Laughter.]

Perhaps that was the better part, better that you should be awake than otherwise.


PROPOSALS BEFORE COMMITTEES
You have said that the question before this committee and the Congress is really how to end the war. The resolutions about which we have been hearing testimony during the past several days, the sponsors of which are some members of this committee, are seeking the most practical way that we can find and, I believe, to do it at the earliest opportunity that we can. That is the purpose of these hearings and that is why you were brought here.

You have been very eloquent about the reasons why we should proceed as quickly as possible. Are you familiar With some of the proposals before this committee?

Mr. KERRY. Yes, I am, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?

Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.


http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony

US Code

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > Sec. 953.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html

Originally posted by Banky

Show me where I defended the intentional killing of civilians?


sorry, meant "you" in a general fashion, a trend I observed amongst the Bush apologists ...


Show me where I said the killiing of civilians wasnt murder when done intentionally?

you seem oddly silent about the Iraqi civilian casualties ..


I defend defending yourself, especially when done in proportion.


therefore you condemn the war on Iraq .. good ...


I defend the bombing of cities through Air Power to achieve a more strategic objective, like we did to Germany, Japan, and Hanoi.


Great ...
I thought they'd have progressed in half a century, but no ...


I also defend going to war against a mademan who rapes women for fun, who supports terrorists like Saddam did,

So you have proof Saddam was raping women for fun ? And he fed people to the shredder, right ?


especially those terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 like Saddam supported and provided training and phony Visa's for the way he did, the way he tied to kill one of our former Presidents through asassination the way Saddam did...



yeah, I support going to war to get rid of that guy, while it seems you support letting those people just kill more or something...


rrrrrright ...
I suport neutralizing him gradually and peacefully, therefore I'm a Saddam apologist, obviously on his payroll ... :rolleyes:


BUT, when it is mano-a-mano, that is clearly murder. Killing civilians on a personal basis just to kill them, for no strategic gain, that is what Kerry did.

That's hypocrisy ...
If it's coldly done by the thousands by some guy a thousand kilometers away, then it's ok , while if it's done by a soldier right in a middle of an insane, horrible and bloody conflict, it's murder ...
Sick logic .
With it, you can straightfacedly argue that the Nazis leaders shouldn't have been condemned, since non of them actually turned the valves of a gaz chamber ...

The fact that some need this explained to them is sad.

I could say the same thing to you ...


Were you ever in the service?

Now what has this anything to do with it all ?
Strawman .

I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.


now what's wrong or special with that ? :confused:

Originally posted by Von Apfelstrudel
you seem oddly silent about the Iraqi civilian casualties ..
We didnt murder any of them, and you know it.

No one denies innocents die in combat, only LIBERALS defend killing them on purpose, like you defend Stalin and Ho Chi Minh and John Kerry


So you have proof Saddam was raping women for fun ? And he fed people to the shredder, right ?
Even the CNN reporters knew that. What, you need to have a date with Uday to prove it to you?

rrrrrright ...
I suport neutralizing him gradually and peacefully, therefore I'm a Saddam apologist, obviously on his payroll ... :rolleyes:

So, you would have supported keeping up the no-fly zones and depriving Saddam of medicines and food through embargo ? Is that so you can pontificate about how it is our fault Children are starving because it is our fault and not Saddams for starting the war and not surrendering?


That's hypocrisy ......
Mo, that's war.

Now what has this anything to do with it all ?
Strawman .
Actually, that was an honest question. Just curious.

Originally posted by Von Apfelstrudel


now what's wrong or special with that ? :confused:

US Code

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > Sec. 953.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html

http://www.atomicjetpacks.com/audio/kerrycalley.mp3
John Kerry admits he himself is a war criminal, and that he slaughtered civilians, and you defend him?

At least you should be consistant, if it is so wrong as you say, you need to make sure your friends all vote against a war criminal who willlingly and deliberately and with malice and forethought kill civilians, just to kill civilians, targets that were NOT military as proven above, NONE OF WHICH BUSH EVER DID

Logan Act

(1799), U.S. legislation, passed during administration of John Adams and era of tension between U.S. and France; essentially forbids private citizens from involving themselves in making foreign policy; resulted from efforts of George Logan, who met with French government officials in attempt to stave off war; meeting called treasonous by political opponents...

http://wwwa.britannica.com/ebi/article?eu=340202&query=france&ct=ebi