Letter From Ollie to John

Published on October 28, 2004 By JillUser In Politics

I recieved this in an email from a dear friend. I already checked it out on snopes.com so I figured I would share it. It articulates, from a well experienced military member, the character deficiency that I loathe in Senator Kerry. I cringe every time I hear someone say that Kerry was brave for giving his Senate testimony when he returned from the war.

Here you go:

Bring it on, John
> by Oliver North
>
> August 27, 2004
>
> "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
> servedb 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?
>
> Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist, host of the Fox News
> Channel's War Stories and founder and honorary chairman of Freedom
> Alliance.

Comments (Page 4)

Myrrander

on Oct 29, 2004

I'm not offended, Mino, and I don't feel like you personally attacked me. I admire your passion. No, it's not OK to spit on soldiers.

MythicalMino

on Oct 29, 2004

thank you

kingbee

on Oct 29, 2004

No, it's not OK to spit on soldiers

to the best of my knowledge (and ive spent a while researching this over the past 40 years) no soldiers were spit upon. it's a myth. remaining open to the possibility that it did happen, it's even more unlikely members of VVAW were spitting on other vets.

you might want to read the actual transcript of kerry's testimony--the full and unedited transcript can be found here Link ) as well as the geneva convention vi Link and then check out the last couple paragraphs, chapter vi of the DOA's vietnam studies--law at war in vietnam 1964-1973 Link

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #49 By: kingbee - 10/29/2004 12:31:04 PM
you might want to read the actual transcript of kerry's testimony--the full and unedited transcript can be found here Link ) as well as the geneva convention vi Link and then check out the last couple paragraphs of the DOA's vietnam studies--law at war in vietnam 1963-1974 Link

What he said for testimony is immaterial. Refute this!

Lt. Kerry by his own words and actions violated the UCMJ and the US Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and US Code 18 U. S. C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct
violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
(Hanoi Jane?)
The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-president, having previously taken an oath . to
support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #49 By: kingbee - 10/29/2004 12:33:12 PM
No, it's not OK to spit on soldiers

to the best of my knowledge (and ive spent a while researching this over the past 40 years) no soldiers were spit upon. it's a myth. remaining open to the possibility that it did happen, it's even more unlikely members of VVAW were spitting on other vets.

You weren't able to find stuff, but I did.

I served the in U.S. Army during Vietnam. While attending night class at Boston University in 1969--in uniform--I was spat on by two female students, and called a `fascist.' I was also called a `baby killer' on another occasion. I had friends in the military who recounted similar experiences.

--Eric Margolis

(To reply, click here.)
[This was one of several messages from Vietnam veterans who had been spat on, or from eye-witnesses to such incidents.]

I have never been one to support urban myths, but I would like to illuminate the quote from me used in the article. I was indeed spat upon in my uniform. It happened near the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City during my plebe year. Plebes were required to wear their Dress Gray uniform on trips, and a scruffy-looking individual decided to use me to make a point. We had been warned this might happen by upper class cadets who claimed to have had similar experiences, and while I cannot verify theirs, I can vouch for mine.

--Lt Col Conrad Crane

MythicalMino

on Oct 29, 2004

kingbee.....please explain to me what it is you are trying to say.....are you saying that what the NVA did was "ok" for some reason, due to some "legal" matter concerning the fighting? And again...what are you trying to point out about Kerry's testimony? It is known that they used the testimony as "evidence" to abuse our troops while they were POWs......

But, also....what about Kerry's peace talks with the diplomats that he should not have been having?

Again....maybe I am just misunderstanding what your points are......

Lee1776

on Oct 29, 2004

And if you'd rather respect Oliver North, a man who lied to the US Congress, over John Kerry, a man who told the truth (no matter how painful) to the US Congress,

Only need to say one thing. "Christmas in Cambodia seared into my memory." When Oliver may have lied so as to prevent a Central American Country from falling into Communist hands, but Kerry lied in order to grand stand (in effect supporting a communist take over of a Country). What is worse?

That's My Two Cents

JillUser

on Oct 29, 2004

All I can say at this point is, I can understand people having a problem with Ollie North but I can't understand ignoring what Kerry did when he returned from war and even go as far as to say you respect what he did. I think you must not have any real knowledge of what it was like for the actual participants in Vietnam to come home or be held hostage and deal with whay Kerry was doing.

I think a lot of people are feeling desparate these days. They are disenchanted to the point of wanting so badly to believe that Kerry will make things better that they aren't really seeing him for what he truly is. People try to claim that Kerry supporters understand his position better than Bush supporters understand his. I don't see how that is possible since Kerry isn't even sure of what position he has on any given issue. The only thing I feel I truly know about Kerry is that he was a born politician through and through and I don't see that as a good thing.

Deference

on Oct 29, 2004

I always enjoyed "the colonel's" radio show back when he was on in the 90's. I can't say I agree with him on this. It's pure smear to talk of Kerry betraying the troops when he talks about Vietnam. We know Vietnam was a war with serious problems, the fact that some people still say it's some honorouble duty to back it is actually a disservice to veterans' sacrifices in that war. The only reason we hear of some Vietnam vets loudly protecting the war is because they weren't the majority who actually made it through only to come home and commit suicide.

To all the armchair generals / chickenhawks, you think Iraq is a good and noble war, hit your recruiter's office and shut the .... up.

Texas Wahine

on Oct 29, 2004

To all the armchair generals / chickenhawks, you think Iraq is a good and noble war, hit your recruiter's office and shut the .... up.

I have to agree with you there, deference. It's easy to support a war that requires nothing of you.

Lee1776

on Oct 29, 2004

To all the armchair generals / chickenhawks, you think Iraq is a good and noble war, hit your recruiter's office and shut the .... up.

Many of us alrady have and we still will vote Bush.

JillUser

on Oct 29, 2004

It's pure smear to talk of Kerry betraying the troops when he talks about Vietnam. We know Vietnam was a war with serious problems, the fact that some people still say it's some honorouble duty to back it is actually a disservice to veterans' sacrifices in that war.

What are you smoking?! Noone is saying that we are defending the war. We are defending the POWs that suffered greatly due to what Kerry was saying once he did his four months and returned to his silver spoon existance. Do you know any Vietnam vets personally? I know quite a few. I know men that to this day jump when they hear a helicopter and they hate John Kerry and always will.

This isn't about whether or not Vietnam or Iraq were/are noble wars. This is about the character of a man who wants to be head of the most powerful nation on the planet. His mother had to remind him on his death bed about integrity because he has never had any. You can protest a war without accusing your fellow servicemen, who are still in harms way when you are safe and sound, of being war criminals. He had every advantage that America offers. He could have made real change for what was happening in Vietnam without putting people in danger but he wanted the publicity. People who have known him the longest will attest that every move he has made since early childhood has been geared toward the presidency.

Kerry has since called his Senate testimony "over the top". What the hell does that mean? Did he lie, embellish, what? He didn't give that testimony out of selfless concern. He testified because it served his own ambitions. He wanted to make a name for himself and he sure did.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 29, 2004

BS, I got a close friend and my Uncle who were spit on and other remarks made, are you a Vietnam Vet?

Cappy1507

on Oct 29, 2004

did, I've been to GOP.com, gerogebush.com and johnkerry.com. I have read what each has said

First I went to their site.

and done countless hours of research

Then I went and researched what else was being said about their plans by someone other than thier opponents, or them for that matter. Not a lot of non partisian material existes especial for some of the programs Bush mentions on his site, through no fault of his own, mostly because the best information on programs like the Proliferation Security Initiative and Health Savings Accounts comes from their respective sites. But I've looked over their plans, and read what some of the non-partisian sites had to offer, the best of which come from acedemia. Bush's Privitaization of Social Security plan was so embattled by econimists that he has stopped mentioning it. I support privitization of Social Security, and several plans have been layed out by congressmen and econimists alike, but after reading Bush's plan I'd rather go with out it than suffer the effects of the wrong plan.

I just like to add one very important point just because someone or an organization doesn't agree with a Bush Plan, or a Kerry Plan doesn't make them partisan. A detractor on one issue may support other plans by the canidate. I think that is very important to keep in mind while deciding who you support. As soon as you honestly start to look at the stances of the canidates and analyze how you feel on the issues and why and hold the canidates to THAT measure then you can progress towards a rational decision. Maybe it's easier for me since I am not a republican or a democrat, i don't know, but I can window shop for lack of a better term to see who more aligns with me, than who I align myself with.

The polarization of the american voter to me is idiocy. I routinely split ballots and cannot even fathom the lunacy it takes to pull the lever next to a party. The fact that most people in this country have no idea what their political views are and cannot express intellegently why they are for or against many of the issues, really rackles my shackels. Ask a republican why they support GWB and they'll rattle off 10 things they don't like about John Kerry in an heartbeat, ask a dem about Kerry and they'll get read faced denouncing Bush. Ask a Bush supporter firmly rooted in the middle class about how they think Bush's predominace toward Upper Class programs and Lower Class Programs will effect them, and they'll say your distorting the truth. Point out to a Kerry Supporter that his health care plan might be hard to pass in a Rep dominated house and senate, and that it might make it easier for small companies to not provide health care, and they'll think your picking on them. As a moderate and a third party supporter I find it difficult to talk to people about politics just about everywhere I go. The republicans act like I'm part of the lunatic fringe, and the Dems consider me a vote stealer.

My voting record speaks for itself: Bush, Perot, Perot, Gore, Kerry. Most of my friends are stanch republicans, and I've been cast as a Clinton Supporter so many times with out casting a vote for him that I finally just gave up talking politics with them. The only reason I didn't support for Dole was his Age. I voted agains Bush last time because I found the Tax cuts unnecessary and knew they would be a burden for the econmy for years to come. I'm not voting for him this time because I think he may have been the right guy to win the war in Iraq but we need a new leader to restore peace. The same argument he made when he switch leaders after the war was "won".

sunwukong

on Oct 29, 2004

FWIW, a lot of this "treason" talk started with an article by Thomas Lipscomb in the Jewish World Review: "John Kerry's anti-war group coordinated activities with Viet Cong and Hanoi" (Link).

The supporting documents Lipscomb cites can be found at the Virtual Vietnam Archives: Link.

Personally I'm unconvinced there's anything approaching a serious charge of treason here -- for your entertainment here's an old Fox News story about the last Americans charged with treason and a synopsis of what conditions are required for a charge to be substantiated: Link.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!