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

In article t,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that.


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

What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The
sorts
of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of
things
you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between
misdemeanors
and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
that he used.


You said the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed was to
a small extent taken out of context, that he was "quoting what _other_
people said." He said he committed atrocities himself.



And I answered that. But here it is a second time.

I believe that Kerry regarded himself then, and regards himself today,
as a spokesperson for all those who served in Viet Nam.

He was testifying in Congress angry not so much at himself, or his
fellow veterans, but at the politicians and probably to a lesser
extent at his superior officers.

He was reporting on the "Winter Soldier" conference, in which people
claimed to have committed actual atrocities (e.g., mutilation of
corpses.) I do not know if rape was among these atrocities; I have not
read any of the "Winter Soldier" testimony.

Now, if he was going to say that terrible things had taken place, rather
than put himself up on some pedestal, he was going to say that he had
himself "committed atrocities". I'm sure that in his mind, nearly any
action in this God-forsaken war was an atrocity, because the war itself
was an atrocity. Firing into a group of people, only some of whom were
actually combatants, is probably an atrocity. I'm sure that quite a few
Viet Nam veterans did just that; and had I been there, I've no doubt I
would have done the same, given enough fear or anger or frustration.
Do I think that Kerry mutilated corpses? I doubt it. Did he take part in
a My Lai-style massacre? I doubt it, but as many readers may recall,
Bob Kerrey, a Senator, did, and confessed to it about a year ago. (Kerrey's
actions were not nearly so culpable as William Calley's in my opinion,
but Kerrey feels very, very guilty about it.)

I do not believe that Kerry in any testimony accused any soldier by name
of any atrocity; I do not believe that Kerry implied that all soldiers
had committed atrocities (though many, many Viet vets think that this is
precisely what he did). This is the source of their anger. I believe it
is misplaced, but as I told another poster, I did not serve in Viet Nam,
and it is not my place to comment on how those brave men feel.


My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
different thing from rape.


Yes it is, but I don't recall Kerry mentioning rape.

I don't know; I meant only to suggest that the actions that Kerry may have
taken might well be in his mind atrocities, but in my mind they are different
from cold-blooded murder of noncombatants, mutilation of corpses, and so on.

The truly terrible thing about all this is that Kerry wanted nothing else but
to get all the men home from a war he was certain was a mistake, and badly
prosecuted in the bargain. Of course many good men and women did not want that;
they wanted to win a war against Communism. But I believe that most of the
soldiers just wanted to go home, and did not think that this was a war worth
fighting. In my opinion, those who thought Viet Nam a blunder were correct.
We failed to keep the North from overrunning the South. No doubt many innocent
people were executed. But civil wars are as old as human history. Has the
security of the United States suffered as a result of the North Vietnamese
conquest?

I happen to think that Iraq was a mistake, but not as grievous as Viet Nam
(as bad as Ho Chi Minh was--and he was a monster--he was Little Mary Sunshine
next to Saddam). The terrible thing is that it is being prosecuted in an even
more heinously stupid fashion than Viet Nam. I would have thought that almost
impossible, but George and his gang have managed it.

David Derbes

"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

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

"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

A bit more research has turned up that this was from _Meet the Press_
on April 18, 1971, not sworn testimony in front of a committee a few
days later. When Kerry was on MtP again on April 18th, 2004, Russert
showed him a clip of that. (Transcript of that episode:
http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4772030/)

Relevant section below:

"MR. RUSSERT: Before we take a break, I want to talk about Vietnam.
You are a decorated war hero of Vietnam, prominently used in your
advertising. You first appeared on MEET THE PRESS back in 1971, your
first appearance. I want to roll what you told the country then and
come back and talk about it:
(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)

MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big
question for me. You know, I thought a lot, for a long time, about
that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad
word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to
ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some
of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger.
It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

MR. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I
think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I
don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you
to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the
soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I
think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that
and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but
on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think
that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were
policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of
warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled
that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found
a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you
talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter
soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut
off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited,
and in hindsight was your testimony...

SEN. KERRY: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some
been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not
where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry
about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable
of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me
that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless
to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think
twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to
oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a
time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble,
you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more
artfully at times."

Chris Manteuffel

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

Thurlow went on to say:

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case,"
Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze
Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for
coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on
anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."


So just this week, he's saying he believed he got his Bronze Star for
coming to the rescue of a mined boat.


So which is it: did he accept his Bronze Star knowing that it was for
actions under fire and simply "shrugged and moved on" as you are now
making an unsubstantiated claim of or did he get his award not knowing
it stated prominently that he had been under fire (despite the fact that
the award text would have been read to him when presented as well as in
his service record) and only now, 35 years later, become aware of the
citation text????


Your version of events does not jibe with what the Mr. Hurlow himself is
saying.




Should he have stepped up, then and there, and pointed out the error?
Probably, but this guy did what 99.9% of would have done; shrugged and
moved
on.

Only he did not do that. He's claiming that all along he believed his
award was for rescuing the crew of a mined boat.

You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them and
there were written entries in my service record stating why as well.

Unrelated conversation of two weeks ago, a person I know confessed
to having received a Bronze Star and it was "the stupidest thing" for the
military to have awarded it.
Her belief was it was to provide support for her CO's effort to get
his own Silver Star.

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported
him)
during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
this country (NYC) until after it was attacked.

What a joke. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but this country is fairly
large.
If Bush had taken time to visit all the places you want him to, you
would
have
claimed he was neglecting his duties at the White House.


We don't need that to make that claim true. Nobody is saying he should
visit everywhere...but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
stewarding?

No.

We're not talking Topeka here. He also rarely comes to the
largest state in his country and has never set foot in SF.

Why should he go to Alaska very often?
And not setting foot in San Fran is, well, only good taste.

We've seen the pattern from Day 1: he snubs the areas of the country
which voted against him. A president needs to rise above juvenile
pettiness and represent everybody....not just the people who think he's
not an idiot.

Ah, he should run around kissing up to those who didn't vote for
him the first time so that they might do so the next time. Like
a democrat would?

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
stewarding?

If he had gone 4 years without a visit I'd find that odd, but not 8
months.
Can
you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months?


I never really paid attention to it in the past. Living in SF, I noticed
that Bush avoided (and continues to avoid) facing 3/4 of million people
he is supposed to represent. Then I took a look around and figured out
he and his administration was snubbing the geographic locations where he
lost big and where he doesn't have a lot of fans.


It's been nearly four years, and Bush still hasn't been in the financial
capital of the West Coast, although he has come as close as 50 miles
from here (San Jose) and then conspicuously avoided coming to NorCal's
real urban center. Do you find that not odd?

So basicly your ****ed at being socially snubbed?

A president needs to rise above that pettiness.

But... OK, you're not the President...

Well said, Paul. But note that the NYT story was supposed to be about
the Swifties' claims but was actually an attack on them. "A plague on
both..." is actually a win for the Kerry campaign.

Instead of investigating the subject of the book (and ads, presumably,
though I watch no TV and see no ads), Kerry's supporters in the media
have undertaken to investigate the authors. Only a very few
conservative or right-wing newspapers (Wall Street Journal, Boston
Herald, Washington Times, New York Post) have given the subject the
treatment it deserves. (The same treatment that the Washington Post
and the Boston Globe so enthusiastically gave the "Bush AWOL" stories,
by the way, knowing that even a fair-handed treatment would leave some
slime behind.)

-- Dan Ford

(I attach your post below, so somebody can learn what I'm replying to




On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:35:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Cub Driver
writes
Sure, I will. I read the NYT story yesterday and forwarded it to a
friend who believes that the NYT is an unbiased source. Even he
blushed to admit that it might as well have been an infomercial.

I read the NY Times story and came away unconvinced of anything other
than "a plague on both their houses". Lots of political BS on all sides.

It struck me as the sort of whitewash that would convince only the
individual who paid for it.

It was better whitewash than that, but I'm suspicious of both Kerrey's
claims and the Swift Boats Veterans. (If only because there's no 'Delta
Dart Drivers' club bashing Bush Jr.)

I don't know what the truth might be in this matter, but I hope the
Swifties will pursue it until the last "Bush AWOL" site is taken down
and the owner apologizes for defaming an F102 pilot who did his job
and by all accounts did it well. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

I'd class myself as centrist, which doubtless is a misspelling of either
"communist fellow-traveller" or "fascist baby-eater", on this issue. At
top level, Kerrey was not in a safe, routine, Stateside assignment, nor
was he 'photocopier officer' on a ship well out of harm's way, but he
spent a few months in direct-fire range of the enemy and may even have
got shot at himself on a few occasions.

On the other hand, George Bush Jr. qualified to fly and logged many
hours in the F-102 Delta Dart: while it may not have been the newest or
*most* dangerous aircraft available, it killed a sad roll-call of pilots
and was more dangerous than its replacements. And flying a fighter is
*not* easy. He "skipped his extended service"? Really? Where's the memo
calling him up to train to fly F-106s or F-4s? And where's the training
slot left empty because he never showed?


I've decided that I thoroughly dislike the policies of both candidates,
I don't get a vote on the issue, and I wish all the partisan ********
would go away so r.a.m can get back to talking about military aviation.
But both of them appear to have rendered respectable service thirty-some
years ago.

Why not concentrate on "what they'd do now and for the next four years"
rather rhan obsess about "what they did thirty years ago"?

I see that the Swifties' book was the number-one seller on Amazon
yesterday. I reckon it has legs.

Al Franken and Ann Coulter have both sold well. Doesn't make either of
them right.

(Coulter is *scary* from what she says here, not seen a UK interview of
Franken)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:10:27 GMT, David Fritzinger
wrote:

Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is
a pattern here.

Ah yes, the pattern!

The black helicopters -- the aliens pretending to be human -- the
PATTERN!

Arrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhh!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

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