What a terrible article. First it says that most people think the Eddie Adams photo shows a North Vietnamese officer executing a South Vietnamese prisoner — and this is supposed to be evidence that the media showed the U.S. side in a negative light?!?
Then it reports that a bombing victim in a famous photograph was bombed by our allies, not the U.S. Air Force or Navy. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians actually were killed or wounded by our forces. Which of these facts is more relevant in assessing the war?
The writer refers to “phony tales of American ‘atrocities'”, as if any and all such atrocities were made up. Can she possibly believe that?
The writer refers to “phony tales of American ‘atrocities’”, as if any and all such atrocities were made up. Can she possibly believe that?
No, she didn’t refer to them “as if any and all were made up.” The fact that there were some real atrocities doesn’t mean that there couldn’t have been phony tales of them. You might want to take a course in logic sometime.
There were phony tales of atrocities, many of them spread by a uniformed John Kerry before a Senate Committee, in which he accused his fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen of being war criminals. And then thirty years later, he wondered why they held him in such contempt when he ran for president.
I agree with Jim, actually. This is a poorly written article, guilty of just about as much sloppy reasoning as the standard model history of the Vietnam War. It will not go far in changing the opinions of people who are clear thinkers, but who have been misled by the propagandists for whom there has been much good mileage in portrayal of Vietnam as a peculiarly American crime, and its curtailment as a victory for multiculturalist sensitivity.
Then again, I personally have very little faith in the ability of people who are susceptible to one childish myth to be enlightened by thoughtful reasoning. Most of the time, they just turn from one childish myth to another. Maybe it would do some good to have the present childish myths about Vietnam replaced by other, contradictory myths.
And then thirty years later, he wondered why they held him in such contempt when he ran for president.
I don’t think he wondered, Rand. He was just surprised they had the power they did. Kerry is an aristocrat, money coming out his ass. He could not imagine that the ordinary schmoes he met on the boat in Vietnam in their 20s might have come home, married and started successful businesses, and become wealthy and important by the time they reached their 60s.
What’s amazing is to me is the disconnect that those of us who come from military families have with those that don’t. So many of my leftist friends swallow all the BS that Kerry spewed, people actually told me to my face they truly believe that “all vets are crazed killers” and “atrocoties were committed right and left”. Knowing so many veterans it boggles my mind that people would say those things. To me they are normal people.
Also none of them ever heard of Kerry before he ran for President, and so they all assumed that the Swift Boaters and others were some sort of Rovian plot. Meanwhile people like me grew up in homes where Kerry and Fonda were swear words. I guess he and the media and his supporters thought we’d all forget.
No way I’d ever vote for Kerry no matter who he was running against. Same for Massey or Oliver Stone if they ever decide to run. I know they all suffered PTSD and felt bad, but a lot of people feel bad. It’s no excuse to project guilt onto your fellow servicemen and lie about them so you can live with yourself.
I am an adherent to the hypothesis that most Americans only know the MSM version of most things, and not just the Vietnam War. To the extent that college students today think the photo of Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executing a Viet Cong fighter is of a Communist executing a civilian, that’s arguably just a symptom of the defective educational system in this country. The real problem, and the real reason the photo was a propaganda coup for the Communists, was that Americans viewed the photo as revealing the brutality of our allies, not the brutality of the Communists that sparked this reaction during the chaos of the Tet Offensive.
Likewise the Kim Phuc photo showed the horror of modern warfare, without the context that it was a result of the response to the North Vietnamese invasion of Tay Ninh province in 1972. One wonders why it is still considered acceptable for Communists to inflict these horrors on civilians by their aggression, but that it is unacceptable even to risk these horrors by responding to that aggression. It seems like we still live with this kind of society — elites who couldn’t care less when our enemies murder civilians in cold blood, a la Daniel Pearl, become apoplectic when we douse evildoers like KSM in water….
And you have to marvel at the bias of the media. Where is the unforgettable Pulitzer-Prize-winning photo of the mass graves at Hue? During the Tet offensive, Communists bound, tortured, and buried alive thousands of civilians. Apparently none of those deaths were newsworthy…. No images here, just move along….
BBB
I lived on Army bases during the war, and and grew up surrounded by wonderful people in uniform. The fact remains that numerous war crimes were committed in Vietnam by U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. Kerry wasn’t wrong about that. He was treated the way that people who insist on bringing attention to uncomfortable truths are often treated.
“So many of my leftist friends swallow all the BS that Kerry spewed, people actually told me to my face they truly believe that “all vets are crazed killers” and “atrocoties were committed right and left”. ”
At that point I would have told them to never attmpt to contact, converse or appear in my presence again and made clear, in no uncertain terms, that they were completely unwelcome.
” Kerry wasn’t wrong about that. He was treated the way that people who insist on bringing attention to uncomfortable truths are often treated.”
No, he was treated the way a proven liar is.
Kerry lied about his experiences. His account differed from everyone else. Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s Razor.
I counter your Occam’s Razor with “a lie told often enough becomes truth” by some great leftist revolutionary supported by the German empire (you can Google for his name in case you don’t know).
Godzilla, you seem to not understand the difference between counter and confirm. Let me help:
“When Sen. John Kerry called President Bush’s supporters “the most crooked lying group I’ve ever seen,” his campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Mr. Kerry didn’t regret his words and then accused the “Republican attack machine” for smearing the Democrats. Such exchanges may be par for the course in a hotly contested presidential race, but overheated rhetoric may not be Mr. Kerry’s most grievous fault. ”
“Yet, there is a significant difference between small lies, big lies, and ed lies that impugn the patriotism of American leaders.
One such fabrication, revealed early in the Democrat primaries, was Mr. Kerry’s 1971 charge that U.S. troops committed widespread war crimes in Vietnam with the complicity of their officers. The story received momentary press attention, but was soon lost in his triumphal march in the primaries.
Neither Mr. Kerry’s laudable military service in Vietnam nor his subsequent opposition to that war entitles him to malign his comrades in arms or falsely accuse the United States of widespread war crimes.
On April 22, 1971, speaking for himself and other angry Vietnam veterans, Mr. Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee they all condemned widespread “war crimes” committed in Vietnam “on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” Including the commandeer in chief?
He asserted our soldiers “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,… cut off limbs, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages… reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside.”
Confronted with his words, Mr. Kerry tried to weasel out of his appallingly false accusations by saying he was merely quoting cohorts. He blamed his antiwar comrades.
When CNN’s Judy Woodruff asked Mr. Kerry if he had accused “American troops of war crimes,” he said: “No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops…. I always fought for the soldiers.” His answer was devious and downright false.
Indeed, the Vietnam War was a quagmire, but the United States hardly behaved like Genghis Khan. Our military troops are pledged to observe the Geneva Conventions that prohibit intentional harm to civilians or POWs.
These rules were observed overwhelmingly in Vietnam, but in the heat of battle, men occasionally snap and commit atrocities. One such was Lt. William Calley whose unit in 1968 killed several hundred civilians in My Lai. This was a tragic exception and a violation of the U.S. military code. In 1971, Calley was court-marshaled, found guilty, and sentenced to life at hard labor. Later, out of misplaced sympathy, his sentence was reduced.
Chafing under charges of lying about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, Mr. Kerry in an unusual open letter admonished President Bush to stop questioning his “commitment to the defense of our country.” Then, incomprehensibly, he added: What do “Republicans who didn’t serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did?”
Even if Mr. Kerry hadn’t lied about U.S. behavior in Vietnam and then denied it, he must be held to account for maligning his comrades and their officers at “all levels of command.” Can a genuine American patriot impugn the integrity of the entire U.S. military establishment?
Mr. Kerry or any other candidate for president should be judged not only on his understanding of current threats to the United States, but by his character and his capacity to tell the truth, especially about the America he aspires to lead.
Statesmanship, especially in a democratic society, requires both truth and courage. Courage and truth-telling are the two virtues that make all others possible. But courage without truth can be dangerous. John Kerry’s service in Vietnam attests to his courage. But his subsequent public life has been scarred by his cavalier dance with the truth.”
That’s a good start in debunking myth.
There’s a long way to go.
What a terrible article. First it says that most people think the Eddie Adams photo shows a North Vietnamese officer executing a South Vietnamese prisoner — and this is supposed to be evidence that the media showed the U.S. side in a negative light?!?
Then it reports that a bombing victim in a famous photograph was bombed by our allies, not the U.S. Air Force or Navy. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians actually were killed or wounded by our forces. Which of these facts is more relevant in assessing the war?
The writer refers to “phony tales of American ‘atrocities'”, as if any and all such atrocities were made up. Can she possibly believe that?
The writer refers to “phony tales of American ‘atrocities’”, as if any and all such atrocities were made up. Can she possibly believe that?
No, she didn’t refer to them “as if any and all were made up.” The fact that there were some real atrocities doesn’t mean that there couldn’t have been phony tales of them. You might want to take a course in logic sometime.
There were phony tales of atrocities, many of them spread by a uniformed John Kerry before a Senate Committee, in which he accused his fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen of being war criminals. And then thirty years later, he wondered why they held him in such contempt when he ran for president.
I agree with Jim, actually. This is a poorly written article, guilty of just about as much sloppy reasoning as the standard model history of the Vietnam War. It will not go far in changing the opinions of people who are clear thinkers, but who have been misled by the propagandists for whom there has been much good mileage in portrayal of Vietnam as a peculiarly American crime, and its curtailment as a victory for multiculturalist sensitivity.
Then again, I personally have very little faith in the ability of people who are susceptible to one childish myth to be enlightened by thoughtful reasoning. Most of the time, they just turn from one childish myth to another. Maybe it would do some good to have the present childish myths about Vietnam replaced by other, contradictory myths.
And then thirty years later, he wondered why they held him in such contempt when he ran for president.
I don’t think he wondered, Rand. He was just surprised they had the power they did. Kerry is an aristocrat, money coming out his ass. He could not imagine that the ordinary schmoes he met on the boat in Vietnam in their 20s might have come home, married and started successful businesses, and become wealthy and important by the time they reached their 60s.
What’s amazing is to me is the disconnect that those of us who come from military families have with those that don’t. So many of my leftist friends swallow all the BS that Kerry spewed, people actually told me to my face they truly believe that “all vets are crazed killers” and “atrocoties were committed right and left”. Knowing so many veterans it boggles my mind that people would say those things. To me they are normal people.
Also none of them ever heard of Kerry before he ran for President, and so they all assumed that the Swift Boaters and others were some sort of Rovian plot. Meanwhile people like me grew up in homes where Kerry and Fonda were swear words. I guess he and the media and his supporters thought we’d all forget.
No way I’d ever vote for Kerry no matter who he was running against. Same for Massey or Oliver Stone if they ever decide to run. I know they all suffered PTSD and felt bad, but a lot of people feel bad. It’s no excuse to project guilt onto your fellow servicemen and lie about them so you can live with yourself.
I am an adherent to the hypothesis that most Americans only know the MSM version of most things, and not just the Vietnam War. To the extent that college students today think the photo of Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executing a Viet Cong fighter is of a Communist executing a civilian, that’s arguably just a symptom of the defective educational system in this country. The real problem, and the real reason the photo was a propaganda coup for the Communists, was that Americans viewed the photo as revealing the brutality of our allies, not the brutality of the Communists that sparked this reaction during the chaos of the Tet Offensive.
Likewise the Kim Phuc photo showed the horror of modern warfare, without the context that it was a result of the response to the North Vietnamese invasion of Tay Ninh province in 1972. One wonders why it is still considered acceptable for Communists to inflict these horrors on civilians by their aggression, but that it is unacceptable even to risk these horrors by responding to that aggression. It seems like we still live with this kind of society — elites who couldn’t care less when our enemies murder civilians in cold blood, a la Daniel Pearl, become apoplectic when we douse evildoers like KSM in water….
And you have to marvel at the bias of the media. Where is the unforgettable Pulitzer-Prize-winning photo of the mass graves at Hue? During the Tet offensive, Communists bound, tortured, and buried alive thousands of civilians. Apparently none of those deaths were newsworthy…. No images here, just move along….
BBB
I lived on Army bases during the war, and and grew up surrounded by wonderful people in uniform. The fact remains that numerous war crimes were committed in Vietnam by U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. Kerry wasn’t wrong about that. He was treated the way that people who insist on bringing attention to uncomfortable truths are often treated.
“So many of my leftist friends swallow all the BS that Kerry spewed, people actually told me to my face they truly believe that “all vets are crazed killers” and “atrocoties were committed right and left”. ”
At that point I would have told them to never attmpt to contact, converse or appear in my presence again and made clear, in no uncertain terms, that they were completely unwelcome.
” Kerry wasn’t wrong about that. He was treated the way that people who insist on bringing attention to uncomfortable truths are often treated.”
No, he was treated the way a proven liar is.
Kerry lied about his experiences. His account differed from everyone else. Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s Razor.
I counter your Occam’s Razor with “a lie told often enough becomes truth” by some great leftist revolutionary supported by the German empire (you can Google for his name in case you don’t know).
Godzilla, you seem to not understand the difference between counter and confirm. Let me help:
“When Sen. John Kerry called President Bush’s supporters “the most crooked lying group I’ve ever seen,” his campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Mr. Kerry didn’t regret his words and then accused the “Republican attack machine” for smearing the Democrats. Such exchanges may be par for the course in a hotly contested presidential race, but overheated rhetoric may not be Mr. Kerry’s most grievous fault. ”
“Yet, there is a significant difference between small lies, big lies, and ed lies that impugn the patriotism of American leaders.
One such fabrication, revealed early in the Democrat primaries, was Mr. Kerry’s 1971 charge that U.S. troops committed widespread war crimes in Vietnam with the complicity of their officers. The story received momentary press attention, but was soon lost in his triumphal march in the primaries.
Neither Mr. Kerry’s laudable military service in Vietnam nor his subsequent opposition to that war entitles him to malign his comrades in arms or falsely accuse the United States of widespread war crimes.
On April 22, 1971, speaking for himself and other angry Vietnam veterans, Mr. Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee they all condemned widespread “war crimes” committed in Vietnam “on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” Including the commandeer in chief?
He asserted our soldiers “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,… cut off limbs, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages… reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside.”
Confronted with his words, Mr. Kerry tried to weasel out of his appallingly false accusations by saying he was merely quoting cohorts. He blamed his antiwar comrades.
When CNN’s Judy Woodruff asked Mr. Kerry if he had accused “American troops of war crimes,” he said: “No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops…. I always fought for the soldiers.” His answer was devious and downright false.
Indeed, the Vietnam War was a quagmire, but the United States hardly behaved like Genghis Khan. Our military troops are pledged to observe the Geneva Conventions that prohibit intentional harm to civilians or POWs.
These rules were observed overwhelmingly in Vietnam, but in the heat of battle, men occasionally snap and commit atrocities. One such was Lt. William Calley whose unit in 1968 killed several hundred civilians in My Lai. This was a tragic exception and a violation of the U.S. military code. In 1971, Calley was court-marshaled, found guilty, and sentenced to life at hard labor. Later, out of misplaced sympathy, his sentence was reduced.
Chafing under charges of lying about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, Mr. Kerry in an unusual open letter admonished President Bush to stop questioning his “commitment to the defense of our country.” Then, incomprehensibly, he added: What do “Republicans who didn’t serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did?”
Even if Mr. Kerry hadn’t lied about U.S. behavior in Vietnam and then denied it, he must be held to account for maligning his comrades and their officers at “all levels of command.” Can a genuine American patriot impugn the integrity of the entire U.S. military establishment?
Mr. Kerry or any other candidate for president should be judged not only on his understanding of current threats to the United States, but by his character and his capacity to tell the truth, especially about the America he aspires to lead.
Statesmanship, especially in a democratic society, requires both truth and courage. Courage and truth-telling are the two virtues that make all others possible. But courage without truth can be dangerous. John Kerry’s service in Vietnam attests to his courage. But his subsequent public life has been scarred by his cavalier dance with the truth.”