By Lowell Ponte
National radio talk show on Liberty Broadcasting and a contributing editor at Frontpagemagazine.com
Who would 1971 anti-war activist John F. Kerry vote for if time-warped to the polls this November? Other issues aside, would he cast his ballot for the 2004 John F. Kerry running as a Vietnam War hero bedecked with medals he once pretended to throw away?
(The highest of these medals, the Silver Star, was awarded for "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity" in attacking and killing a lone, wounded Viet Cong soldier.)
Or would he vote for fellow Yale Skull-and-Bonesman George W. Bush, who like millions of other young men back then found a way to avoid killing or being killed by staying out of the human meat grinder Democratic President John F. Kennedy set in motion in Southeast Asia?
"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others," said Kerry as an anti-war activist guest on NBC's "Meet the Press" in 1971.
"I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine [gun] bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions, and burned villages," he continued, as quoted on page 362 of historian Douglas Brinkley's new biography "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War."
"All of these acts are contrary to the laws of the Geneva Convention," said Kerry 33 years ago, "and all were ordered as written, established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals."
But as part of the chain of command giving and carrying out such orders, Lt. j.g. John F. Kerry was also, by his own definition, a "war criminal."
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry declared under oath that American soldiers had "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, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
He told reporters that such atrocities were the norm, not rare exceptions, for U.S. soldier behavior, thereby committing a false blood libel against honorable warriors. This gave license to attacks, ridicule and discrimination against them when our soldiers returned to America.
Did Lt. Kerry witness such illegal atrocities? If so, he never reported any armed service members violating these laws to higher officers. Failure to make such a report is surely itself a war crime, and the officer who kept silent is an accomplice after the fact to such atrocities. Sen. Kerry, please identify these criminals now, by name.
Or did Lt. Kerry merely hear such stories secondhand as rumor, gossip or tales told around a jungle campfire - what the law calls "hearsay" evidence? If so, he was reckless to the verge of treason to make such unsubstantiated allegations before Congress and the world media, thereby giving a powerful propaganda weapon to North Vietnam.
How can any sincere peace activist vote for the John F. Kerry who admitted that he committed atrocities and war crimes? And who as a U.S. senator voted to authorize President George W. Bush to make war in Iraq? How can Vietnam veterans vote for the John F. Kerry whose libel persuaded Americans to spit on them when they returned?
Who would young, idealistic Kerry vote for - George W. Bush, criticized by Democrats for having avoided Vietnam? Or John F. Kerry Version 2004, who vis-?-vis Vietnam has been a war hero, war criminal, anti-war propagandist and opportunist?
National radio talk show on Liberty Broadcasting and a contributing editor at Frontpagemagazine.com
Who would 1971 anti-war activist John F. Kerry vote for if time-warped to the polls this November? Other issues aside, would he cast his ballot for the 2004 John F. Kerry running as a Vietnam War hero bedecked with medals he once pretended to throw away?
(The highest of these medals, the Silver Star, was awarded for "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity" in attacking and killing a lone, wounded Viet Cong soldier.)
Or would he vote for fellow Yale Skull-and-Bonesman George W. Bush, who like millions of other young men back then found a way to avoid killing or being killed by staying out of the human meat grinder Democratic President John F. Kennedy set in motion in Southeast Asia?
"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others," said Kerry as an anti-war activist guest on NBC's "Meet the Press" in 1971.
"I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine [gun] bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions, and burned villages," he continued, as quoted on page 362 of historian Douglas Brinkley's new biography "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War."
"All of these acts are contrary to the laws of the Geneva Convention," said Kerry 33 years ago, "and all were ordered as written, established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals."
But as part of the chain of command giving and carrying out such orders, Lt. j.g. John F. Kerry was also, by his own definition, a "war criminal."
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry declared under oath that American soldiers had "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, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
He told reporters that such atrocities were the norm, not rare exceptions, for U.S. soldier behavior, thereby committing a false blood libel against honorable warriors. This gave license to attacks, ridicule and discrimination against them when our soldiers returned to America.
Did Lt. Kerry witness such illegal atrocities? If so, he never reported any armed service members violating these laws to higher officers. Failure to make such a report is surely itself a war crime, and the officer who kept silent is an accomplice after the fact to such atrocities. Sen. Kerry, please identify these criminals now, by name.
Or did Lt. Kerry merely hear such stories secondhand as rumor, gossip or tales told around a jungle campfire - what the law calls "hearsay" evidence? If so, he was reckless to the verge of treason to make such unsubstantiated allegations before Congress and the world media, thereby giving a powerful propaganda weapon to North Vietnam.
How can any sincere peace activist vote for the John F. Kerry who admitted that he committed atrocities and war crimes? And who as a U.S. senator voted to authorize President George W. Bush to make war in Iraq? How can Vietnam veterans vote for the John F. Kerry whose libel persuaded Americans to spit on them when they returned?
Who would young, idealistic Kerry vote for - George W. Bush, criticized by Democrats for having avoided Vietnam? Or John F. Kerry Version 2004, who vis-?-vis Vietnam has been a war hero, war criminal, anti-war propagandist and opportunist?
