I had an interview with Lt. Commander Paul Galanti in my efforts to earn an NROTC scholorship back in 1974. This was soon after his return from the prison camp in N. Vietnam and after his picture had made front page news throughout the nation.
It mad me nervous as hell. But he was gracious and humble. We talked about a career in the Navy and he said he never regretted a minute of his service. He made me so proud of our armed forces when many in the nation were trying to forget the war. I'll never forget his service, nor what Sen. Kerry has done to try and tarnish the service of men like the Lt. Commander.

You need to know the real John Kerry

If you want to know the real John Kerry, you may want to look elsewhere, because you won't find a very fair portrayal here.

Bill cites an article, admitting it contains both "pro and con", but conveniently leaves out the "pro":

Standing nearby, Vietnam veteran Brian Hoffman, 58, begs to disagree. To him, Kerry was a hero who performed the most difficult duty of all.

"John Kerry returned from battle to speak out against what he considered an unjust war," the Army veteran said. "Who can fault him for that?"

...

For some, the 60-year-old Kerry embodies America's conflicted feelings about Vietnam. He served with distinction but led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and challenged Congress, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Many veterans say that, in hindsight, they agree with Kerry's bold opposition to a conflict that killed 58,000 Americans. They say history has proved him right about Vietnam, and they have flocked to support his campaign.

Don't you wish you could hear the audio of Kerry's slanderous April 22, 1971, testimony to Congress - testimony that helped the enemy? You can read the transcript here, in a 32-page PDF file. I'm hoping Hewitt has the audio transferred to an MP3 file and makes it available online. If he does, rest assured you'll find the link here at HobbsOnline.

You can find it transcribed here.

I've read it several times. Can you explain to me how, exactly, it is slanderous and to whom?

He described events he had not witnessed and which, in fact, were later shown to be falsified, undermining the war effort while giving hope to the enemy. It was consistent with his future votes to gut U.S. intelligence services and the military.

He told the Senate with a straight face that American military men tortured, raped and murdered Vietnamese wholesale, and that American officers approved or were indifferent to that behavior.

That's 'ends justifies the means' politics. Say anything to achieve power or to topple your opposition.

Kerry's not qualified for ANY responsible position where he works unsupervised.

And his dishonest theatrics suck worse.

Wearing camouflage uniform to deliver his political diatribe - that wasn't HIS uniform in the Navy. Throwing someone else's medals over a fence for the cameras while keeping his own.

He's right up there with Michael Moore.

Again, the vets testified to the atrocities--not Kerry.

But what the heck, Kerry fought for Hugh Hewitt's right to free speech. Because I'm positive Hugh Hewitt had better things to do than to go to VietNam.

He described events he had not witnessed

Not exactly. He noted that a number of vets had testified about atrocities.

and which, in fact, were later shown to be falsified,

Again, untrue.

undermining the war effort while giving hope to the enemy.

Speculation unsupported by facts. Many Americans--indeed, many US servicemen--didn't agree with this war. We can disagree as to worthiness or morality of this war but to accuse someone of being a traitor because he disagrees with you is specious.

It was consistent with his future votes to gut U.S. intelligence services and the military.

Speculation unsupported by the facts.

Again, the vets testified to the atrocities--not Kerry.

In Kerry's testimony to Congress, he said,

"It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told the stories 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 Genghis 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.
We call this investigation the 'Winter Soldier Investigation.' "

Clearly, JG, Kerry did testify to what the other vets testified. The vets didn't testify to Congress, they testified to the Winter Soldier Investigation. The question is whether what Kerry relayed to Congress was true, and if it was false, whether Kerry knew it was false.

undermining the war effort while giving hope to the enemy.

Speculation unsupported by facts. Many Americans--indeed, many US servicemen--didn't agree with this war. We can disagree as to worthiness or morality of this war but to accuse someone of being a traitor because he disagrees with you is specious.

I agree that calling someone a traitor because he disagrees with you is specious.

But the claim made was that Kerry's testimony gave comfort to the enemy, and THAT is supported by the facts. Here's an excerpt from a story from the L.A. Times:

Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous "Hanoi Hilton" prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in June 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war.

During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as "an example of why we should cross over to [their] side."

"The Viet Cong didn't think they had to win the war on the battlefield," Galanti said, "because thanks to these protesters they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington."

Here's the URL:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-vietnam17feb17,1,2716082,print.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

Still care to claim that Kerry's testimony didn't give comfort to the enemy?

John Kerry is an opportunist who will say anything to anyone to garner support. Whatever he did in Vietnam (and there are many versions, but I'm not here to disparage his service), he is a far cry from that man today. Whatever noble bone he had in his body when he went to Vietnam was left in SE Asia. His efforts on behalf of VVAW were not honorable or brave. Quite the contrary.

His voting record also indicates where he stands on the modern military. His service is not a shield or a free pass on national security. This F-16 pilot will be very, very concerned should Kerry become the CINC.

Speaking of the current military, I want to dispel any and all notions that the military will support Kerry. We are solidly (by a very large majority) in the GOP camp and very much behind President George W. Bush. We also vote in large numbers.

I also find it laughable when people like Jade Gold and Terry McAuliffe indicate any respect for the soldiers, both past and present, that fought for anyone's freedom of speech. I can dig up quote after quote by McAuliffe and Co. disparaging all things military.

Please, please, please spare us any more attacks on someone's lack of service. The modern Democratic Party can count something like, oh, I don't know, maybe 10 people in leadership positions nationwide at all levels that served in the military.

Has anyone ever seen Jade and McAuliffe together?

Bill: "and which, in fact, were later shown to be falsified,"

JadeGold: "Again, untrue."

Alrighty, then, JadeGold: disprove Bill's statement. With evidence, not invective.

I'm sorry, Matt, did I imply Jade Gold and Terry McAuliffe hung out together?

--It was consistent with his future votes to gut U.S. intelligence services and the military.

Speculation unsupported by the facts.--

Wouldn't his votes be the facts?

And --undermining the war effort while giving hope to the enemy.

Speculation unsupported by facts.--

Not according to Gen. Dien(?) 1985 bio.
Didn't he credit Kerry by name???

Kerry's statements and actions in 1971, whether he believed them to be true or not, are consistent with his anti-military record in the Senate. As such, unless he specifically tells us how and why he has changed his mind about the role of the military, he is unfit to be commander-in-chief of a nation at war.

Sadly, John Kerry had the best education, served heroically in Viet Nam, and yet took away from those experiences exactly the wrong lessons about warfare and about the nature of the American military.

JadeG: Kerry's testimony was based on something called the "Winter Soldiers Investigation," which was orchestrated by leftwingers opposed to the war

The Naval Investigative Service was unable to verify even one of the Winter Soldier witness's testimony. Some of the "honorably discharged veterans" turned out never to have served in Vietnam. Others were unwilling to repeat their testimony under oath even when offered immunity. One admitted that his testimony was coached by the Nation of Islam, and that he could not remember the details of the atrocity he had allegedly witnesses. Several veterans who had supposedly testified told the NIS that they had never been to the Winter Soldier Investigation, suggesting that their identities were used by others.

Mackubin Thomas Owens, a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-1969. Here's what he has to say about the "Winter Soldiers Investigation" upon which Kerry based his testimoney before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.

I'm sure we're going to hear something to the effect that Guenter Lewy and Mackubin Thomas Owens are both big, fat, poopyheads, and that Owens' testimony is suspect for the sole reason that it appears in the always-repugnant-and-wrong National Review. Anyone want to make odds?

I've spotted the first line of defense the left going to field against the Winter Soldier albatross: "he was just reporting what others had told him". I've seen it on two different forums, apparently coming from different people.

Their second line, I think, will be to defend Winter Soldier!

That's gonna be fun to watch.

Again, Mr. Hobbs--I commented on Owens' misleading NRO editorial when you posted it the first time. In fact, Owens doesn't dispute the testimony of the Winter Soldier investigation--instead, he seems to take exception to a strawman created in his own mind--that all US servicemen of that era were mentally traumatized.

In fact, Owens cites a book that does not even deal with the Winter Soldier investigation but is a book about PTSD.

As for certain Vets not wishing to talk with the NIS--that's understandable in that time. After all, My Lai was investigated initially by the Army's equivalent to the NIS. Their finding was that nothing happened.

I've done my best to research these allegations and I haven't been able to find much. Details are here and here.

Bill, your phrasing is misleading. You claim the Naval Investigative Service was "unable to verify even one of the Winter Soldier witness's testimony", implying that this is because it was fraudulent. The reality is they weren't able to refute the testimony, either. The veterans in question simply declined to be interviewed. Hardly a refutation.

Owens' evidence, as I note in the aforementioned posts, is a simple bait-and-switch. Lane's book and the WSI are two different entities, fraudulent or not.

It simply defies belief that 150 soldiers can testify to war crimes by proxy, yet none can be interviewed. Doesn't anyone remember what happened?

Well, first you have to consider what the heart of this debate is. These soldiers gave their testimony, which was relayed to congress.

Now, a 30-year old smear is resurfacing that they lied.

Would an interview with some, or all of these veterans provide any real closure? Unlikely. Those that would interview would likely not have anything more to say. It's still their word against others.

When an accusation like this is made -- that 150 Vietnam veterans lied -- the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the veterans.

Thus far I have seen no proof that a fraud was perpetrated.

You say "it simply defies belief that 150 soldiers can testify to war crimes by proxy, yet none can be interviewed."

I say what defies belief is that people still adhere to this accusation, even after 30 years of naysayers, dating back to Nixon and Colson themselves, have yet to demonstrate a single shred of verifiable evidence that the WSI was based on lies.

Furthermore, let me say that there have been documented cases of fraud perpetrated by individuals posing as veterans. Consider this a pre-emptive rebuttal of that inevitable counter:

None of these, to my knowledge, have been involved with the WSI directly.

As John Zutz has said, the witnesses that testified in the WSI had their DD214s checked with civilian and military IDs. Any fraud perpetrated would have been on an individual basis and would not reflect any malevolence on behalf of the VVAW or the WSI itself, nor would it detract from the force of their testimony as a whole.

To refute the WSI as a whole, you'll need evidence that most or all of the testimony was intentionally fraudulent. Nixon and Colson didn't have much luck, but hey. Good luck!

I'm also curious as to why Owens cites Guenter Lewy. Lewy was a very hardline conservative historian who initially supported US involvement in VietNam. However, near the end of that war, Lewy had become convinced the US couldn't win and was actually harming itself by continuing to prosecute the war.

In fact, Lewy specifically noted the indiscriminate use of US firepower was dooming any chance of winning over "the hearts and minds" of those we claimed we wished to free from the grasp of communism.

Lewy's thesis is actually taught at the US Army War College as a "lesson learned" WRT fighting insurgent-type conflicts.

Basically, Lewy's views are much closer to Kerry's than Owens'.

I'd urge ALCON to take a look at Mr. Wage's links above. He's done some fine investigative work--certainly above and beyond the average blogger.

I also believe Mr. Hobbs should post a correction or, more fittingly, an apology.

Hey, Jade, I think you're the one who should consider apologizing. You said:

"Because I'm positive Hugh Hewitt had better things to do than to go to VietNam."

Hugh Hewitt was too young to serve:

Weekly I get callers blasting me for not serving in Vietnam even though I was still in high school when the war ended, and no amount of patient dating helps with such folk.

Not that you bothered to get the information before you made the attack, of course.

Hugh Hewitt was too young to serve:

And his excuse not to serve in the military--ever--is.....?

The point is, of course, people can disagree as to whether the war in VietNam was right or wrong. The fact remains Kerry did serve.

Hewitt obviously wishes to revisit the argument over VietNam.

Hey Jade, did you ever serve? Be honest...I'll be able to tell if you're full of it.

Be honest...I'll be able to tell if you're full of it.

Sure you can, Ivan. Why you're probably an AN/UYQ-70 Truth Display Unit. The ruggerdized variant.

Sarcasm and ridicule is one way to dodge the question. I'll take the answer as "no."