Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

My Letter To The Rnc

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The following is a copy of the letter I sent to the RNC email addresses provided by Dr. Hurd on his website:


According to Fox News, President Bush is ahead in the polls for the first time since the primaries. Fox credits the raise in the polls to the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' revelations about Kerry's false war medals and testimony against US marines in 1970. Yet for some reason President Bush is threatening to use legal force to shut down the free speech of the Swift Boat Veterans.

This controversy highlights a discrepancy between the supporters of the President, and his political adivisors views on his re-election campaign. The best money on his campaign is his value as a wartime leader defending against terrorism. The American people have made Donald Rumsfeld's biography a bestseller, and shown a willingness to support the War against Terrorism. However, the president keeps highlighting a Christian agenda as the convention approaches.

I am writing this in hopes that there are other Republicans who are concerned about the election strategy that President Bush is using. I am hoping to see speeches at the Republican Convention highlighting the victory in Iraq, and most importantly the need to continue our vigilance against Iran and WMD. I am also hoping that President Bush will allow Viet Nam veterans to speak out against John Kerry. I am not interested in hearing the President's views on God or marriage.

I want to see a Republican convention that tells me how the President is going to protect me against militant Islam. I want to see Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condaleeza Rice. I want foreign policy by the Goldwater Institute and Ayn Rand. I hope the president appreciates the veterans that are spreading the truth about John Kerry's views of the American military.

Consider the words of TIA columnist Jack Wakeland as he writes about the importance of the Swift Boat controversy:


"The men of John O'Neill's Swift Boat Veterans for Truth got pissed off, got organized, and got into the presidential campaign because John Kerry ran for his Party's nomination and is running for president as a "war hero."

Mr. Kerry was not much of a war hero. He was no Audie Murphy, no Alvin York. He was a regular guy who simply fought with the rest of them, doing his job like the rest of them...sort of.... well... actually... not really.

It turns out that Lt. Kerry was an irritatingly self-promoting medal hunter (all wars have them). And when he had enough medals he bugged out -- after only 4 of the normal 12 months of combat duty -- using the long-established rule that three purple hearts earns you the right to opt out of combat.

At least two of his purple hearts were fraudulent.

In a reference to the fact that Lt. Kerry frequently had people take pictures of him with his movie camera when he was off duty, some of the sailors on the boats joked that John Kerry left as soon as he had enough footage to run for office.

When John Kerry got back to the United States, he jumped into the anti-war campaign -- choosing to become the top spokesman of one of the New Left's anti-American groups, Vietnam Veterans against the War.

This is where Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s other argument comes in -– their real argument; the argument that is not ‘a personal attack;’ the argument that motivates all of their arguments with John Kerry; the argument the Left-of-Center press does not want to cover.

The VVAW's argument against the war was that it was a gigantic crime against the people of Vietnam.

They asserted that America had for decades trumped up false ideological charges against communism -– claiming that it was a homicidal ideology that was so evil that it had to be met with armed force –- and then attempted to prove the charge by sending the U.S. Armed Forces out to meet a communist movement…in Vietnam.

However, according to VVAW spokesman, John Kerry, when the American troops got to Vietnam they realized that what had been fearfully, jingoisticly labeled ‘communism’ was actually, “an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever.” (John Kerry’s April 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)

John Kerry went on to explain that issues of liberty and tyranny were meaningless in a place like Vietnam, “[W]e found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from. We found most people didn’t even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart.”

The centerpiece of John Kerry’s Senate testimony, was that American soldiers were committing atrocities –- war crimes -– and that the crimes were, “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

John Kerry then went on to use words that -– 33 years later –- he would say were “honest but…a little bit over the top.” He summarized the findings of the VVAW’s “Winter Soldier Investigation,” a show trial in which over one hundred men claiming to be Vietnam Veterans -– at least one of whom wore what appeared to be a necklace of human ears –- tearfully admitted horrendous crimes and atrocities to a New Left panel of judges:

“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.”

Coming from a man who had only seen innocent civilian die as the result of the speed and confusion of combat, John Kerry’s words were not honest.

Years later, B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley demonstrated in their book, _ Stolen Valor_, that nearly every single war-crime claim during the Vietnam War was false. Armed forces records showed that most of the ‘perpetrators’ never saw combat, and the ones that did, weren’t deployed at the places and times of their ‘crimes.’

Because of all the attention -– and the VA disability checks for ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ –- paid to atrocity claimants, false claims of war crimes were common. A war that America was taught to be ashamed of, became the first war from which men returned home to tell ‘war stories,’ not to fake heroism and valor, but to fake criminality and perversion.

The anti-Kerry campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is not muddying the water with mere personal attacks. They have go hold of the essence of the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate –- a man who want’s to be the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces while the nation is at war.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have demonstrated the whole reason why John Kerry is running as a war hero. It is a militant evasion; an attempt to pre-empt the truth that during a shooting war with international communism, he worked to undermine America’s moral legitimacy and self-confidence.

Does it matter, 33 years later, that John Kerry was once the front man for a radical anti-American agenda?


It matters because the agenda for which John Kerry fought succeeded.

One of the reasons why it succeeded was because, at a key moment, the 27-year-old former lieutenant put a credible face on incredible claims by the New Left that that American soldiers routinely committed war crimes and, by implication, that the entire Vietnam War was a war crime.

Once these unwarranted claims became credible (in a political culture poisoned by altruism), conventional second-handed politicians -– from the Old Left and the Old Right -– became very reluctant to use American military force ever again. They were terrified that any small military misstep might, once again, subject America to accusations that it is morally debased.

False claims of widespread American atrocities, false claims that communism is not a mortal danger to mankind, and conventional politicians who are sufficiently second-handed that their confidence in America’s unique morally upright standing in the world can be easily shaken -– these are the three legs of the Vietnam Syndrome.

The Vietnam Syndrome was a debilitating form of American national self-doubt that prevented any use of the armed forces for national defense anywhere for over a decade and prevented the United States from going to war for any reason until after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The moral-political-military self-doubt of the Vietnam Syndrome produced two extraordinary craven acts:

After the American withdrawal from South Vietnam, Congress made certain that there could be no re-insertion of American troops to assist the South ever again. They immediately cut off all military aid and placidly watched while too many terrified Vietnamese tried to claw their way onboard too few helicopters to get out before a reign of terror fell on Saigon.

After Iranian ‘students’ invaded the American Embassy in Tehran – sovereign American soil that was not defended because the Marine guards were not issued live ammunition – and took its diplomatic staff hostage, the President of the United States chatted away on television for 444 days…and did absolutely nothing. When he left office President Carter had achieved the goal proudly articulated for his presidency in his second State of the Union address, “I’m grateful that in the past year, as in the year before, no American has died in combat anywhere in the world.”

The Vietnam Syndrome, unfortunately, still lurks under the surface of the American political culture.

Over the past year, America has begun laboring under self-doubts about the use of military force in the Islamic World. Here and there throughout the political system, every aspect of the Vietnam Syndrome is threatening to re-surface regarding the war in Iraq.

The first sign that the Left’s opposition to American self-defense was going to re-surface was when, one week into the invasion of Iraq, the forces halted on the ground. Leftist reporters and politicians, re-enforced by a cadre of retired generals, immediately descended on the White House and the Pentagon.

‘Was the force overextended? Was this the beginning of the unraveling of the whole invasion? Shouldn’t the Armed forces be more cautious? Shouldn’t they take a defensive posture?’

Two weeks later Baghdad was liberated, Saddam Hussein’s regime was gone. The disloyal Left shut up…for a while.

This spring the Left saw their first clear opportunity to invoke the Vietnam Syndrome and stop the war. They were so horrified by the photographs of Iraqi prisoners being sexually humiliated in the Abu Griab prison they nearly danced in the street. It wasn’t the “Winter Soldier Investigation,” but it would do.

When Sunni and Shi’ite militias rose up in Falluja, Najaf, and other cities across Iraq the disloyal opposition here in America whispered so loudly among themselves, the rest of us could hear it. ‘Was this an Islamic Tet?’ they asked worried expressions on their faces, while trying to suppress a smile. ‘What about that policy of no exit strategy, now?!’ was a question they had the urge to throw in the President’s face.

‘Exit strategy’ is, of course, another word -- the Left's word -- for retreat.

The civil war that began inside America during the Vietnam War has not ended. American’s are still divided over whether or not their nation should be defended -– whether or not it is _worthy_ of being defended –- against foreign aggression.

In this the deepest public debate of the election season, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are showing us exactly what we need the most to see. They are unmasking John Kerry as the ultimate war time anti-hero; the last man we want to have in charge of our national security at the moment our nation has begun to waiver in its commitment to fight Islamism."

-- Jack Wakeland

(Jack Wakeland is a columnist for the Intellectual Activist.)


RNC official, Thank you for reading my letter of concern,

Carl Snyder

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Mr. Kerry was not much of a war hero.  ...

At least two of his purple hearts were fraudulent. ...

-- Jack Wakeland


RNC official, Thank you for reading my letter of concern,

Carl Snyder

What is the evidence proving (as a possibility, probability, or certainty?) that at least two of Senator Kerry's purple-heart awards were falsely given to him?

What I am looking for is an objective source, that is, one that documents claims about facts and draws conclusions logically and fully from those verfiable facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can recollect one of those stories off the top of my head. Kerry was out on routine patrol (he volunteered for it) with two other soldiers. During the course of the patrol they encountered a group of Vietcong on the coast and proceeded to fire at them. In the confusion and panic Kerry misfired a Grenade Launcher, launching a grenade onto a bed of rocks near his swift boat (as deduced by the doctor who treated him, after his own research). A 2cm piece of shrapnel from his own grenade was embedded in his arm.

The doctor who cared for Kerry recounts treating the 'war injury' with a band-aid and some antiseptic after removing the 2cm piece of shrapnel. Kerry's commander recounts that he adamantly dismissed Kerry's request for a purple heart nomination. The soldiers aboard the craft could not surely say if in fact they did encounter enemy fire. Later Kerry's commander, during the incident, could not understand how Kerry got his purple heart.

The rest is speculation as to how Kerry received the medal. The most likely answer is that Kerry went around (or beneath as snakes often do) his commander and nominated himself in what I am sure was a glowing recount of his own heroism.

However, could anyone verify the specifics of this story, as I'm not quite sure to the exact details but I am fairly confident that this is an accurate recount of the available information concerning this incident. There is an excerpt of this information in .pdf format but I can't remember where I originally found it. But both the doctor and the commander have validated their testimonies in the document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the signifigance of this issue not only partains to his character and integrity, rather there is also an issue of legality involved. Kerry opted out of his Vietnam service after four months only becuase his 4 purple hearts allowed him too, a technicality of sorts. If any one of those medals were to be found that without a doubt they were fradulent he could quite possibly be pinned as an illegal deserter (or whatever term the military commonly uses in this instance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can recollect one of those stories off the top of my head. Kerry was ...

The rest is speculation as to how Kerry received the medal. ...

However, could anyone verify the specifics of this story, as I'm not quite sure to the exact details ...

Elsewhere (I am losing track of the many threads!) Jack Wakeland referred me to www.swiftvets.com, where if you find the right buttons you will get to the story you mentioned.

I have initially examined that information. It does not convince me with either certainty or probability that he obtained his first purple heart through fraud. The 30 year old testimony (there is no documentation, thus weakening the case) does raise suspicions and does invite further investigation. Apparently, if I have understood the situation correctly, some appropriate documents are missing and others have not been released by Kerry. That too raises suspicions but does not prove fraud.

As Objectivists we should set the highest standards for proof. Just because we "like" the conclusions of supposed allies -- here, conservatives -- does not mean their conclusions are objective (that is, logically drawn from the facts of reality, in full context, without contradiction).

The issue here is historical. No objective historian would abandon his high standards of evidence to say, conclusively, that John Kerry obtained his first Purple Heart award through fraud. But he would say, there are a lot of unanswered questions here, and we should ask Senator Kerry for full disclosure of his records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

I just wish this whole ordeal was better documented. It seems extremely hard to validate sources. I have phone transcripts, recounts, supposed medical record summaries (all mainly from blogs), none of which I would feel comfortable posting on these boards as facts. The fact that the bulk of the media coverage is from independent bloggers, and some in-depth fox news bits, seems to allude to a curiously strong partisanship in the media.

The only true measure of these allegations as of now is how the Kerry campaign reacts. So far all they have done as of yet is sidestepped the specifics and fall back on an ill-conceived republican party conspiracy theory.

Perhaps the worst part of this whole ordeal is that it detracts from the very factual and very telling exploits of Kerry during his initial post-war political years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...