Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former Military Colleagues

[bfp]

Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former Military Colleagues
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 03, 2004

(2nd Add: Includes additional details about Sen. John Kerry's ad campaign.)

(CNSNews.com) - Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief." They will do so at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday.

"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. The event, which is expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

O'Neill, currently a Houston, Texas, based attorney, is no stranger to Kerry. O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat after Kerry returned to the United States. Kerry's command of the PCF boat lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart. According to naval regulations at the time, any sailor who received three Purple Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone.

Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on The Dick Cavett Show over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.

"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties, and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.

Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander-in-chief are retired Naval Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.

Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted both the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire.

"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.

Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of signatures will educate people about Kerry.

"It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being commander-in-chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign and it is by the people who know him best," O'Neill said.

'Unfit Commander-in-Chief'

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests.

"Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "ninety percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign.

"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said.

O'Neill hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character.

"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy (Kerry) that with all of us in the field [in Vietnam] -- actually fighting the North Vietnamese -- came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.

"And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added.

'Real John Kerry'

B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack.

"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics -- this has to with Vietnam Veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.

"The American people do not know John Kerry and hopefully the swift boat crews and other Vietnam veterans will make sure that the American public knows the real John Kerry," he added.

Jim Loftus of Kerry's press office referred questions about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's event on Tuesday to spokesman David Wade. Wade did not return CNSNews.com's requests for comment.

Kerry has launched an ad campaign touting his service in Vietnam in an effort to counter the criticism ahead of Tuesday's press conference.

The $25 million ads show photographs of a young Kerry as a Navy lieutenant on the Swift boat he commanded in Vietnam's Mekong Delta as well as photos of him in fatigues holding a rifle.

Beginning Tuesday, the ads will run in 17 battleground states, as well as Colorado and Louisiana, which President Bush won in 2000.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), speaking on Fox News Monday, defended Kerry and blasted the president for using "$60 million worth of negative advertising" to try to tear down Kerry. Levin called Kerry's latest ad, "a very strong, a very positive ad."

"This is a positive statement about strength of service of Senator Kerry, and I think the public is going to welcome it," said Levin.

The Michigan Democrat called Kerry "very likeable," adding that "he'll come through as who he is, which is a very thoughtful, very sincere and a…person with a great deal of integrity and a great deal of sincerity."

[Adam D]

*yawn*

[Ryan]

They really should give it up. This is all 100% political trash. Vietnam is OVER - for Bush and Kerry. There is no way one could possibly criticize Kerry for his military record and praise Bush for his. I do not give a shit about the inconsistencies in Bush's record nor do I care about John Kerry's protests in Washington. This is one of the most crucial moments in our history and all anyone seems to care about is trashing the other guy for events of 35 years ago. LET IT GO.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Ryan
They really should give it up. This is all 100% political trash. Vietnam is OVER - for Bush and Kerry. There is no way one could possibly criticize Kerry for his military record and praise Bush for his. I do not give a shit about the inconsistencies in Bush's record nor do I care about John Kerry's protests in Washington. This is one of the most crucial moments in our history and all anyone seems to care about is trashing the other guy for events of 35 years ago. LET IT GO.

Yea - you were up in arms when the AWOL story hit the headlines(which was shit btw), but when it's someone other than Bush that doesn't put the military as a high priority, you don't give a shit.

The man has a sour voting record for the military & men that served with him are now telling us that his service lacked heroism, the kind Kerry is bragging about for political gain.

I think it raises some questions about what would happen in situations dealing with war.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Ryan
I do not give a shit about the inconsistencies in Bush's record nor do I care about John Kerry's protests in Washington. This is one of the most crucial moments in our history and all anyone seems to care about is trashing the other guy for events of 35 years ago. LET IT GO.

I wish that was the popular sentiment. Unfortunately, for a disproportionately large segment of the active voting population Vietnam is still a very real and relevant topic. I know several Vietnam vets that all take Kerry/Bush's actions(or inaction) very seriously. Vietnam is still a very touchy subject for America, and it will be for at least another couple decades.

If you want it to be relegated to the background, you either need to get 2(or more) candidates that have the same level of experience(or inexperience) in Vietnam(like Kerry vs. McCain or Gore vs. Bush) or get enough people under the age of ~35 voting that they hold more sway than the Baby Boomers. Until 1 or both of these thigns happen, Vietnam is still going to be a major issue.

[Dionysos]

Here's the link to the site:

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialR...20040503a.html

[Adam D]

This is the hallmark of our political system, of course.

While there are far, far more salient issues to be discussed, both politicians and the media are focused keenly on these ridiculous valence issues. I realize Viet Nam still means something for a lot of people, but the media is directing more focus on that than on any sort of policy discussion. It's making a huge specticle out of something very minor and substantially minor in the realm of campaign.

Quite a bit of this is being prompted by the Bush campaign, no doubt because there's not much else for Bush to talk about.

The best way to put an end to this garbage politicking is to stop engaging in it yourself. Charge up discussions on platforms and policies, rather than who's a more interesting speaker or wears better ties. (Although it's fun to engage in those conversations, don't limit yourself to them or make it the primary focus of your decisionmaking.)

[transplant]

Weak. This is the problem with most of the people that vote, they are fucking stupid. I don't care either way what happened 30 years ago, what I care about is how the economy is doing and whether or not I have a job and enough money to live on. What a waste of time.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by bfp
Yea - you were up in arms when the AWOL story hit the headlines(which was shit btw), but when it's someone other than Bush that doesn't put the military as a high priority, you don't give a shit.

Bush was accused of a crime. That would have been a problem at the time, but nothing convincing has come forth to conclusively show he was AWOL. To that extent, it is irrelevant to the current election, as is this garbage about Kerry's record. These people are simply trying to smear John Kerry because they are Bush supporters, plain and simple. This is nothing more than a load of political mudslinging. And by the way, bfp, when the whole AWOL flap was spreading around the press, I said on more than a few occasions that we should concentrate on what the president is doing now, not on what he did 30+ years ago.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Dionysos
Vietnam is still a very real and relevant topic.

No it's not. I would contend that this has little of anything to do with Vietnam. This is all about trying to make the other guy look bad. Americans, for the most part, have chosen sides and they will stretch the criticism of the other guy as far as possible, not matter how irrelevant. Real issues are secondary in this election.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Ryan
No it's not. I would contend that this has little of anything to do with Vietnam. This is all about trying to make the other guy look bad. Americans, for the most part, have chosen sides and they will stretch the criticism of the other guy as far as possible, not matter how irrelevant. Real issues are secondary in this election.

1) Don't quote me out of context.

Unfortunately, for a disproportionately large segment of the active voting population Vietnam is still a very real and relevant topic.

That statement goes to the perception of the voting public, not the reality of its importance in today's election. It is important because the Baby Boomers make it important. If it didn't matter to them, this whole situation would be a non-issue.

2) It is a very real topic, particularly for those who fought in it. I know for one that my father has major issues with Kerry's purple hearts & his statements after the war. Moreover he is genuinely offended by Kerry trying to distance himself from the 'atrocities' comments, because while he disagrees with Kerry's assessment of the level of atrocities going on over there he would have at least respected Kerry standing behind his comments.

Just because this topic fails to resonate with you doesn't mean it has the same effect(or lack thereof) on the rest of the population.

[Ash]

Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former Military Colleagues

Big suprise. They're republican. Can't imagine why they would do that.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Dionysos
1) Don't quote me out of context.



That statement goes to the perception of the voting public, not the reality of its importance in today's election. It is important because the Baby Boomers make it important. If it didn't matter to them, this whole situation would be a non-issue.

2) It is a very real topic, particularly for those who fought in it. I know for one that my father has major issues with Kerry's purple hearts & his statements after the war. Moreover he is genuinely offended by Kerry trying to distance himself from the 'atrocities' comments, because while he disagrees with Kerry's assessment of the level of atrocities going on over there he would have at least respected Kerry standing behind his comments.

Just because this topic fails to resonate with you doesn't mean it has the same effect(or lack thereof) on the rest of the population.

I understand, but I think that a majority of people making an issue out of the military records in Vietnam are doing so only because they have already decided on their candiate and they are fishing for criticisms. My father has spoken in the past of the exact same atrocities that Kerry spoke out about, but now that there's a liberal Democrat running against his guy (Bush), he takes offense to it. All I'm saying is that you'd be hard stretched to find many liberal Democrat Vietnam vets who are voting for Bush because of Kerry's comments 35 years ago. Likewise, you're not going to find any conservatives voting against Bush because of his shady military record. In general, the real issue here is not about Vietnam, but rather the criticisms that can be conjured up regarding the "other guy's" involvement in Vietnam.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Ryan
I understand, but I think that a majority of people making an issue out of the military records in Vietnam are doing so only because they have already decided on their candiate and they are fishing for criticisms. My father has spoken in the past of the exact same atrocities that Kerry spoke out about, but now that there's a liberal Democrat running against his guy (Bush), he takes offense to it. All I'm saying is that you'd be hard stretched to find many liberal Democrat Vietnam vets who are voting for Bush because of Kerry's comments 35 years ago. Likewise, you're not going to find any conservatives voting against Bush because of his shady military record. In general, the real issue here is not about Vietnam, but rather the criticisms that can be conjured up regarding the "other guy's" involvement in Vietnam.

I would agree that this the partisan followers are giving the megaphone to the crowd. I would also agree that this topic isn't likely to change a hawk from either party to the other side. I do think it could sway some that are in the middle though, vets or otherwise.

[Ash]

I'm still wondering if anyone can dig up anything worthwhile on Kerry. Whores? Cocaine? Murder? Anything? Maybe he'll slip up one day and say shit or fuck in a live mic. Then you guys could just have a field day with that.