I already have plenty of reasons to dislike John Kerry. One is his attempt to present himself as a mainstream “man of the people”. Kerry’s never worked an honest day’s labor in his life. He’s a “kept man”, born into a wealthy New England family (his mother was a Forbes) and married to two ridiculously rich wives in succession (one of whom is heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune).

He also is apparently well known for his snobbish, elitist attitude in his home turf:

“…most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.

The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: “Do you know who I am?

But one thing Kerry seemingly will not let anyone forget is the fact that he served in Vietnam, and Bush didn’t. It is true that Kerry was decorated during his service there. It is also true that when he got out of the military, he went to Capitol Hill and told members of Congress — while the war was still going on — about the so-called atrocities that US soldiers were committing there, how evil the American presence in Vietnam was, etc.

I suggest reading a transcript of his statement to Congress, just to get the full effect of his venom, and how he was endangering the lives of his fellow soldiers by supporting the Viet Cong.

But the New York Sun has an interesting editorial today concerning the exact nature of Kerry’s Navy service in Vietnam, as told by Admiral Zumwalt, who was in command of his naval operations. Apparently, Kerry was a bit of a loose cannon who could not be trusted to execute his orders correctly.

More than that, the son of a bitch went out of his way to kill Vietnamese civilians, and then later refused to accept responsibility for it:

By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier.

Mr. Kerry has already confessed his complicity in killing civilians as “accidents of war.” However, he has offered a classic Nuremberg defense that this was not only a commonplace occurrence throughout the Vietnam War, but he was carrying out a policy “with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

His commander of naval operations in Vietnam, who specifically designed the mission that Mr. Kerry and the other Swiftboat commanders executed, Admiral Zumwalt, clearly disagreed.

This sheds some light on the rabid nature of his anti-Vietnam activities once he left the war zone: guilt. Soul-eating guilt over what he had done, and a desire to blame and punish anyone and everyone except himself for it. He characterizes the entire US military in Vietnam as a bunch of bloodthirsty murderers – as though My Lai were an ordinary occurrence that was sanctioned by those higher up in the chain of command – because Kerry himself was/is like that and he can’t imagine people being any other way. He projects his own situation onto the rest of the military.

I have no particular reason to disbelieve Admiral Zumwalt’s account of things. It should be a matter of historical record that Zumwalt and other commanders had issues with Kerry, and why. My real question is: if Kerry is, in fact, guilty of these crimes, why hasn’t he been court-martialed?

Or perhaps someone tried, and Kerry said, “Do you know who I am?”

18 Responses to “John Kerry: Murderer”
  1. Sigivald says:

    Re. court-martial, I imagine the primary reason would be that he’s out of the service (entirely, not even a reservist), and that it would be very difficult to convict him, given the time elapsed and the difficulty of proving the charges. (Military courts are notoriously strict about such things; military folks have a saying – “If you’re innocent, you want a military court. If you’re guilty, you want a civilian court.”, to paraphrase.)

    I’d be astounded if Kerry could be convicted, 30 years later, simply because of the difficulty of proving him guilty… not to mention that it would be seen as partisan politics of the worst sort to bring up charges right now. Plus, well, nobody seemed to think it was worthy of a court-martial back then, so no surprise that hasn’t changed.

    (Someone who is more knowledgeable about the UCMJ than I am can tell us if there’s a statute of limitations issue.)

  2. Anne Haight says:

    Yes, but why wasn’t he court-martialed 30 years ago, if his superiors knew this was going on?

  3. ET says:

    I am a Vietnam “Era” Veteran, having served during the time Admiral Zumwalt was Chief of Naval Operations(CNO). I am 3rd generation Navy and 3rd generation Merchant Marine in my family, all of them officers with the exception of myself, being the only enlisted.

    John Kerry took advantage of his position in Southeast Asia (Kennedy family connections)to keep him out of trouble with the Navy. You must remember, the Kennedy’s did great things for the image and appropriations of the Navy in the early 60’s.There were many Senior Naval Officers who owed their rates to the Kennedys at that time.

    Once home,and as a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he released the “atrocities” information to Congress at the same time as the MyLaiLt.Calley Trial held the headlines. Considering his backing at these hearings was Ramsey Clark(Atty.Gen. under LBJ),and Senator Ted Kennedy,no one would dare challenge him, at that time.

    By the time of America’s exit from Vietnam, no one wanted to ever hear anything to remind them of the war…….Until now.

    Concerning Admiral Zumwalt, he was revered by Navy men, both Officers and Enlisted. A no BS type of guy. He was infamous for his “Z-Grams”, which were dispatches from his office to the fleet, recinding strict military regulations so as to allow the wearing of mustaches and beards and the wearing of civilian clothes on and off the Quarterdeck. Regulations that are taken for granted by todays crews.

  4. Reginleif the Valkyrie says:

    I have no trouble believing the stories about Kerry that Howie Carr retells in that NYPost article.

    “Snobbish, elitist attitude[s]” prevail in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. Kerry will do extremely well among rich liberals who don’t understand why people who make less money than they do are fed up with the high taxes. After all, they can afford to pay them, so why can’t we? Must be because we’re “racist,” “lacking compassion,” or — the perennial favorite liberal epithet — “mean-spirited.”

    Last year, one suburb that used to be mostly blue-collar, but has become increasingly affluent in the last few decades, narrowly voted down an override “for the schools” on Proposition 2 1/2, which caps property tax rates. Afterwards, one woman wrote to the local paper, “They say it takes a village to raise a child. Well, I say the village has failed my children.”

    The address she gave is in what may be the nicest area of that suburb: large, lovingly maintained colonials, Victorians, Edwardians, etc. on broad, tree-lined streets that see minimal traffic. When I drove down her street a few months later, I noticed on her house a historical plaque declaring it had been built in 1823. It takes a decent wad of cash to be able to afford a three-story house that’s drawn the notice of the local historical commission. Especially in this part of the country.

    I myself was stunned, then infuriated, when at a small, informal (we’re talking pizza here) dinner party last month, I heard the southern suburbs of Boston, where I grew up, described as being full of “white trash,” and one South Shore town in particular, which is largely blue-collar but has some wealthy beachfront areas, called “a pit.”

    This crowd, all of whom went to one particular private (and notoriously liberal) college that shall not be mentioned, rents apartments in some of the Boston area’s most attractive urban neighborhoods, except for a few who own homes in wealthy suburbs. Among them are people who think it’s not unreasonable to spend $60-$80 on a “good” bottle of wine, regularly go scuba-diving in the Caribbean, and consider local self-described “libertarian/libertine” talk-show host Jay Severin a “Nazi.”

    Of course, in Taxachusetts, anybody to the right of Robert Reich qualifies for that insult.
    Mike Godwin’s brain would explode if he tried to moderate political arguments at your average Cambridge social gathering. This, and the local cost of living, are the two major reasons I intend to flee to New Hampshire this year.

    Carr, I’d like to mention in passing, can be an utter asshole. I’m still fuming at the time last fall he used his talk show to lambaste child-free people, especially women, like myself, as selfish, with a half-dozen local broodsows calling him up to join the hallelujah chorus and simper over their four or five crotchdroppings apiece. (If you’re so selfless, honey, how about foregoing that $1,000-per-whelp tax deduction?)

    However, I’ve found him to be honest, at the very least. While his fellow conservative columnists at the Boston Herald chose to spin the pedophile-priest scandal as the fault of “homosexuals in the seminary” and liberal Catholics, Carr bluntly compared the moralistic severity of the church he grew up in with the atrocities its clergy were committing behind closed doors all the while, and ended that column with a no-confidence vote for the Church.

  5. Achinhibitor says:

    Though Reginleif is quite correct about liberal/affluent snobbishness in Boston, various sorts of snobbishness, elitism, and cliquishness are rife among all classes and types in Boston. It’s like a gigantic junior high school, really. Each particular group holds itself apart from and despises every other group, and advocates that the governments mold their policies for the best interests of their particular group.

  6. Joeri says:

    Hmmm. This editorial is about how one person remembers a 30 year old phone conversation with a man long since dead, as related and interpreted by a journalist, and the only actual quote from that conversation is “We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control”, which could be interpreted lots of ways, even if it was accurate. All the rest is interpretation and hearsay. It might be true, and it might all be bogus. It would most definitely not stand up in a court of law (being hearsay). If you put faith in that, then you might as well put faith in all those who say they never saw Bush during the time he supposedly went AWOL.

    It is a long, long way from there to saying that Kerry loves killing innocents.

  7. Anne Haight says:

    Bush never went AWOL. I’m sorta tired of saying that. There’s no evidence he ever went AWOL or that he failed to fulfill his term of service, and there is lots of evidence that proves he was there and got paid. So if you would be so kind, don’t spread that lie around.

  8. Steve says:

    I love John Kerry. He will be the next president.

  9. naked asian says:

    I have read this article very attentievly, but I have no my own idea about it

  10. Mandy says:

    I don’t understand why Bush wasn’t in Vietnam. Was he just not drafted yet?

  11. SEM says:

    I’m not to fond of Kerry either, however, ANYBODY BUT BUSH.

  12. Anonymous says:

    And at least Kerry WENT to war, do you morons realize that Bush senior was one of the highest officials in the CIA at the time?

    G.W.B. was being protected, so what if Kerry himself was an easier ride due to connections, he still could have gotten killed down there while this other moron stayed away from harm.

  13. Anne Haight says:

    I’m not to fond of Kerry either, however, ANYBODY BUT BUSH.

    Would you mind elaborating on that? I hear people say it a lot but I have yet to hear anything resembling a coherent argument for it.

    Why does it matter that Kerry was in Vietnam and Bush wasn’t? Bush was in the Air National Guard at the time, serving out his term honorably as a fighter pilot (which is a damn difficult job to get — you have to be good at it).

    But I don’t see what bearing it has on the ability to be President of the United States.

  14. Stanley White says:

    Dear Anne Haight,(and most of the rest of you),

    Have any of you heard of ‘hearsay’? Have any of you any idea the difference between opinion and informed opinion? Apparently not, or you could not speak so ignorantly, loosely, absent any understanding about people, human nature, politics, Vietnam or John Kerry. John Kerry did not have any connection to the Kennedy’s, nor was he a rich kid; but he was a bright young man with a sense of obligation and duty. Geo. Bush WAS a rich kid, a spoiled rotten one, drunk, vulgar, loud, wild from Texas. Kerry was a scholar-athelete who then joined the Navy and volunteered for Active Duty at a time when Vietnam was the litmus test of character. That action, at age 22, defines his extraordinary courage and character. Geo. Bush’s action defines his. Bush was, and is, a frat-boy screw-up who could only be a ‘cheerleader’, not even play the game. He pulled strings to AVOID doing his duty and going to Vietnam, ‘protecting’ Alabama and Texas from Communists, while Kerry protected the Mekong Delta. Mr. Cheney with his five deferrments despite being a hawk even then, is worse. That, it should be clear to even the dullest, defines their character; which is to say they have no character.
    Bush has involved us in an unjustified war with terrible consequences because he knows absoloutely nothing about war. He has no judgement or experience because he has no experiences; he was a playboy. John Kerry knows just what war is and what happens in it, because he was in war; he was there. He also knows how important stategic alliances are, since he grew up with a State Department official for a father. Bush’s dad was the CIA director, who’ll’d be teaching an entirely different lesson about secrecy and strategy.
    One knows what he’s doing, the other does not. Guess which one? The answer is too obvious. But I’m sure the American people will be able to figure it out. Like his father’s, Geo W.’s will be a failed one term Presidency. John Kerry will be one of the best Presidents we’ve ever had in the history of the nation. Geo. Bush, on the environment, taxes, and overseas, has been one of the worst.

  15. D. says:

    If Duhbya had gone to war, maybe we could all criticize every detail about his service like we do Kerry’s. An amazing situation we have here, isn’t it? Has anyone heard of Karl Rove? And, why does he spell his name with a K? Very nazi-ish, in my opinion…..

  16. zing says:

    George H W Bush was the ambassador to the UN during the Vietnam war LOL

  17. W says:

    Dear Stanley,
    Get your head out of your ass and open your eyes!!!! Have you ever even thought about how many soldiers were mercilessly tortured and/ or killed by that traitoruos bastard named Kerry!!!
    Why don’t you do a search for the photo of Kerry
    and JFK on the boat. The last thing this country now needs is a liberal, pacifist traitor in the white house. Your also wrong about W and his place in history, when his time is done Reagans
    funeral will look like a 5 year olds tea party!!!

  18. Anne Haight says:


    Oh come on. We don’t have any evidence that Kerry engaged in any kind of widespread torture or gratuitous murder in Vietnam (other than his own statements to Congress concerning the “atrocities” that supposedly all the troops were involved in there).

    I agree, however, that his appeasing and reactionary attitude regarding the war is unacceptable. It will put the US back on the defensive and that is not the way to fight this conflict.

Leave a Reply