Another 'Great American' Speaks Out!

[RACastanet]

Col. George E. "Bud" Day is the most decorated officer since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and was Senator John McCain's cellmate in the Hanoi Hilton.

The following is a letter to Joe Scarborough and John O'Neil from Medal of Honor Recipient and former POW Colonel Bud Day.

Dear Joe: The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam..

Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies.. fabrications.. perjury.. fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and gave "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies..the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left..McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers". A returned war "hero" said so.

Kerry cut a dashing figure as a war hero, lots of medals, and returned home because of multiple war wounds..even a silver star. His Senate testimony confirmed what every hippie had been chanting on the streets.."Hey hey LBJ..How many kids did you kill today"????? He obviously was running for political office in 1971.

Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swifboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies.

I was a POW of the Vietnamese in Hanoi in 1971, and I am aware that the testimony of John Kerry, the actions of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and the radical left; all caused the commies to conclude that if they hung on..they would win. North Vietnamese General Bui Tin commented that every day the Communist leadership listened to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark gave them confidence to hold in the face of battlefield reverses. The guts of it was that propaganda from the anti-war group was part of their combat strategy.

While the Commies were hanging on, innumerable U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Foce members were being killed in combat. Every battle wound to Americans after Kerry's misdirected testimony is related to Kerry's untruthfulness. John Kerry contributed to every one of these deaths with his lies about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. He likewise defamed the U.S. with our allies and supporters.

His conduct also extended the imprisonment of the Vietnam Prisoners of War, of which I was one. I am certain of at least one POW death after his testimony, which might have been prevented with an earlier release of the POWs.

My friend and room mate Senator John S. McCain denounced the Swiftboat video by John O'Neil. I have a different take on the Swiftboat tape and disagree with my good friend John.

John Kerry opened up his character as a war hero reporting for duty to the country with a hand salute...and his band of brothers..of which he was the chief hero. Most of his convention speech was about John Kerry..Vietnam hero, and his band of brothers. John Kerry's character is not only fair game, it is the primary issue. He wants to use Bill Clinton's "is", as an answer to his lack of character.

The issue is trust. Can anyone trust John Kerry?? "Never lie, cheat or steal" is the West Point motto. When a witness perjures himself at trial, the judge notes that his testimony lacks crediblity. Should we elect a known proven liar to lead us in wartime??

I draw a direct comparison of General Benedict Arnold of the Revolutionary War, to Lieutenant John Kerry. Both went off to war, fought, and then turned against their country. General Arnold crossed over to the British for money and position. John Kerry crossed over to the Vietnamese with his assistance to the anti-war movement, and his direct liason with the Vietnamese diplomats in Paris. His reward. Political gain. Senator..United States.

His record as a Senator for twenty years has been pitiful. Conjure up, if you will, one major bill that he has sponsored.

John Kerry for President? Ridiculous. Unthinkable. Unbelievable. Outrageous.

Col. Geo. "Bud" Day Medal of Honor Vietnam POW 1967-1973 MC

[Paul_C]

http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeli ... rry_s.html

Here is a link to Kerry's Testimony I read it a few times and for the life of me I can't seem to find the part where Kerry would be considered a Benedict Arnold.

What I read is a man angry with his government not his fellow soldiers. The whole purpose of the speech is to help end the war and bring his fellow soldiers home.

I can understand why Veterans would be angry since it's easier to blame John Kerry then the leaders of our Government. We want to believe that in a time of war our government has our soldiers in their best interest. Unfortunately that’s not always the case and I think Vietnam showed that. If POW 's and Veterans want to blame John Kerry for what happened during there capture, because he spoke out against the war, fine, but I think it's only appropriate to remember who put them in Vietnam and why.

[Valkenar]

One thing that seems to get overlooked about all this medal business is the implications it has on anyone else who has gotten a purple heart and the navy as a whole. As a human institution, you can imagine that they might make an occasional error, award an undeserved medal.

But to say that it awarded three purple hearts and a silver star in error verges on insulting to the navy as a whole. How can people who have faith in the competance of the Unitied Sates Navy, accuse them of such gross incompetance without batting an eye? Those medals are well-respected because they're not given out lightly. Saying that Kerry didn't earn a single one flies in the face of that fact.

As for motivation, it seems to me there's far, far more motivation to cover up a pattern of atrocities than there is to make it up.

On a personal note, should I still be expecting to hear from your friend, Rich? I assumed that since you called me at the number I gave you, that you were serious about it.

[RACastanet]

Justin: I sent you a private message Tuesday regarding my chat with Paul Galanti. Check it out.

"But to say that it awarded three purple hearts and a silver star in error verges on insulting to the navy as a whole."

If you read the comments carefully, the dispute is not over all three. Also, Kerry clearly claims he has (or had and threw away) a medal that does not exist... the silver stay with a combat 'V'.

"but I think it's only appropriate to remember who put them in Vietnam and why."

That would be democrat presidents Kennedy and Johnson. By the time Nixon was the president the moral will to win was lost and the plan was to get out.

Rich

[Mills75]

Well I must say I'm certainly far from an expert on the subject and I'm young at 29 to be talking about this but I had two uncles in Vietnam and followed all this debate about Kerry for a while now. I feel you don't help your fellow soldiers by coming home and saying such things about them and making claims that you can't prove.I do believe what Mr. Kerry did only served to aide the enemy and give them more fuel and cause to harm our prisoners of war.I do believe it's bad enough to be accused of atrocities by the enemy let alone people who you thought to be your very own.He may have recieved a medal or two for his time in Vietnam but in my belief he made alot of other good men whose loyalty was unquestionable suffer for his anger and resentment at the government. I feel he didn't punish the leadership of the U.S. for what he felt was wrong but he ended up punishing and sharpening the enemies blade to turn against men he once stood beside.I do feel Mr. Kerry was dead wrong and should apologize for his misdeeds.It's just one young mans opinion but I do feel this without question and have given it great thought.I will be voting for George Bush come November second.I don't feel you stop something you feel is wrong by disgracing and throwing our countries honored medals and by meeting with and comforting those who on the other side of the conference room are beating and torturing men you call your band of brothers if that were the case then I would wish to be an only child because there is neither brotherhood nor honor in this kind of action. I am my brothers keeper ..Ezekial 25:17.. I believe. Mr. Kerry in
my mind only put his brothers in greater Jeopardy and prolonged their great pain and suffering and to me this is one slate that cannot be wiped clean.Thanks for listening and God Bless America and our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan..Amen.

Jeff

[Panther]

Jeff,

Welcome to the "tough issues" forum. Hope to read more of your thoughts about different subjects in the future.

You have a tendency to write (as I do) in a stream. It has been suggested to me, and I pass it along to you, that you break up your posts into paragraphs so that it is easier for us "slower thinkin' folk" to follow along.

Take care...

[Bill Glasheen]

I can't seem to find the part where Kerry would be considered a Benedict Arnold.

No, it isn't literally a Benedict Arnold. It's just a little more subtle than that. Consider this.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

Hmm... "Hyperbole" would be kind. Perjury more like it.

They told stories that, at times, they 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 Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

You know... I could read about 3/4 of that as being "normal" acts of war. Nobody said it was fun. But these statements following those made in the previous quote give an impression so false as to be unforgivable. Consider this... I could be forgiving of an "average" man being "unclear." But this is a Yale grad. This guy should understand how to convey a message. And those two paragraphs convey something quite insidious of the United States, the military mission, and - most damaging of all - the men fighting in Vietnam.

Put yourself in the position of those North Vietnamese holding many, many U.S. soldiers captive. You think these NV were nice guys? Guess again. Our men - including a few accomplished Uechika in our midst - put up with routine torture and even murder. Imagine being buried up to your neck in sewage for days at a time until you were infected with all kinds of nasty stuff. Imagine having a Vietamese woman dance nude in front of you (sometimes more) while your testicles were fried with current. Imagine having your arms slowly pulled together behind your back with a rope apparatus so either your elbows touched or your shoulder(s) dislocated - whichever came first. And yes, there's more. Now, do you want to give the keepers of the "Hanoi Hilton" any more reason to commit atrocities on American POWs?

This was an incredible lack of judgement at best. It's easily a betrayal of confidence of men "decompressing" after battle. (Do some reading on the subject if you don't understand the concept. I can give you references.) Many see this as much worse than that.

Do you feel comfortable promoting this man to Commander in Chief of our military?

- Bill

[Mills75]

I will try to write my opinions more clearly and thanks for the welcome I enjoyed reading Bills views here also and agree with what he said.I'm hoping Mr. Kerry has alot of free time for wind surfing after November second and I truly hate to think of him reaching the oval office even being a candidate or holding public office makes me uneasy as it is now.

Jeff

[IJ]

Again, I've got no poster of Kerry hanging in my bedroom.... yet, the idea that he'd be such a terrible commander in chief because of his testimony from years ago (even if you assume it made the psycho terrorists in Hanoi more psycho) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If we were to believe that all the mistakes of the past had no expiration date, we'd really be asking if an alcoholic and former cocaine user would make an ideal commander in chief. Since there is zero evidence that Bush has any remaining problems from these substances, they really don't matter to my assessment of his Chief Commanding. Bush doesn't have any embarassing Nam testimony, but even though (as Time reported) he held a lot of disdain for the peacniks and lefties against the war at college, he couldn't be bothered to actually fight there, or consistently not fight in the Guard. That too is decades old. What matters is his Iraq plan now. Maybe if he'd actually experienced Vietnam, that plan would be a bit sharper than it is.

As for clarity of speech, it must not be a requirement for graduating from Yale.
http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/5/2 ... ry001.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush might have been able to say it was simply a slip of the tongue when he confused two terrorists in a campaign speech Monday in New Hampshire. Trouble is, he's made the same misstatement at least 10 times before."

Doesn't it matter if Bush can't even keep America's enemies straight?

In the meantime, major combat has been "over" in Iraq for some time. Yet, it looks like things haven't gotten much better. Car bombings are as reliable as the flow of oil. Looking back, I don't recall a whole lot of talk about Iraq after the war... there was a lot about WMD, which now one would think never actually mattered. There was the equating of Saddam with Bin Laden, which wasn't supported by the facts. There was the selection of Iraq as the next target which now looks like it's not going to be a temporary distraction from the war on the terrorists who did attack us, but rather a long term committment, a desert Vietnam. Here, a realistic view into the postwar future of Iraq appears not to have occurred. We didn't have help adequately lined up, we didn't have realistic expectations of how we would be welcomed, how secure the place would have been, how there appears to be more terrorist activity there than before the war, how we're losing a war of public opinion that feeds directly into terrorist recruitment.

"The first Bush administration grasped that in potential future wars after the Cold War, the United States required ad hoc coalitions to share the military burden and financial cost. Going to Baghdad would have violated the U.N.-sanctioning resolution that gave legitimacy to the first Gulf War as well as created a nightmare of "Lebanonization," as then-Secretary of State James Baker called it. Realism prevailed; Saddam's power was subdued and drastically reduced. It was the greatest accomplishment of the first President Bush. When he honored the U.N. resolution, the credibility of the United States in the region was enormously enhanced, enabling serious movement on the languishing Middle East peace process. Now the second President Bush has undone the foundation of his father's work, which was built upon by President Clinton. "
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092404J.shtml

Here's a scary read on the current state of Iraq affairs from a reporter who's been there five months.

"The administration, under false premises, invaded a country that it barely understood. We entered a country in shambles, a population divided against itself. The U.S. invasion was a catalyst of violence and religious hatred, and the continuing presence of American troops has only made matters worse. Iraq today bears no resemblance to the president's vision of a fledgling democracy. On its way to national elections in January, Iraq has already slipped into chaos."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ ... ex_np.html
available without a pre-view ad at:
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/ ... 01/1008988

[Mills75]

we need a good rebuttle to Ian over here and i'm not qualified to do that so I hope Bill posts a response to help me out here lol.But I have to say I didn't think that Mr. Bush has ever had any evidence presented to confirm that he abused or even used cocaine.I know he drank alcohol as many have and had experienced past troubles with it.That kind of sounds like a sixty minutes, Dan Rather piece of information.I think forgetting a terrorists name once in a while is alot better than forgetting and ignoring and even encouraging and helping terrorists out like Mr. Kerry did with the terrorist North Vieatnamese.In my mind Kerry is just as much of a terrorist as Bin Laden is and President Bush will remember Kerry's name and his misdeeds along with America starting Thursday when he shreds him in the first debate.Just my outlook.

I feel Sadam hussein's removal was very important and I'm glad we have a commander and chief who supplies and pays his troops and is loyal to them.Hussein slaughtered many of his very own people and tortured many many more and he was a threat to America I believe.I'm glad we have a man as President who takes action without seeking a permission slip to defend our country and he's doing all the right things in my mind.I support him completely.

Jeff

Jeff

[lunacy101L]

Valkenar is right on the money. How can you challenge MULTIPLE medals without questioning the entire institution?

And why would anyone cast aspersions on someone who was actually serving when where was our brilliant Commander In Chief at this time? Was this when he was sitting in a toilet stall shoving an eight ball of cocaine up his nose? Or was this when he was busted for driving while intoxicated?

Was Saddam evil? Yes. Is Bush evil? Yes.

Lots of evil in the world, but amazing how the U.S. of A. is only intervening and send thousands of youths to die when it is in resource-rich lands.

And any old Jarhead worth his salt would be reviewing some of the blogs currently on the internet from our men telling of what it is really like over in Iraq instead of hiding behind his old has-been glory days and the flag. How about paying children to bring in live grenades? Sweet. That's liberation of the people for you. Yeah things are just soooooo much better now...

[RACastanet]

Judging from your screen name it is apparent you are a cowardly troll, unwilling to identify yourself.

Regarding Kerry and his medals, all he needs to do is release his war records. His signature on a form would do it. That would end the debate. Why won’t he do it?

Also, Kerry was not ‘regular’ Navy, he was a reservist, much as GW Bush was in the National Guard. Kerry’s unit was called up. Bush’s was not. I believe Bush would have gone to Vietnam or where ever his unit was sent to had it been activated.

I do read the Blogs, but get most of my info on Iraq from close friends who are on the ground there. The updates are weekly and fresh, and pass through no filters. They see a country in turmoil, with the greater population struggling to overcome decades of abuse and continued attacks from terrorists who hate the idea of a free country. The vast majority want them to be there.

If I am the ‘has been’ you are referring to be aware that I am currently active in training Marines and am also required to maintain and upgrade my training. Should you care to visit me in Richmond some day and test the old guy, I will be pleased to share with you close combat skills under battlefield rules. You will not like it.

Post as you wish, but have the courage to identify yourself.

Regards, Rich

[Panther]

lunacy101L,

The opening page of this forum has a list of forum rules.

READ THEM!

I agree with RACastenet's assessment. It appears you are a troll.

NOTICE: I don't play well with TROLLS.

Your comments were insulting to other long-time posters on this forum, either apologize and change your offending post OR I will delete the offending text and you will be banned from this forum.

We have many people who post on this forum, from many backgrounds, with many opinions. While some latitude is given for passion over the subject matter (especially to long-time posters), I will not tolerate such conduct from a first-time poster who has been completely disrespectful.

This is the only warning that will be given.

[IJ]

Jeff, just wanted to make sure you mean that Kerry forgot (huh, how?), ignored, (when, how, what?) and then aided terrorists (or, war criminals) and is the equivalent of Bin Laden. Because if that's the case, he's more of an aggressor against the USA than Saddam, and we ought to initiate a world-wide search for the guy and invade the country he's hiding in.

I'm also glad we have a president who pays and equips our troops... are you worried Kerry is going to stop payment on their checks? Or delay items like armored humvees even more than they WERE delayed? Or that he might cut more from the veteran's health administration budget than the republican controlled congress has in the last year? (20 billion?). Lemme tell you, the health and psychologic costs of the Iraq war are well documented (NEJM, see thread on bill's forum) and high, and VA health care is, ahem, sketchy at best. I've worked in several.

Saddam WAS a cruel despot and crazy and was thought to may or may not have had WMD and associations with terrorists, although there was no evidence he'd attacked the united states. However Iraq isn't the only state that fits that bill. Are you prepared to support an invasion of neighboring Iran with it's unrepentant nuclear progress? How about North Korea? They're about as evil and crazy as you get. They've got WMD. They're testing long range missiles. They're starving their own people and run a more restrictive police state than you'll find anywhere else in the milky way. I have to say *I'd* be horrified if Bush decided to take "decisive action" on that problem without seeking a "permission slip," especially if the decision was largely based on a prior belief the country needed invading, and especially if intelligence reports from our counter terrorism czar documented no involvement with 9/11 but were sent back on receipt by Bush's administration stamped "revise and resubmit" (as they were with Iraq).


As for coke, that discussion's been held in detail before. Basically, Bush won't address the matter head on. Here's the top three hits for "bush cocaine" on google:

http://www.progress.org/archive/drc12.htm
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushcoke.htm
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#fortunateson

An excerpt:

"What Bush actually said was ""I could have passed the [FBI] background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - a 15-year period," Mr. Bush said. This is ambiguous because background forms ask slightly different questions, depending on the position. Drug questions can go back one year, seven years or 10 years. Bush Jr. didn't have any formal position in his father's administration, so which one applies is unclear. And 15-years is not one of the choices. Since Bush Sr.'s presidency began in January 1989, reporters assumed that Jr. was denying drug use for 15 years before that, to 1974. But that is not at all clear. His only direct statement was for seven years before today. He could easily have been denying drug use only for 15 years before today, based on 7 or 10 years dating back from the END of his dad's term. 10 years before 1993, the end of Bush Sr.'s term, is pretty close to 15 years before today. (...) Bush also has refused to answer whether he could have passed the FBI test when his father was vice president, during the 8 years from 1981-1989."

Can you imagine what would have been said about Slick Wilie if he'd tried to dodge a coke history like this? Look at all the flack he took for being noncommittal about THC use ("I didn't inhale."). I mean jeez, if W didn't use cocaine, W could just say that. It's easy, I'll do it. This is what an honest and complete drug use statement sounds like:

"I have never used ANY illegal substances, with the exception of taking a single percocet with permission from a partner's prescription (for knee surgery pain) to fall asleep after a martial arts related injury one night. I consumed alcohol provided by my parents on major holidays when underage, or when provided at college parties (less than ten times and never more than one drink per night) but have never been intoxicated or abused alcohol."

It's easier when you're not embarrassed by the truth.

[Panther]

I'm also glad we have a president who pays and equips our troops... are you worried Kerry is going to stop payment on their checks?

Well, he was one of the few no votes when the bill was presented to equip the troops after he had voted with the majority to "authorize the President to order going into Iraq".

Or delay items like armored humvees even more than they WERE delayed?

Delayed by none other than... the debate and delays of the junior Senator from MA along with his senior counterpart.

Or that he might cut more from the veteran's health administration budget than the republican controlled congress has in the last year? (20 billion?). Lemme tell you, the health and psychologic costs of the Iraq war are well documented (NEJM, see thread on bill's forum) and high, and VA health care is, ahem, sketchy at best.

OK... Got me there... I don't know what's been cut from the VA mental health budget.

Saddam WAS a cruel despot and crazy and was thought to may or may not have had WMD and associations with terrorists, although there was no evidence he'd attacked the united states. However Iraq isn't the only state that fits that bill. Are you prepared to support an invasion of neighboring Iran with it's unrepentant nuclear progress? How about North Korea? They're about as evil and crazy as you get. They've got WMD. They're testing long range missiles. They're starving their own people and run a more restrictive police state than you'll find anywhere else in the milky way.

Let's ROLL!!

I have to say *I'd* be horrified if Bush decided to take "decisive action" on that problem without seeking a "permission slip,"

Oops...

As for coke, that discussion's been held in detail before. Basically, Bush won't address the matter head on. Here's the top three hits for "bush cocaine" on google:

http://www.progress.org/archive/drc12.htm
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushcoke.htm
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#fortunateson

An excerpt:

"What Bush actually said was ""I could have passed the [FBI] background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - a 15-year period," Mr. Bush said. This is ambiguous because background forms ask slightly different questions, depending on the position. Drug questions can go back one year, seven years or 10 years. Bush Jr. didn't have any formal position in his father's administration, so which one applies is unclear. And 15-years is not one of the choices. Since Bush Sr.'s presidency began in January 1989, reporters assumed that Jr. was denying drug use for 15 years before that, to 1974. But that is not at all clear. His only direct statement was for seven years before today. He could easily have been denying drug use only for 15 years before today, based on 7 or 10 years dating back from the END of his dad's term. 10 years before 1993, the end of Bush Sr.'s term, is pretty close to 15 years before today. (...) Bush also has refused to answer whether he could have passed the FBI test when his father was vice president, during the 8 years from 1981-1989."

Can you imagine what would have been said about Slick Wilie if he'd tried to dodge a coke history like this? Look at all the flack he took for being noncommittal about THC use ("I didn't inhale.").

Clinton, for the first time, refused to release his medical records... Clinton, for the first time, stopped background checks on high Whitehouse staff members... From what I've been told by LEOs and MDs (the latter who I trust have knowledge in this type of thing), that unique nasal quality to Clinton's voice is strongly indicative of not just use, but continued overuse of... cocaine! Hmmmm... In one conversation I had with an MD, he said that he suspected continuing treatment for the destruction of the mucous mebranes that are destroyed with long-term cocaine use was the reason that the medical records were not released. IMNSHO, I just don't think anyone's medical records are anyone else's business but theirs and their MDs. Just so's you know where I stand... I'm just relaying what I heard and have absolutely no technical knowledge of the subject matter personally.

I mean jeez, if W didn't use cocaine, W could just say that. It's easy, I'll do it. This is what an honest and complete drug use statement sounds like:

"I have never used ANY illegal substances, with the exception of taking a single percocet with permission from a partner's prescription (for knee surgery pain) to fall asleep after a martial arts related injury one night. I consumed alcohol provided by my parents on major holidays when underage, or when provided at college parties (less than ten times and never more than one drink per night) but have never been intoxicated or abused alcohol."

As they say in the South... Well, DAMN! I bet that puts you in something like the top 1% of the country! I certainly couldn't make that claim about consuming alcohol during college!

It's easier when you're not embarrassed by the truth.