Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message hlink.net...

Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

Are you sure that that quote is correct?

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
group; their analysis of the testimony is at

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.

I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
sourced document) is somewhat different.

"We are here in Washington also 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 also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in 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,
[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
everything."

From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

Chris Manteuffel

In article ,
Chris Manteuffel wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

Are you sure that that quote is correct?

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
group; their analysis of the testimony is at

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.

I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
sourced document) is somewhat different.

"We are here in Washington also 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 also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in 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,
[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
everything."

From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

Chris Manteuffel

There was a celebrated debate on, IIRC, the Dick Cavett show, between
Kerry and John O'Neill, the main person involved in the Swift Boat Vets
for Truth group. The language may have come out of that. I don't know.
Then again, it may simply be folklore. (Dick Cavett was sort of like
Charlie Rose thirty years ago, the most literate of the talk show
hosts.)

I've read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it is powerful stuff.
It does not read to me as if he is blaming any soldier, but YMMV.

David Derbes

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris Manteuffel wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in
that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined
in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts
were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this
are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

Are you sure that that quote is correct?

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
group; their analysis of the testimony is at

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.

I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
sourced document) is somewhat different.

"We are here in Washington also 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 also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in 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,
[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
everything."

From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he made that
statement instead on national television: "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." 18 April 1971, "Meet
the Press", NBC

So there is absolutely NO question that he did indeed make that statement
(though the poster did apparently paraphrase it). When questioned about that
statement last April, again on "Meet the Press", he did not back down too
much from the war criminal accusation, instead saying only, "I wish I had
found a way to say it in a less abrasive way." Whew! How thoughtful of him
(sarcasm switch temporarily engaged). Are you thinking it only is valid if
he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then by
the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?


Chris Manteuffel

There was a celebrated debate on, IIRC, the Dick Cavett show, between
Kerry and John O'Neill, the main person involved in the Swift Boat Vets
for Truth group. The language may have come out of that. I don't know.
Then again, it may simply be folklore. (Dick Cavett was sort of like
Charlie Rose thirty years ago, the most literate of the talk show
hosts.)

I've read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it is powerful stuff.
It does not read to me as if he is blaming any soldier, but YMMV.

His "testimony", which you say was so "powerful", was based upon "voodoo",
which is about the best way to characterize the "Winter Soldier
Investigation" nonsense. That Jane Fonda sponsored circus has been pretty
thoroughly discredited as a "factual source" (the DoD investigators who
looked into the claims made in that "trial" threw their hands up after
finding that the "witnesses" were either not even who they claimed they
were, but often had never even been in Vietnam, or those who had were not
assigned to frontline combat units, etc.--see the excellent book by Burkett
and Whitley, "Stolen Valor", for a more complete indictment of WSI).

Of course, he *did* make personal claims as well during that testimony, such
as the following regarding an alleged incident where the ARVN supposedly
refused to come to his aid: "...I was in the Navy and this was pretty
unconventional, but when we were pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or
something and they refused to come in and help us, point blank refused."
Odd, but I don't recall any of the myriad stories supposedly describing his
Vietnam heroics on a Swift boat including any cases where he became "pinned
down in a ditch" while recovering bodies", do you? Maybe this was "seared"
into his memory along with his recollection of where he spent Christmas Eve
1968 (which was either deep inside Cambodia or some fifty plus miles away at
a village in the RVN, depending upon *which* specific recollection of his
you care to believe).

As to his indictment of the bulk of US officers who served in Vietnam, he
offered the following when asked about the prosecution of William Calley:
"But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from
responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened
there lies elsewhere. I think it lies with the men who designed free fire
zones. I think it lies with the men who encouraged body counts... I think if
you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if
this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same
time try all those other people who have responsibility..."

Pretty broad brush he wields there, and in keeping with his "Meet the Press"
quotation above, and a view that he apparently still holds, though he would
apparently now express it less "abrasively"....

Brooks


David Derbes

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

snip of stuff I had already posted about, correcting Mr. McNicoll's
wrong attribution


Are you thinking it only is valid if
he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then by
the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?

No. I was engaging in primary research. And when I could not find it
in the cited work, I asked him for clarification.

As you will note, I posted a correct cite, with complete trancript to
his present day thoughts and authortative cite, a full half a day
before you posted this message
).

Chris Manteuffel

"Chris Manteuffel" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

snip of stuff I had already posted about, correcting Mr. McNicoll's
wrong attribution


How do you know Mr. McNicoll's attribution is wrong?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...

How do you know Mr. McNicoll's attribution is wrong?

Because I went back to the primary sources and read them and the quote
was not there. This was a transcript of the testimony provided by an
Anti-Kerry group that had an entire article bashing Kerry for what he
had said, and said article did not mention any such quote either, and
the format and font match GPO documents from that time period
precisely. I posted links to both, should you care to examine them.

And then I did find the quote on a Meet The Press from a few days
before his Senate testimony. And Kerry agreeing that he had said the
quote on Meet the Press back in 1971. Again, I have presented my
evidence, posted links to both the original and a transcript of the
recent Meet the Press, which you have not addressed.

Would you prefer if I said "The Boston Globe's attribution is wrong"?
Because, from everything that I can tell, it is. Like Mr. Brooks, I
have read the transcript as provided by the GPO. The quote you
reference isn't there. He did say it on Meet the Press. This an
incorrect cite, and nothing more. Let's stop talking about this.

Chris Manteuffel

"Chris Manteuffel" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

How do you know Mr. McNicoll's attribution is wrong?

Because I went back to the primary sources and read them and the quote
was not there. This was a transcript of the testimony provided by an
Anti-Kerry group that had an entire article bashing Kerry for what he
had said, and said article did not mention any such quote either, and
the format and font match GPO documents from that time period
precisely. I posted links to both, should you care to examine them.

And then I did find the quote on a Meet The Press from a few days
before his Senate testimony. And Kerry agreeing that he had said the
quote on Meet the Press back in 1971. Again, I have presented my
evidence, posted links to both the original and a transcript of the
recent Meet the Press, which you have not addressed.

Would you prefer if I said "The Boston Globe's attribution is wrong"?
Because, from everything that I can tell, it is. Like Mr. Brooks, I
have read the transcript as provided by the GPO. The quote you
reference isn't there. He did say it on Meet the Press. This an
incorrect cite, and nothing more. Let's stop talking about this.


Fine with me. But I do find it odd that anyone that strives for accuracy,
as your and Brooks' research indicates you both do, would take offense at
someone else's desire for accuracy.

"Chris Manteuffel" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

snip of stuff I had already posted about, correcting Mr. McNicoll's
wrong attribution


Are you thinking it only is valid if
he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then
by
the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?

No. I was engaging in primary research. And when I could not find it
in the cited work, I asked him for clarification.

Oddly enough, I just did a quick Google and got the answer in about three
minutes--and BTW, I have yet to see the post where you responded (maybe my
newsserver did not catch it, or it got deleted by me along with a slew of
other posts by accident).


As you will note, I posted a correct cite, with complete trancript to
his present day thoughts and authortative cite, a full half a day
before you posted this message
).

Great, then you agree Kerry has indeed made these claims.

Brooks


Chris Manteuffel

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

Oddly enough, I just did a quick Google and got the answer in about three
minutes

Indeed, once I realized that the cite was incorrect, getting a correct
cite was trivial. However, I tend to trust cites provided by other
people, and so I specifically looked for the senate testimony, and
after I read it wanted further clarification.

--and BTW, I have yet to see the post where you responded (maybe my
newsserver did not catch it, or it got deleted by me along with a slew of
other posts by accident).

I have provided the message-id of that post that I made, which should
allow you to find it on your server. If that doesn't work for you,
here it the google reference:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...ing.google.com

Great, then you agree Kerry has indeed made these claims.

Yes. However, I am not the person who was in this argument before, and
he did not dispute the accuracy of this quote either. All I wanted was
a correct cite for a quote, and when I checked the reference material
the cite turned out to be wrong, so I wanted to get it correct. I am
not trying to get involved in a xposted flamewar at all. The only
issue I brought up was where the cite was. And now that I know that
the Boston Globe got the cite wrong, everything should be clear.

Chris Manteuffel

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he made that
statement instead on national television:


How do you know that? According to The Boston Globe he said it before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.