Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire, and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

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.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that
encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,
and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphed
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours. And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone, or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.

One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.
Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.



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 were
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south 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.

-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that
encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,
and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphe
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

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

"Steve Mellenthin" wrote

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.

No **** Sherlock. He didn't even write the speech before Congress.

"Bill Shatzer" wrote

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.

He didn't even write the "baby killer" speech before Congress.

Nice try Fluffy...

"Billy Preston" ) writes:
"Bill Shatzer" wrote

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.

He didn't even write the "baby killer" speech before Congress.

The phrase "baby killer" nor any approximation there of was not
used in his senate testimony. The text is available on line and
that can be readily confirmed.

http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/tim...j_kerry_s.html

Kerry obtained most of his "evidence" of supposed atrocities from
the Winter Soldier project which collected the testimony of a number
of veterans. It later turned out that many of the incidents testified
to were exaggerated or could not be confirmed. In some cases, it turned
out that the veterans had not even been in Vietnam.

OTOH, some of the testimony was essentially accurate.

If Kerry was guilty of any thing, it was being overly naive and trusting.
Perhaps the stories related during the Winter Soldier project should have
be subject to greater scepticism and better investigation and cross-
checks.

But, I can understand why that did not occur. VVAW had limited resources
for conducting any investigation and it seems unlikely the US military
would have cooperated with any information request from them in any event.
And, I would think, there would have been an inherent bias to -believe-
the word of fellow veterans - both because the basic bias of folks who
have served is to -want- to believe our "comrades in arms" and because
their stories conformed to Kerry's "mind-set" about the war.

Perhaps he was overly credulous but then that is not an uncommon vice
of the young. I find it difficult to find anything more sinister than
that in his activities and testimony.



--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

On 18 Jul 2004 21:58:24 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:

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.

Wasn't he still a commissioned officer and out of uniform besides when
he testified?
Seems a few officers are not happy campers after being recalled for
Iraq after "they were no longer in the military."

Sorry I just noticed this from

Buzzer ) writes:
On 18 Jul 2004 21:58:24 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:

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.

Wasn't he still a commissioned officer and out of uniform besides when
he testified?

Not so far as I know. He may have still been a name on a list in
the inactive reserve or whatever they called it then but he was no
longer in an active duty or in the ready reserve. It would have been
inappropriate and probably illegal for him to have appeared in uniform.

Seems a few officers are not happy campers after being recalled for
Iraq after "they were no longer in the military."

Rules change if one is activated - assuming he was still eligible of
activation. Until that happens however, one is essentially a civilian.

Certainly he was not subject to the UCMJ.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

On 19 Jul 2004 04:32:11 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:

Buzzer ) writes:
On 18 Jul 2004 21:58:24 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:

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.

Wasn't he still a commissioned officer and out of uniform besides when
he testified?

Not so far as I know. He may have still been a name on a list in
the inactive reserve or whatever they called it then but he was no
longer in an active duty or in the ready reserve. It would have been
inappropriate and probably illegal for him to have appeared in uniform.

There are some interesting dates and such in his records and timelines
on the internet. Rather confusing actually.

Appears he was discharged to run for congress and within days or weeks
of getting his official discharge on Mar 1 dropped out of the race.

Then transfer to (Ready?) Naval Reserve 3 Jan 70 and Standby Reserve -
Inactive on 1 July 72.
April 23, 1971: Kerry testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.

Seems a few officers are not happy campers after being recalled for
Iraq after "they were no longer in the military."

Rules change if one is activated - assuming he was still eligible of
activation. Until that happens however, one is essentially a civilian.

Certainly he was not subject to the UCMJ.

Appears he was an ID card carrying member of the Naval Reserve at the
time. Don't know if they are subject to the UCMJ?