Open Letter To John Kerry from Ollie North

[rcecale]

Bring it on, John
Oliver North
"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" - Sen. John Kerry

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions .... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?


Here's The Snopes.

Randy

[CamB]

Well, I'm glad that's cleared up ... all Kerry has to do is apologise:

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

Which I believe he has more or less done.

**** it... this is pissing me off. Here starteth the rant.

Kerry wanted the war to end. There are a comparatively small number of people to whom North's accusation applies, in particular compared to the vast number who would have died if the Vietnam War had continued. The war itself was not a good idea, and never was - campaigning against it should be seen as a strong point.

[Superman]

Mr. North's argument will seem compelling to many, I'm sure. And I respect aspects of it. I certainly cannot abide a liar, and the suffering of soldiers and their families is deeply regretable.

The Viet Nam conflict accomplished nothing except tens of thousands of deaths and eventually we abandoned it. Should we blame some other people for starting or engaging in that conflict? Or is it John Kerry's fault? The politicians that pulled the strings in this war used their judgement when they made those decisions, and I'm going to presume they had the best intentions. Folks here who demonstrated against the war also used their judgement and good intentions. (of course, I expect some folks will try to tell us here they can read what was in John Kerry's mind at the time and that he was thinking about how he will get his furniture into the White House some day)

I have heard it said here that criticizing our government's decisions is treachery. These are the same people who support Dubya's exporting of DEMOCRACY to middle eastern countries. I don't think Americans have the right to demonstrate against the president's decisions as much as they have the DUTY.

So, either you favor democracy or you don't. Or perhaps you favor something, that you make up as you go along, and you call that "democracy."

How many tails does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? A dog has four legs, and calling his tail a leg does not make it a leg. By Ollie's definition, quite a few people are to blame for the suffering he references. And by the testimony of some people here, John Kerry should have sat quietly while that suffering occurred.

[Seahawk]

Which I believe he has more or less done.

Well which is it, more or less...
In my world, equivocation on important matters is a sign of failure. Persons of honor do not exist in the margins, waiting for interpretation.
As my Grandfather used to say, "Son, you either got to $hit, stand or stampede...pick one."
Not more or less.

[cegerer]

JFK is the one who made Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign and the Dem Convention. He calls himself some sort of war hero - maybe he was. But for some strange reason he hasn't promoted his anti-war activites after the war. In fact, I don't think he's even mentioned them If protesting the war was the 'right thing to do', why isn't he and the DNC proud of it and running fancy commercials featuring his testimony before Congress, his arrest and all his other activities? Could it be that he wouldn't stand a chance with the majority of Americans if he did so, therefore he needs to keep that part of his background in the shadows for the election.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by CamB
Well, I'm glad that's cleared up ... all Kerry has to do is apologise:



Which I believe he has more or less done.

uh...sure he has.....where? when? how? to whom?

campaigning against it should be seen as a strong point.

What Kerry did when he came home was FAR from "campaigning against it" He virtually betrayed ALL soldiers over there with his actions and words. There are plenty of former soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who "campaigned against it" without selling out there brethren in arms.

But, yeah, Cam, you're right....**** it, what does it really matter anyway? I didn't mean to piss you off. Sweet dreams, Sunshine!

Randy

[trj911]

I like Oliver North. Kerry (along with most others politicians) will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. The ego these guys have is incredible. I really dislike politics!

[turbo6bar]

Has Kerry done anything for which the American population would be proud?

I agree with you, Randy.
Jurgen

[Bleyseng]

So I guess Kerry stood up for ending the War in Vietnam. Bush was busy drinking, partying and avoiding......in your words "*****iing"

I'll take any day someone who stands up for what they believe is right not shove down everyone's throat what they believe.

Geoff

Originally posted by Bleyseng
So I guess Kerry stood up for ending the War in Vietnam. Bush was busy drinking, partying and avoiding......in your words "*****iing"

I'll take any day someone who stands up for what they believe is right not shove down everyone's throat what they believe.

Geoff

What did he just say?

[cegerer]

Bush logged over 500 hours of flighttime in his 5 years. The Dem's are questioning a 6 month period at the end of his stint. Why doesn't the media put it into that context? To most people listening to the mainstream media, they would conclude that Bush never showed up. He, in fact, accumulated 4 times the number of points required. That's called deceptive reporting.

And if JFK truly believes in his anti-war activities, why does he refuse to talk about them today? He talks only about being a war hero. Which is it?

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Bleyseng
So I guess Kerry stood up for ending the War in Vietnam. Bush was busy drinking, partying and avoiding......in your words "*****iing"

I'll take any day someone who stands up for what they believe is right not shove down everyone's throat what they believe.

Geoff

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
What did he just say?

I think he meant, "I'm not as think as you stoned I am!"

Randy

[CamB]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Well which is it, more or less...
In my world, equivocation on important matters is a sign of failure. Persons of honor do not exist in the margins, waiting for interpretation.
As my Grandfather used to say, "Son, you either got to $hit, stand or stampede...pick one."
Not more or less.

From the aforementioned Russert interview - a part that North left out

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.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244

I know the factcheck source irritates a few people, but it is just quoting the show and I can't be bothered finding the proper transcripts.

Randy - sorry. I had made a decision to keep my rants to myself. I should have done so then too. I better call myself done with this topic (save all of us the aggravation ).

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Well which is it, more or less...
In my world, equivocation on important matters is a sign of failure. Persons of honor do not exist in the margins, waiting for interpretation.
As my Grandfather used to say, "Son, you either got to $hit, stand or stampede...pick one."
Not more or less.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seahawk,

If this is what is being considered Kerry's "apology, I would have to say the answer to your question is a resounding "LESS!"

"...I don't like it when I hear it today." = "DAMN! This crap is ruining my campaign!!!"

"...notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame" = "At first I was all over those murderous SOB's, but I ran out of things to accuse them of so..."

"...I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that..." = "For a bunch of thugs who weren't war heroes like me, they sure do have long memories...DAMN! This crap is ruining my campaign!!!"

Randy

[island911]

Originally posted by CamB
. . .

Kerry wanted the war to end. There are a comparatively small number of people to whom North's accusation applies, in particular compared to the vast number who would have died if the Vietnam War had continued. The war itself was not a good idea, and never was - campaigning against it should be seen as a strong point.

So, Cam, before you go .. ..

Are you saying that wanting (working) to end the war trumps all other actions?

For example, what if Kerry saw a way to get the US out of the war by promising the VC that they could have not just SV, but we'll throw in the Phillippines too? . . .is war subject to an end justifies the means ideal, to find an end?

It is difficult to argue that Kerry had a smart solution to ending the conflict. Making the war effort even more horrible (for your own side) is hardly the work of a great mind. . . Kerrys strategy of doing what he could to make the US LOSE is certainly not the type of possitioning I want from our CiC. --It is that simple.

[CamB]

I'm already gone

Too many "what ifs" in what you say. I actually don't have any intelligent response, other than to point out that I think you "lost" Vietnam well before you started (ditto Iraq).

[island911]

Too many !? . . .I only had one "what if" (yes it was lame enough to count twice. . . so please ignore the what-if")

[fintstone]

From a 15 Sept Fox News story:
Vietnam Vet: I Lied About Atrocities

WASHINGTON — A veteran who testified to John Kerry about atrocities he committed in the Vietnam War is now claiming that the Democratic presidential candidate coerced him to tell tales.

Steven Pitkin, an Army combat veteran, told FOX News that Kerry coached him and others to say they had witnessed war crimes, even after Pitkin told Kerry that he had not.

"Before they started the camera, they told me, 'We need you to speak about the atrocities that happened over there.' The whole company line that I initially came out and said, I was coached to say that over and over again," Pitkin said.

depends on what your definition of if is

[911pcars]

Some background on North for context.

Oliver North ran an illegal covert operation to buy arms from Iran ('83-'88) to support the Nicaraguan Contras with the full cooperation of the administration at the time (Reagan). He lead a group that circumvented the Boland Amendment that forbade US activities to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.

"Freedom Fighters", as coined by Reagan, were the ousted right-wing military leaders trying to resume power from Daniel Ortega (we called him Communist to make it sound good). Drugs were never brought into Congressional testimony even though there was evidence to show it was used to purchase arms from neighboring countries.

Maybe this is why North has a hard on for Kerry:
http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/contracoke.html

You don't think North is just a regular vet do you?

Sherwood