Another vet who doesn't think johnny boy was in cambodia.

[dude1394]

another vet against kerry

Christmas in Cambodia

Ralph Roberts

Christmas and Cambodia, 1968, the memory is searing, unforgettable, and easily provable—mine, not (as his statements before his fellow senators and others would have it) John F. Kerry’s.

This morning, while shaving, I suddenly realized I possessed firsthand knowledge of what is fast becoming a major political controversy. That is unusual for me; I am normally still asleep while shaving.

The Democratic candidate for President of these United States makes a big thing of touting his four months of service in a long ago jungle war few people today remember or respect or even, if born after 1968, know about. The logic of such service as the centerpiece-justification of a political campaign some 35 years later escapes me. Far more appropriate would be discussion of his senatorial record. What’s he done in the last 10 years, perhaps?

Senator Kerry and I entered Vietnam the same time, November of 1968. He came home four months later; I completed the standard 12-month tour and even extended for some extra time, returning to “the world” as we called it (that being everywhere but Vietnam, which was simply “in country” in our more politer moments). This was in 1970.

While the future Senator Kerry was throwing his (or someone’s) medals and/or ribbons across the fence of the White House (isn’t that littering?), I spoke before a number of local groups such as civic clubs in support of our troops in the field (those Lions sure did come up with nice steaks!) and showed my eight-millimeter home movies of the war. The footage I took did not include staged scenes of my “exploits” but rather events happening around me. At least those I was not too busy staying alive to preclude filming. Hard to handle a camera and an M-16 rifle at the same time; I kept my priorities straight. Combat tends to help one hone their priorities.

Also, I did not come within, so far as I know, hundreds of miles of “Hanoi Jane” Fonda, nor speak ill of my comrades still serving in Vietnam, doing the duty their country had asked of them.

My rank, while in country, was an army specialist 5th class (pay grade E-5). I ended my military career at the august rank of staff sergeant (pay grade E-6).

I served, proudly, with the 3rd Brigade, First Air Cavalry Division. My position the first eleven months was the Order of Battle Specialist in 3rd Brigade S-2 (intelligence). I won some of the same medals John did—the Bronze Star, for example—and one he did not, the Combat Infantry Badge. The CIB can only be won in one way, you have to be in ground combat as an Infantryman for 90 days or more. I was.

The remainder of my time in Vietnam, I was placed in charge of MARS (Military Affiliate Radio System) station AB8AAR in Quan Loi, Republic of South Vietnam. We provided free phone calls home for the soldiers by contacting amateur radio operators in the U.S., who then patched the calls into the regular phone system. This was pretty high tech stuff in 1969. When I returned to the world, as an amateur radio operator myself (WA4NUO now for over 40 years), I did the same thing from my home station, handling hundreds of calls for guys still in Vietnam.

AB8AAR was an independent unit and, while I just had three men, I was in command. I’m not sure how many men are in a swift boat’s crew, but it’s not too many more than four. So, like John I, too, commanded men in time of war. And take this not as a joke, we did have to crouch behind sandbags and return fire more than once. Unlike the Navy’s river boat folk (and I do respect them a lot) we did not get to go home every evening after combat, we lived right in the middle of it… 24/7.

Speaking of command, sometime, and it’s a good story, I’ll have to write up that cold winter’s night in Germany when I, as a private E-2, was in charge of the entire 3rd Armored Division. John never ran a unit that big. But, Germany does not count for president, only Vietnam, so back to the jungle.

The small town of Quan Loi—in, about, and around there being where I spent most of my Vietnam service time—lies amid old French colonial rubber plantations interspersing the jungle fifty some miles due north of Saigon (now called “Ho Chi Minh City”). Landing Zone Andy, our base, lies a mere twelve dusty (or sloppy, depending on the season) but always hot and sweltering miles from the Cambodian border.

But, back to Christmas in Cambodia: As an Order of Battle Specialist, part of my job was reviewing intelligence reports that came in from units all over Vietnam, logging them, providing synopses for my boss (Major Wilson was the S-2), and generally knowing what was going on countrywide. I loved this part of it! Unlike most of my fellows in the Cav, I had the privilege of and ability to follow the “big picture” through my access to classified intelligence reports and my reading of what the media “said” was going on. That let me piece together the real state of the war.

One thing, which fascinated me, us being so close to Cambodia, was the question of incursions, that being when American forces inadvertently (or deliberately sometimes in hot pursuit) entered Cambodia from Vietnam. At this time, the Cambodian government took such few incursions as happened quite seriously; they were literally international incidents. The most common type of incursion, both within our division and other units, was helicopters straying over the border. In a way, it was almost funny (okay, actually it was funny). Some warrant officer gets a bit sloppy in his navigation, his chopper floats over the line, the Cambodian air force scrambles one of their old WWII-vintage prop fighters which chases the chopper back into Vietnam, then our Air Force fighters (F4s or whatever) arrive and make sure the Cambodian aircraft stays inside Cambodia itself. Kind of an aerial version of the kid’s game “Red Rover Come On Over.”

But there were few such incidents during my time in Vietnam, because those incursions were taken so seriously (later, having grown tired of these games, Nixon sent our forces officially into Vietnam, but I had already come home). The only incidence of a river incursion that I know about (or can find in current research) was an army (not naval) landing craft that took a wrong turn on the Mekong and wound up in Cambodia, where the Cambodians promptly impounded it and the crew made prisoners. I know General Abrams (our commander in Vietnam) was not pleased (pity whatever soldier was in command of that boat!). We did get the men back, I don’t know about the boat, but it was a major international incident.

The point being, if John Kerry had spent Christmas in Cambodia in 1968; I would have read about it first in intelligence reports and everyone would have soon have read about it in the press as we negotiated to get Kerry and his crew back from the Cambodian government. Of course, various recent published reports seem to bring out that John, in truth and his “searing” memory aside, actually spent Christmas eve over fifty miles from Cambodia. I can tell you for a fact, I was only twelve miles from Cambodia that Christmas of 1968, in the jungle and a lot less comfortable than Kerry on his swift boat.

Since John bases a good part of his candidacy on his Vietnam service, I am more than entitled to compare mine to his.

Hmm. We won some of the same medals. Good, we both did our jobs.

We both commanded small units in combat. Umm. Good, but so did hundreds of thousands of other Vietnam vets—a good many with much greater success and/or hardship than either John or I.

Kerry, so I’ve read, was against the war before he went and certainly after he came back. I supported the war before, during, and after. But I still respect those who, through the force of their convictions, did not go. Wishy-washy only works in detergent commercials. Take a stand, one way or the other, do not flop about like some Mekong River fish out of water.

In Christmas of 1968, I was at least 20-30 miles closer to Cambodia than John. Moreover, it can be proved by my unit’s Morning Reports, a record of “attendance” the army kept on its personnel.

Finally, I served about four times longer in Vietnam than John Kerry.

By the precepts just elucidated, I am more qualified for the presidency than John (feel free to write me in on your ballot, thank you very much).

However, I would not vote even for me (and I likes me, a lot) just on the basis of my service in Vietnam. So many, many others did more, sacrificed more, deserve respect more than John or even I.

Voting for president just because of brief service in a war thirty-five years ago?

If you think that’s a good idea, I could sure use the job. Thank you, my fellow Americans.

—end—


Ralph Roberts, a Vietnam veteran, is the author of over 90 books for national publishers and CEO of Alexander Books / Creativity, Inc., the area’s largest locally-owned book publisher

[LRB]

Well if for some reason Bush has to drop out of the race, I'll be sure to write this guy in. He sounds tons more qualified that Kerry. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Seriously, I've yet to see a single shred of evidence to back up the Kerry lie about cambodia and tons to disprove it.

[knowitall]

I guess we should just vote for the man that lies the least.

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: knowitall
I guess we should just vote for the man that lies the least.

We've been trying to do this since WWII..........not always succeeding.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
I guess we should just vote for the man that lies the least.

Well if a candidate make the centerpiece of his campagin around a set of lies, he shouldn't expect not to be called on it. So far I've seen no credible proof that the center piece of Bush's campaign is based up a set of lies.

[dude1394]

Knowitall...This seems to be important to youi.. Are you honestly finding instances where you can say that "bush lied". If so I'd like to hear them.

Now let me tell you my definition of a lie. An untrue fact told with foreknowledge.

For example... Bush and Iraq's WMDs. I think that bush honestly thought that iraq had them. I also think he was sceptical about it but after listening to his advisers, britain, france, egypt, saudia arabia, etc. Did he "lie" about it, I don't think so.

[dude1394]

Another vet let's his thoughts be known.

what's it gonna be

What's is gonna be John?

The one thing that really steams me with regard to Kerry using his military exploits as the focus of his campaign is that you just can't have it both ways. If you served and were awarded for valor, then God bless you, brother wear with pride the symbols of your honor. But, if you chucked your awards (literally or symbollically I don't care) over a fence as a sign of your disdain for the war and your shame for having participated in it, then you don't get to tout your service anymore! Your'e done! Shut up about it, identify yourself as a protester, and live with it. You can't just pick and choose when you want to disavow or trumpet your service. John, you made your bed in 1971, so now you have to lie in it. If protesting the war and calling your fellow veterans war criminals is an act of conscience for you, fine, listen to your conscience! Your conscience is not supposed to change with the political winds, my friend. When your conscience changes with the situation, then it no longer functions. That is a conscience that is SEARED-SEARED, Mr. Kerry.

[Drbio]

That is an amazingly powerful quote that is mos tlikely shared my the vast majority of soldiers.

[LRB]

Great quote Dude. I really think that the press has totally let Kerry slide on this issue. If I was this guy, I'd be pissed as hell about John Forbes trying to have his political cake and eat it too.

[knowitall]

Dude1394. I think Bush was going into Iraq no matter what. Is knowingly omitting a preconceived plan considered a lie? Well, I know how you feel about this.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Dude1394. I think Bush was going into Iraq no matter what. Is knowingly omitting a preconceived plan considered a lie? Well, I know how you feel about this.

There is no way to tell if Bush was 100% determined to go into Iraq or not. Certainly he probably has some leanings, but I would be highly surprised to learn that it was an already decided issue. There really is no proof to back this up. It's only conjecture at best and is only an unsubstanciated rumor. It' much more likely that Kerry raped Vietmanese women and gunned down innocent children for sport. After all Kerry has at least publicly talked about those activities. I don't remember Bush ever saying that he was going to invade Iraq whatever happened. He's made numerous statements to the contrary and gave Saddam several chances to avoid invasion. What would be true is that Bush wasn't going to but up with Saddam's fast card monty approach of politics.

Anyone I've ever seen trying to make Bush out to be a liar has to stretch and twist the facts greatly to do so and then it's still a subjective call. With Kerry it's pretty black and white. Either he was in Cambodia or he wasn't.

[knowitall]

It's only conjecture? What a sanitary way to describe a motive.

[LRB]

That Bush had a motive, ie a desire to remove Saddam, I don't think is conjecture. That Bush made the decision to invade Iraq no matter what happened directly after 9/11 is conjecture. If Saddam had abdicated can you say with 100% surity that we would have invaded? And if so how? If Saddam had allowed UN inspections full freedom to inspect as they wished would we have invaded? If so how do you know. If Saddam had taken action as Kaddafi has in Libaya would we have invaded?

If Bush was so secretive about his motive, how does anyone know about it?

[FishForLunch]

I guess we should just vote for the man that lies the least.

No we should vote for the liar you can trust with the security of the country.

[knowitall]

The President, regardless of who that is, will always put the safety of America at the top of their list. Something else important is how well the President plays with others. We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind, and the whole world already knows this. Perhaps some other type of "action" would be more appropriate. Everybody hates a bully.

[LRB]

The President, regardless of who that is, will always put the safety of America at the top of their list.

This is not necessarily a true statement. It's arguable that Clinton let his personable goals of a political victory interfer with acting promptly on intelligence of Bin Laden's location. This delay potentially allowed our missile strike to hit an empty camp instead of one with Bin Laden occupying it. Although not conclusive, it does make one stop and wonder. I don't think that it takes much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that some individuals would place America slightly more at risk to better serve their own interests. Now the decision for voters is who is more likely to be their own interests, even if slightly so, above America's safety. My money is that Bush is the least likely of the 2 to put his own interests over America's.

Everybody hates a bully.

And no one respects a coward. There is often a fine line to walk between the two. However I do not see us as bullys. We are doing what we feel is necessary to protect ourselves from our enemies. I would rather the whole world view us as "bullys" than allow Al Queda to launch a WMD strike in the US.

[FishForLunch]

Come on be sensitive, the rest of the world have a fragile ego and Kerry knows how to please their every wish and command.

[knowitall]

I said I was still on the fence. but i'm speaking to people with tunnel vision.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: knowitall
I said I was still on the fence. but i'm speaking to people with tunnel vision.

Do they have tunnel vision because they don't agree with you exactly or is it something else?

[knowitall]

It's something else. Maybe it's their staunch loyalty and total disregard of Bush being capable of wrong doing. Like I said, I haven't made my decision. But, there is something disturbing about a President who says he talks to God and God talks to him, as a way to purify and glorify his reasons for the decisions he makes. Sure does fire up those bible beaters though....gotta admit!

[FishForLunch]

I think you are leaning more towards Bush this election year, so is Mickey Moore.

[knowitall]

Fishforlunch. I don't get it.

[dude1394]

Actually there is quite a bit that this board says that bush has done wrong. From republican conservatives. There is MUCH less admitting that the democrats and liberals can do wrong from the left. The worse that I've seen is that the left doesn't think something is a good political strategy.

[Drbio]

I would much prefer a President who prays to God than one who doesn't. Every day of the week.

[knowitall]

DRBIO, sure, I read your post. You seem like a very religious person. Insert vomit sound here.........

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
It's something else. Maybe it's their staunch loyalty and total disregard of Bush being capable of wrong doing. Like I said, I haven't made my decision. But, there is something disturbing about a President who says he talks to God and God talks to him, as a way to purify and glorify his reasons for the decisions he makes. Sure does fire up those bible beaters though....gotta admit!

You sure seem to have a narrow and cynical view of the issue of Bush praying. Is it just Bush or religion in general that is the major issue? I mean is it that you don't believe that a person can communicate with God or that you don't believe that Bush communicates with God or is it that you don't believe in God or that you just don't like the way that Bush publicly talks about communicating with God?

[knowitall]

Religion and politics should remain seperate. I'm "narrow and cynical about Bush praying"? Our enemy's commit murder in the name of their God, don't they? I think it's a dangerous combination. Apparently you don't.........but thanks for that glowing assessment of who you think I am!

[LRB]

Our founding fathers never meant to separate God from government. This can easily be evidenced by the many references to God in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and many other documents. What they did not want was an official religion as England had. Nor did they wish perscution against those who legally practiced their religion of choice. Personally I don't see a problem with what Bush does, even if I do not share all of his religious beliefs. There is a great difference from what Bush did in occassionally mentioning God and our enemies religious persecution. If you can't see that, then there is probably no point in arguing because you never will see it. While there are extemes in the mixing of religion and government, so to are there extremes in removing religion from government. Stalin would be a prime example of the latter.

[knowitall]

If they knew then what we know now.........God told me to wage war! It's my divine right and duty! Well, I'm pretty sure it was my God.


Keep it seperate.

[LRB]

It's certainly your right to want to keep religion and government seperate, but you're making a huge logical stretch in saying that Bush is declaring it's his divine right to wage war IMO. That he aknowledges wresting with his conscience to choose the best course that he can and as part of that praying to his God is hardly state founded religion IMO. Further it appears as if you are dicting how and when someone can practice their religion. This is precisely what our founding fathers didn't want and why we have the prohibition of official state religion.

[knowitall]

Would rather not have anyone's religion affecting me.

[LRB]

Good luck because I don't think that you have a snowball's chance in hell of every accomplishing that goal.

[knowitall]

You are right! When humans with power use God as a free pass, I don't have a snowballs chance in hell. What an inventive way to suck in some followers. Hmmm, I remember a guy in Waco that had followers. I seem to recall they believed in some load of crap too. Now you will tell me not to compare this and that. Save your breath. I don't compare like that. Follow your own logic, not someone's rhetoric.

[LRB]

The point being is you cannot live in any society of any size on this planet without being affected by someones religion. The very money that we use is inscribed with "in god we trust". All around us people display acts of kindness, charity, and honesty based upon their religious convictions. Our who system of law is based in large part on Judo-Christian belief and scripture. Even if you found yourself among a people who practiced no religion, believed no religion, they would still be atheists or agnostics at best. There is a huge difference between "using God as a free pass" so to speak and honestly and ethically practicing your religious beliefs. You come off sounding like a religious bigot which I don't feel is your intention, correct me though if I'm wrong on that point. While it would be nigh on impossible to argue that many have not at some time in the past or even currently use religion as an excuse so to speak to let them carry out every unethical and immoral desire of their hearts or to use religion as a tool to manipulate others and gain power. But only a bigot would claim that all religion does this all the time.

[knowitall]

Religion is out there for everyone. I don't think it should be used by the PRESIDENT, any PRESIDENT, as reasons for decisions they make.
The bigot remark was harsh. I have much more respect for you and your beliefs.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Religion is out there for everyone. I don't think it should be used by the PRESIDENT, any PRESIDENT, as reasons for decisions they make.
The bigot remark was harsh. I have much more respect for you and your beliefs.

But now it sounds like you're telling bush how he can and cannot practice his religion. Of course it's your right to have this preference. But I don't feel that most people share this. I think the President should be free to legally practice his religion so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Even if prayer was the sole means of Bushes decisions, and IMO it is more of a confirmation that the decision he's made is correct, I don't see how that infringes upon anyone elses rights.

[knowitall]

Yes, I would like to ask him..........Dear Mr. President, please do not practice religion while you are on the clock at the oval office.

P.S. And also while you are at NORAD. Thank You

Love, Knowitall

[Mavdog]

knowitall,
would you also please ask Bush to not practice religion when he is engaging in foreign policy decisions, providing AIDS assistance, reproduction counseling, nominating judges, providing school funding or social assistance services?
Thanks,
mavdog

[knowitall]

Mavdog, don't talk to me. Haven't you heard? I'm a bigot. Oh and and and a left leaning liberal.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Yes, I would like to ask him..........Dear Mr. President, please do not practice religion while you are on the clock at the oval office.

P.S. And also while you are at NORAD. Thank You

Love, Knowitall

Well since Bush is a salaried employee and doesn't clock in, he's pretty much always "on the clock" as you speak. So I guess you feel comfortable telling anyone not to practice their religion if it bothers you. Still it's a free society and you can say what you will on this issue. But I for one hope that Bush never listens to your pleas or those of like minded people.