If you're speaking of "Hanoi Jane", it should be noted that Fonda's
North Vietnam visit came -after- the Kerry photo and, indeed, after
Kerry had broken with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

It would seem a bit much to expect him to make an accurate prediction
of her -future- actions.


You are reinforcing an oft held belief of at least half the holds, judging by
the polls, that he feels strongly both ways on most every issue.



And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone,

Is there any doubt at all that Americans were committing some
atrocities - or at least some pretty bad things - in the combat
zone?

That is an awfully strange remark. War is a pretty bad thing. Just as many
atrocities are committed on the streets of the US every day. I don't see the
relevance of your comment. My point was that Kerry was way off base accusing
everyone who ever served in Vietnam of committing them. As one of those who
served honorably in combat, I take major offense at his remark.





What is the appropriate moral response when one has evidence of
such things? Indeed, what is the appropriate patriotic response
when one has evidence of such things?

Somehow, being a good German doesn't seem the correct response.

or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.

My goodness! Whoever claimed -other- than that it was "staged"

He did. He, or one of his aides later said those weren't his when asked why
those medals he through over the White House fence were back on his office
wall.

..

It was a demonstration and a photo-op for gawd sakes. Everything
was "staged" in the sense that it was organized and choreographed
in advance.

Call it what you want, it was bad judgement for someone in his position,
especially, as you say, he later dissociated himslef with the VVAW.



One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.

He was, as you correctly noted, speaking against "atrocities", not
folks "honorably following orders".


That sure isn't what he said. He didn't differentiate between those committing
atrocities and those who followed orders.





Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or
follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.

He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
choosen the WRONG conflict.


I don't debate that point and I support his right to do so. The movement at
the time was as much agains the people following orders as it was their
leadership and people like Fonda and Kerry were inciting acts of abuse against
those who served honorably. Talk to anyone in uniform who passed through San
Francison International in uniform in the late 60s and early 70s..




And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.

That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops
wer
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south

Wasn't that just about the time Dewey Canyon II and Lam Son 719 were
ongoing? And the notorious Cambodian invasion was but nine or ten
months in the past?

The only thing notorious about the Cambodian invasion was the way the press
handled it. We invaded an unihabited area of Cambodia to try to cut supply
lines to the south. The press played it up like it was equal to the Soviet
invasiopn of Hungary in the 50s. At that stage in the war we were winding down
our efforts and attempting to put the SVN government where it could defend
itself. The Viet Cong was essentially defeated as a fighting force and and the
NVN forces were building up prepatory to an invasion of the south.



US forces had been largely, though not entirely, withdrawn from aggressive
search and destroy ground missions by mid-71 but there were a lot of
aviation companies, artillery units, engineering battalions, and the
like still providing active combat support to the ARVN units. And lots
of PBI-types still taking significant casualties. Certainly to claim that
the "only major combat troops were air units" overstates the case by
quite a bit.


I don't disagree at all. We were withdrawing in a manner so as to allow the
SVN a menas to defend itself agains NVN agression. A year later most had
departed except for support and liaison forces.



so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal
political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.

Well, perhaps. But certainly the more useful tact for a decorated
war hero to take were he concerned about politics would NOT have
been active opposition to the war. You can certainly raise more
campaign contributions at the local VFW hall than at any number of
VVAW rallies populated by folks in tie-dye and wearing beads.

Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.



I accept that as a possibilitybut is is hard for me to escape the sense that he
used his position in the anti war effort as a springboard for his fledgling
political career. And it is hard for me to understand how one could be ashamed
enough of his service and his heriosm to call his actions atrocities and return
his medals only to later give them a place of honor on his I love me wall. To
change one's mind like that is impossible for me to understand. I speak as one
who served 24 months in combat.

Steve