Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

David Fritzinger wrote:

The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it
says they are.

Obviously "every where" you've looked for your "everything" doesn't include any
unbiased sources. The swift vets claims have yet to be answered by Kerry, so
determing truth or lies hasn't even been made yet. I do know that Kerry's lies
about Cambodia have been exposed by the Swift vets so if anyone is turning out
to be a liar, it appears to be Kerry.

REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to
Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race.

Tell us about the "vast right wing conspiracy" led by GW Bush to unseat
Cleland.You do realize Clelend was in a Senatorial race right?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 21 Aug 2004 15:14:13 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

David Fritzinger wrote:

The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it
says they are.

Obviously "every where" you've looked for your "everything" doesn't include any
unbiased sources. The swift vets claims have yet to be answered by Kerry, so
determing truth or lies hasn't even been made yet. I do know that Kerry's lies
about Cambodia have been exposed by the Swift vets so if anyone is turning out
to be a liar, it appears to be Kerry.

REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to
Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race.

Tell us about the "vast right wing conspiracy" led by GW Bush to unseat
Cleland.You do realize Clelend was in a Senatorial race right?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

And, for those in "fly-over" country where the most recent Swift boat
ad hasn't yet played, here's a link. Simply click on the Paul Galanti
TV picture to get the whole thing. Both Pablo and Ken Cordier are long
time friends of mine and most assuredly not in the employ of the Bush
campaign.

http://www.hanoijohnkerry.com/links.html

Most assuredly a lot of the links from that page are hysterical
trash-talking, but the words of Cordier and Galanti are the important
message available through the site.

Watch also for the media coverage (if any) of the Sept 12th "Kerry
Lied" rally in Washington DC.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:50:45 GMT, David Fritzinger
wrote:

The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it
says they are. Whether they are paid for by Bush, or by his supporters
seems not to be the point, since Bush does have a history on this sort
of thing. REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to
Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race.

Two points to be made here. One, I personally know and respect Paul
Galanti who appears in the most recent Swiftie ad. He has nothing to
gain and much to lose from his participation in the outing of John
Kerry. He is truthful and most assuredly not in the employ of the Bush
campaign.

I haven't seen the ad, and I am willing to posit that both you yourself
and Paul Galanti are honorable, brave men who have served this country
well. Thank you for that service.

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that. Remember, Kerry was a leader of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War, and as such a spokesman. Unfortunately there is no
doubt that atrocities were committed; I am old enough to remember the
name of William Calley and the town of My Lai. I'm sure that you
remember these names as well. They were aberrations, and those who
committed these crimes were punished; but they did happen. They happen
in every war. It would be passing strange had they not happened in
Viet Nam, a particularly nasty war as wars go. Let me say at once that
in my opinion, the crimes committed by the other side were far more
frequent than on ours.

Next, I believe that Mr. Galanti and many other veterans are angry at
Kerry for his testimony, and believe that they were tarred with the
brush of being a war criminal. I do not believe that was the main
thrust of Kerry's testimony, by the way; I think he was trying to say
that the war was badly conducted, and one of the symptoms of bad
conduct by the upper echelons of the military is that discipline had
failed in some cases, as evidenced by these few atrocities. I remember
many returning veterans were accused by idiots my own age with being
baby killers and all the rest. There is no excuse for the terrible
behavior of those who weren't there insulting those who were. Mr.
Galanti and others, perhaps including you, have much to be angry about.
I'm not sure that John Kerry is the appropriate target for that anger,
but I wasn't there, and I don't know.

Finally, I want to say that while Mr. Galanti is doubtless an honest man,
there are many dishonest men in the employ of the Bush administration
who will make whatever use they can of honest, decent men who happen to
share their opinions about Kerry not being the right choice for the next
President. I would be very careful about who I let get me in front of a
camera were I your friend. By all means let Mr. Galanti and others do what
they wish to re-elect Bush, but it should be on their own terms. Mr. Rove
and Mr. Perry have, in my opinion, demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards
the truth, and that is putting it very charitably.

Best wishes to you, sir.

David Derbes


Second, someone has to pay the bill for getting the word out. The
underwriting of the Swift boat vets campaign has come from
contributions from people concerned about the issues. The argument
that since a wealthy Republican in TX contributes $100k therefore the
ad is sponsored by the Bush campaign seems to be drastically overcome
by the George Soros sponsorship of moveon.org and his investment of
several million bucks on behalf of his side of the argument. If it all
right for Soros, then it must be equally acceptable for the Swifties
to be heard.

And, simply as an aside, it should be remembered that Max Cleland is
most assuredly a sympathetic figure who lost much in service to his
country, did not receive his injuries in combat but through an
accident which was largely his own fault. The fact that he was injured
by whatever means does not leave him immune to political criticism on
his record in the Senate.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that.


Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that.


Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The sorts
of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of things
you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between misdemeanors
and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
that he used.

My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
different thing from rape.

David Derbes

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
news
In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that.


Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that
I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are
war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The
sorts
of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of
things
you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between
misdemeanors
and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
that he used.


You said the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed was to
a small extent taken out of context, that he was "quoting what _other_
people said." He said he committed atrocities himself.



My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
different thing from rape.


Yes it is, but I don't recall Kerry mentioning rape.

In article t,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
news
In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that.


Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that
I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are
war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The
sorts
of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of
things
you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between
misdemeanors
and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
that he used.


You said the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed was to
a small extent taken out of context, that he was "quoting what _other_
people said." He said he committed atrocities himself.



And I answered that. But here it is a second time.

I believe that Kerry regarded himself then, and regards himself today,
as a spokesperson for all those who served in Viet Nam.

He was testifying in Congress angry not so much at himself, or his
fellow veterans, but at the politicians and probably to a lesser
extent at his superior officers.

He was reporting on the "Winter Soldier" conference, in which people
claimed to have committed actual atrocities (e.g., mutilation of
corpses.) I do not know if rape was among these atrocities; I have not
read any of the "Winter Soldier" testimony.

Now, if he was going to say that terrible things had taken place, rather
than put himself up on some pedestal, he was going to say that he had
himself "committed atrocities". I'm sure that in his mind, nearly any
action in this God-forsaken war was an atrocity, because the war itself
was an atrocity. Firing into a group of people, only some of whom were
actually combatants, is probably an atrocity. I'm sure that quite a few
Viet Nam veterans did just that; and had I been there, I've no doubt I
would have done the same, given enough fear or anger or frustration.
Do I think that Kerry mutilated corpses? I doubt it. Did he take part in
a My Lai-style massacre? I doubt it, but as many readers may recall,
Bob Kerrey, a Senator, did, and confessed to it about a year ago. (Kerrey's
actions were not nearly so culpable as William Calley's in my opinion,
but Kerrey feels very, very guilty about it.)

I do not believe that Kerry in any testimony accused any soldier by name
of any atrocity; I do not believe that Kerry implied that all soldiers
had committed atrocities (though many, many Viet vets think that this is
precisely what he did). This is the source of their anger. I believe it
is misplaced, but as I told another poster, I did not serve in Viet Nam,
and it is not my place to comment on how those brave men feel.


My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
different thing from rape.


Yes it is, but I don't recall Kerry mentioning rape.

I don't know; I meant only to suggest that the actions that Kerry may have
taken might well be in his mind atrocities, but in my mind they are different
from cold-blooded murder of noncombatants, mutilation of corpses, and so on.

The truly terrible thing about all this is that Kerry wanted nothing else but
to get all the men home from a war he was certain was a mistake, and badly
prosecuted in the bargain. Of course many good men and women did not want that;
they wanted to win a war against Communism. But I believe that most of the
soldiers just wanted to go home, and did not think that this was a war worth
fighting. In my opinion, those who thought Viet Nam a blunder were correct.
We failed to keep the North from overrunning the South. No doubt many innocent
people were executed. But civil wars are as old as human history. Has the
security of the United States suffered as a result of the North Vietnamese
conquest?

I happen to think that Iraq was a mistake, but not as grievous as Viet Nam
(as bad as Ho Chi Minh was--and he was a monster--he was Little Mary Sunshine
next to Saddam). The terrible thing is that it is being prosecuted in an even
more heinously stupid fashion than Viet Nam. I would have thought that almost
impossible, but George and his gang have managed it.

David Derbes

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message hlink.net...

Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

Are you sure that that quote is correct?

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
group; their analysis of the testimony is at

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.

I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
sourced document) is somewhat different.

"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
everything."

From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

Chris Manteuffel

In article ,
Chris Manteuffel wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

Are you sure that that quote is correct?

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
group; their analysis of the testimony is at

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.

I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
sourced document) is somewhat different.

"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
everything."

From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

Chris Manteuffel

There was a celebrated debate on, IIRC, the Dick Cavett show, between
Kerry and John O'Neill, the main person involved in the Swift Boat Vets
for Truth group. The language may have come out of that. I don't know.
Then again, it may simply be folklore. (Dick Cavett was sort of like
Charlie Rose thirty years ago, the most literate of the talk show
hosts.)

I've read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it is powerful stuff.
It does not read to me as if he is blaming any soldier, but YMMV.

David Derbes

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris Manteuffel wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in
that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined
in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts
were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this
are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

Are you sure that that quote is correct?

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
group; their analysis of the testimony is at

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.

I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
sourced document) is somewhat different.

"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
everything."

From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he made that
statement instead on national television: "There are all kinds of atrocities
and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of
atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part
in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction
fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to
use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in
search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is
contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva
Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established
policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I
believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike
areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the
law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." 18 April 1971, "Meet
the Press", NBC

So there is absolutely NO question that he did indeed make that statement
(though the poster did apparently paraphrase it). When questioned about that
statement last April, again on "Meet the Press", he did not back down too
much from the war criminal accusation, instead saying only, "I wish I had
found a way to say it in a less abrasive way." Whew! How thoughtful of him
(sarcasm switch temporarily engaged). Are you thinking it only is valid if
he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then by
the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?


Chris Manteuffel

There was a celebrated debate on, IIRC, the Dick Cavett show, between
Kerry and John O'Neill, the main person involved in the Swift Boat Vets
for Truth group. The language may have come out of that. I don't know.
Then again, it may simply be folklore. (Dick Cavett was sort of like
Charlie Rose thirty years ago, the most literate of the talk show
hosts.)

I've read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it is powerful stuff.
It does not read to me as if he is blaming any soldier, but YMMV.

His "testimony", which you say was so "powerful", was based upon "voodoo",
which is about the best way to characterize the "Winter Soldier
Investigation" nonsense. That Jane Fonda sponsored circus has been pretty
thoroughly discredited as a "factual source" (the DoD investigators who
looked into the claims made in that "trial" threw their hands up after
finding that the "witnesses" were either not even who they claimed they
were, but often had never even been in Vietnam, or those who had were not
assigned to frontline combat units, etc.--see the excellent book by Burkett
and Whitley, "Stolen Valor", for a more complete indictment of WSI).

Of course, he *did* make personal claims as well during that testimony, such
as the following regarding an alleged incident where the ARVN supposedly
refused to come to his aid: "...I was in the Navy and this was pretty
unconventional, but when we were pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or
something and they refused to come in and help us, point blank refused."
Odd, but I don't recall any of the myriad stories supposedly describing his
Vietnam heroics on a Swift boat including any cases where he became "pinned
down in a ditch" while recovering bodies", do you? Maybe this was "seared"
into his memory along with his recollection of where he spent Christmas Eve
1968 (which was either deep inside Cambodia or some fifty plus miles away at
a village in the RVN, depending upon *which* specific recollection of his
you care to believe).

As to his indictment of the bulk of US officers who served in Vietnam, he
offered the following when asked about the prosecution of William Calley:
"But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from
responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened
there lies elsewhere. I think it lies with the men who designed free fire
zones. I think it lies with the men who encouraged body counts... I think if
you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if
this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same
time try all those other people who have responsibility..."

Pretty broad brush he wields there, and in keeping with his "Meet the Press"
quotation above, and a view that he apparently still holds, though he would
apparently now express it less "abrasively"....

Brooks


David Derbes