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 5)

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #61 By: sunwukong - 10/29/2004 5:43:46 PM
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.

This "treason" talk started with no article
You should try reading this!
BTW what you are about to read is *documented fact* not fiction!

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

sunwukong

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #62 By: drmiler - 10/29/2004 6:09:32 PM
...
This "treason" talk started with no article
You should try reading this!
BTW what you are about to read is *documented fact* not fiction!

And you should try and read the basis for these accusations -- evidence to the charges, as it were. This single paragraph that keeps popping up is interesting, but I prefer to move on and find out what basis it comes from. Otherwise I'm just swallowing your conjecture whole without thought. Is that what you want?

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #63 By: sunwukong - 10/29/2004 6:16:07 PM
Reply #62 By: drmiler - 10/29/2004 6:09:32 PM
...
This "treason" talk started with no article
You should try reading this!
BTW what you are about to read is *documented fact* not fiction!

And you should try and read the basis for these accusations -- evidence to the charges, as it were. This single paragraph that keeps popping up is interesting, but I prefer to move on and find out what basis it comes from. Otherwise I'm just swallowing your conjecture whole without thought. Is that what you want?

How's this for a *basis?

John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi's American Puppets?

Newly discovered documents link Vietnam Veterans Against the War to Vietnamese communists
Two recently discovered documents captured from the Vietnamese communists during the Vietnam War strongly support the contention that a close link existed between the Hanoi regime and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) while John Kerry served as the group's leading national spokesman.

The Circular: International Coordination of Antiwar Propaganda

The first document is a 1971 "Circular" distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam. It discusses strategies to coordinate their national propaganda effort with their orchestration of the activities of sympathetic counterparts in the American anti-war movement. Specifically, the document notes that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used as the communications link to direct the activities of anti-war activists meeting with them in Paris. To quote from the document:

The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks.

-- Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US. The reference to "VC" indicates the Vietcong; "NVN" is the North Vietnamese government.

This sentence is particularly important in light of John Kerry's admission that he met with leaders of both communist delegations to the Paris Peace Talks in June 1970, including Madame Binh, foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of South Vietnam, also known as the Vietcong. FBI files record that Kerry returned to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation in August of 1971, and planned a third trip in November.

Like I said documented fact! Or this one from the weekly standard:

Never Apologize, Never Explain From the November 1 / November 8, 2004 issue: John Kerry's real record as an antiwar activist. by Joshua Muravchik 11/01/2004, Volume 010, Issue 08 JOHN KERRY SAYS HE IS "PROUD" of his activities in opposition to the Vietnam War. Why, then, have he and his spokesmen consistently misrepresented them? Indeed the Kerry camp has been so effective in obscuring this history that both the New York Times and the Washington Post were forced to run corrections on the subject recently because their reporters relied on misinformation that the Kerry camp had succeeded in putting into wide circulation. When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth unveiled the fourth in their series of television ads--this one accusing Kerry of having "secretly met with the enemy" in Paris--both papers went into full debunking mode. The Post ran 600 words under the headline: "Ad Says Kerry 'Secretly' Met With Enemy; But He Told Congress of It." The story explained that the Swifties were "referring to a meeting Kerry had in early 1971 with leaders of the communist delegation that was negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks. The meeting, however, was not a secret. Kerry . . . mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April of that year." The next morning the Post ran a correction. The previous day's story, it noted, "incorrectly said that John F. Kerry met with a Vietnamese communist delegation in Paris in 1971. The meeting was in 1970." The correction did not acknowledge, however, that this apparently minor error invalidated the entire point of the Post's impeachment of the Swifties' ad. Kerry's visit to Paris took place in or around May 1970, eleven months before his Foreign Relations Committee testimony. In other words, his meeting with the Communists (while he was still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy) appears to have been kept secret for nearly a year.

Link
Or this one

John Kerry, Criminal By Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer FrontPageMagazine.com | September 17, 2004 For years it was said that Jane Fonda committed treason when she went to Vietnam in July 1972. In the late 1990s, with increasingly widespread use of the Internet, the charge became a staple of discussion by conservatives and veterans. However, their belief in Fonda’s criminality was not substantiated. We undertook to do just that, and laid out the definitive case against her in our 2002 book, “Aid and Comfort”: Jane Fonda In North Vietnam. A current parallel has arisen in connection with the presidential candidacy of John Kerry. For the past several weeks, the Internet has been ablaze with charges—as yet unexplained, let alone legally substantiated— that by traveling to Paris for meetings with the North Vietnamese communists and their Viet Cong allies in 1970, Kerry violated American criminal statutes. Indeed, one well-intentioned group, Patriot Petitions, has disseminated a petition to President of the Senate Richard Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking Kerry’s prosecution. Just as Fonda’s critics turned out to have been correct about their gut feelings regarding her treasonable actions in North Vietnam, so, too, Kerry’s critics—who feel strongly that his trip violated the law, without quite knowing why—are correct. The explanation of Kerry’s criminal behavior in Paris is some thirty-four years overdue. Our major premise—the legal one—is that one federal statute makes it a crime for American citizens to have “intercourse” with the “enemy,” while another federal statute similarly prohibits “intercourse” with “any foreign government.” Our minor premise—the factual one—is that John Kerry confessed to engaging in exactly that proscribed conduct. Therefore, John Kerry is a criminal. Kerry’s criminality has deep historical roots. Americans acted similarly even before the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, Article 28 of the American Articles of War of 1775 provided: “Whosoever belonging to the continental army, shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to, the enemy, shall suffer such punishment as by a general court-martial shall be ordered.” The essence of this non-intercourse colonial statute has appeared in each subsequent military code since 1775. Its modern embodiment is Title 10, Section 904 of the United States Code [Uniform Code of Military Justice], which provides: Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

Link
And the list goes on and on.

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

He has publicly admitted to the meetings!

Myrrander

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.

Fair enough. Your fairness in responding to this post has increased my respect for you even furthur. I even called my wife's grandfather, who is a purple heart winner from WWII. He said that if he had been in Kerry's shoes he might not have tossed his medals or said some things, but that he respected a soldier's right to say something anti-war than a civilian. He also said, "remember that the next time you write an anti-war article." I had a very rare experience -- feeling vindicated for my beliefs and put in my place at the same time. John Kerry hurt a lot of people by doing what he did -- and I don't blame a one of them for voting against him. I also understand that it's John Kerry running for President and not Oliver North, so Kerry's credibility is far more of an issue. I can't get past the idea that it was Kerry who (among others) was responsible for causing North a lot of trouble in the 80's. I still respect the Kerry for speaking out against Vietnam -- it was reading his Senate testimony that turned me from Nader or Dean to Kerry. I also feel a great amount of respect for those veterans who feel betrayed by him -- they were getting shot at, too. For this, I can respect Oliver North for serving his country, no matter what he got mixed up in later.

Cheers.

sunwukong

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply By: drmiler

Please feel free to include such irrelevent tidbits like: "Possibly reproduced by an agency of Hoai Huong District Party Committee" [emphasis mine]. I doubt the VC were communicating in English via typewritten memos -- it's obviously an intelligence document. How accurate is the translation? How strong is the probability that it's real or the origin is accurate?

Remember the criteria for an accusation of treason: two material witnesses. There must be *several* available if indeed Kerry provided "aid or comfort" to the enemy, or engaged in "insurrection or rebellion". Are you saying that these witnesses exist but haven't been used in prosecution because it's politically advantageous to risk the presidency and the country with a "traitor" as president?

Or, behold Occam's Razor, it's more likely the evidence, such as it is, and the witnesses are neither compelling nor conclusive to a case of treason?

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #66 By: sunwukong - 10/29/2004 7:21:09 PM
Reply By: drmiler

Please feel free to include such irrelevent tidbits like: "Possibly reproduced by an agency of Hoai Huong District Party Committee" [emphasis mine]. I doubt the VC were communicating in English via typewritten memos -- it's obviously an intelligence document. How accurate is the translation? How strong is the probability that it's real or the origin is accurate?

Remember the criteria for an accusation of treason: two material witnesses. There must be *several* available if indeed Kerry provided "aid or comfort" to the enemy, or engaged in "insurrection or rebellion". Are you saying that these witnesses exist but haven't been used in prosecution because it's politically advantageous to risk the presidency and the country with a "traitor" as president?

Excuse me, you better go study some more law. 2 witnesses are not needed when the person admits it own his own. And where did you come up with "Possibly reproduced by an agency of Hoai Huong District Party Committee"? Did you bother to read the other 2 I posted? I don't think so.

Our major premise—the legal one—is that one federal statute makes it a crime for American citizens to have “intercourse” with the “enemy,” while another federal statute similarly prohibits “intercourse” with “any foreign government.” Our minor premise—the factual one—is that John Kerry confessed to engaging in exactly that proscribed conduct. Therefore, John Kerry is a criminal.

sunwukong

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply By: drmiler
...
Excuse me, you better go study some more law. 2 witnesses are not needed when the person admits it own his own.

Lesse, your Constitution says:

Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

---
So, barring two material witnesses, did Kerry confess to giving aid or comfort to the enemy, or supporting insurrection or rebellion? Or is this conjecture as to his intent?

And where did you come up with "Possibly reproduced by an agency of Hoai Huong District Party Committee"?

It's at header at the top of every page in the "Circular: On Antiwar Movements in the US" (Link)

Did you bother to read the other 2 I posted? I don't think so.

You're mostly right -- I scanned them for factual content relating to my main premise: that no compelling evidence in the form of documents or witnesses currently exists to prosecute John Kerry of treason.

As to his criminality with respect to contact with the enemy, I still need to research it more before I can come to any conclusions.

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #68 By: sunwukong - 10/29/2004 7:56:31 PM
Reply By: drmiler
...
Excuse me, you better go study some more law. 2 witnesses are not needed when the person admits it own his own.

Lesse, your Constitution says:

Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

---
So, barring two material witnesses, did Kerry confess to giving aid or comfort to the enemy, or supporting insurrection or rebellion? Or is this conjecture as to his intent?

And where did you come up with "Possibly reproduced by an agency of Hoai Huong District Party Committee"?

It's at header at the top of every page in the "Circular: On Antiwar Movements in the US" (Link)

Your right I missed that one. BTW research away.

Myrrander

on Oct 29, 2004

You know something, that's why I respect you Drmiler. You're always ready to admit when you've goofed and you always seek more facts to support your case. You told me this once, and now I'm going to tell you: You, Sir, are a Great American.

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #70 By: Myrrander - 10/29/2004 8:08:05 PM
You know something, that's why I respect you Drmiler. You're always ready to admit when you've goofed and you always seek more facts to support your case. You told me this once, and now I'm going to tell you: You, Sir, are a Great American.

I thank you. But I don't always readily admit when I'm wrong. It depends on the day I've had, my temprament at the time, the subject in question and a host of other smaller things. It also depends a LOT on the *way* I was rebutted. But I do try ( I know try their patience).

Myrrander

on Oct 29, 2004

drmiler -- It's posters like you that make me understand this Republic even more. We're polar opposites in politics, but when they hoist that flag and play the "Star Spangled Banner" we're both going to get goose bumps and cheer. I think of you as a brother.

drmiler

on Oct 30, 2004

Reply #72 By: Myrrander - 10/29/2004 8:30:03 PM
drmiler -- It's posters like you that make me understand this Republic even more. We're polar opposites in politics, but when they hoist that flag and play the "Star Spangled Banner" we're both going to get goose bumps and cheer

You got that just exactly RIGHT! And thank you bro!

Dr Guy

on Oct 30, 2004

Myth,

I have to agree with your 100%. I was surprised they even tried to defend this. This is what Kerry wants to hide, not defend!

Dr Guy

on Oct 30, 2004

Oliver North has exactly ZERO credibility. This is laughable. Ollie's still pissed at Kerry for helping expose Iran-Contra.

Wrong as usual. kerry did not expose it. he was no where to be found. And if you remember correctly (probably not) no one got convicted over it. Can we say the same over Whitewater? Hmmm...wonder where Jim Guy is????

But for rational people, Ollie has a lot of credibilty. As he is a marine who refused a 3rd PH so he could stay with his troops (and O, BTW all of his required hospital time), he is more than qualified to question Mr bandaid.

Dr Guy

on Oct 30, 2004

Ok fine, Bush playing hooky, and going AWOL, then getting it all covered up or "classified" , under the UCMJ he should be held accountable. Oliver North got caught and he wants payback, that's all this is about.

lies are cheap. Allegations are cheaper. The truth is priceless. Can you afford it? or are you just going to stick with the first 2.

Bad handle also. Can you name the load for a goose? yea, in your dreams!

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!