VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
The University of Kansas Student Auxiliary
V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars
CONTACT: Magruder44@aol.com - Phone: 785-312-9303
STUDENTS APPEAL TO WORLD MEDIA AS AMERICAN MEDIA ENGAGES IN COVER-UP OF KERRY'S WEAKNESS ON NATIONAL SECURITY
By Leonard Magruder
February 2, 2004
In 1986, Mr. Magruder distributed a request to Congress calling for an investigation into how it came about that a major American military victory in South Vietnam, the Tet Offensive, had been reported to the American people as a defeat. The April–June l986 edition of The National Vietnam Veteran’s Review had a front-page article titled “Professor Calls for Congressional Investigation of Media’s Treatment of the Vietnam War.” As stated in the article, “General Westmoreland said publicly this week, ‘Professor Magruder’s project is an extremely important issue and I support his efforts 100%.’”
The media has always tried to dismisss the charge of having lied about the Tet Offensive as a right-wing fantasy, but in the material distributed to Congress, Mr. Magruder quoted from 21 standard histories and commentaries on the Vietnam War to support his charge. Following are three examples:
“Visitors to the Lyndon Johnson Library are told, “While the President was reading reports from the war that made it clear that the enemy had suffered a severe military loss (Tet), newspaper and TV gave the impression that the loss was ours and that defeat was imminent.” (New York Times News Service)
“It was the massive military defeat of the Viet Cong and NVA that proved the main turning point in the United States resolve. In military terms it was a massive defeat for Giap. However, on the television screens of the United States, Tet turned into a victory for the Communists.” (Vietnam - Ian Beckett)
“The Tet Offensive proved catastrophic to our plans. It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda transformed this debacle into a brilliant victory. The truth was that Tet cost us half our forces.”(Truong Nhu Tang - Mnister of Justice - Viet Cong Provisional Revolutionary Government - The New York Review, Oct. 21, 1982)
The national media robbed the American people of the ability to make critical judgements about their most vital national security interests in a time of war.
And now they are doing it again, in the case of John Kerry, suppressing all mention of his repeated radical leftist actions over the years.
Kerry is the media’s “stealth” candidate. They hope to sneak him in to vindicate their left/liberal version of the Vietnam War.
***
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open and read the Kerry testimony file, described, and linked to, below. The Reader is free. You can install Adobe Acrobat Reader by clicking here.
***
Kerry made a statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Click here for a scanned copy of John Kerry’s full transcribed testimony (courtesy of wwwhumaneventsonline.com), titled Legislative Proposals Relating To The War in Southeast Asia, dated Thursday, April 22, 1971.
Mr. Magruder wrote a four-page article exposing as false every charge Kerry made in his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The article began with the following remarks:
“John Kerry is running for the highest office in the land, for President, in times as perilous as any America has ever faced. So a few days ago I took a second look at his 1971 statement and came away with these questions. Isn't it clear that these statements were heavily influenced by the standard arguments of the anti-war movement at the time, and haven't those arguments been exposed in repeated history books in recent years to have been serious distortions of the truth? Would not someone who had been so wide off the mark in his understanding of that war be dangerous to the nation as a Commander-in-Chief, unless he had changed his mind significantly in later years?
While the media today frequently mentions Senator Kerry's “distinguished career in Vietnam,” and rightly so, it has studiously avoided mentioning his major role in organizing Vietnam Veterans Against the War, or his speech to Congress charging fellow vets with endemic atrocities, or a number of his other leftist-inspired actions over the years.
Just today [February 2, 2004] Carl Leubsdorf of The Dallas Morning News wrote:
“Kerry's many votes against weapons systems are a definite vulnerability. But they may be offset by the fact that his personal record of bravery as a decorated hero of Vietnam gives him credibility on national security issues.”
“There is no necessary connection. Bravery shown in war, shown also by tens of thousands of others, many like Kerry also wounded, is no guarantee of “credibility on national security issues.” What counts in this area is the method one uses to handle conflict, and Kerry has a long history of favoring negotiation, dialogue, compromise or even appeasement, the typical tools of a liberal mentality. These methods are hopeless for dealing with an enemy that has repeatedly told the world, “We will offer no chance for America to come to an agreement with the righteous warriors, no possiblility for compromise, no hope for a treaty, no attempt for solution. The war will be waged until the United States remains a memory.”
It is vitally important that the media ask Senator Kerry if he still stands by the statements he made to Congress in 1971. These statements were significantly at odds with majority American opinion on the war at that time and they clearly parallel the opinions of the campus war protests, which, in the long run, made a major contribution to the failure in South Vietnam and the triumph of tyranny and genocide. That certainly doesn't show “credibility on national security issues.” Who does the media think they are kidding ?
If he disavows his earlier position, that would be a major blow to the lies about Vietnam that are still being perpetuated in media and university to protect those who avoided that fight for freedom. If he does not disavow his earlier position, then we call on him to drop out of the race for the Presidency. There is the whole crux of the matter.
And others have noticed the avoidance of this issue by the media.
Terry Garlock, Vietnam veteran, helicopter pilot, wrote in, “Vietnam Stance Irks Veterans”:
“Kerry broke faith with his brothers when he returned to the States. With the financial aid of Jane Fonda, he led highly visible protests against the war. He wrote one book that many consider to be pro-Hanoi, titled The New Soldier. The cover photo depicts veterans mocking the legendary image of Marines raising the American flag atop Mt. Suribachi in the 1945 battle for Iwo Jima. Now that his ambition is to be president, Kerry reminds the public of his war record daily. But the dark side of his record is not being told.”
Mackubin Thomas Owens, Vietnam veteran, now professor at the Naval War College, in an article Vetting the Vet Record, wrote:
“Kerry invokes his Vietnam service at very turn. But an honest, enterprising reporter should ask him, “Were you lying in 1971 or are you lying now?” If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. But if he is proud of his service today then he should apologize to every veteran of that war for slandering them to advance his political ambitions.”
The Magruder article attacking Kerry's 1971 statement was sent last Friday [January 30, 2004] by e-mail and fax to the national media, the New Hampshire media, organizations such as the Associated Press Managing Editors, National Press Club, and the National Association of Broadcasters, and later to half the reporters at The Kansas City Star, 25 miles down the road, two days before Kerry got there. So far, no reporter has asked Senator Kerry any question regarding any of the issues we raised.
Since that article went out, a number of articles have appeared, most by Vietnam veterans, supporting the charge that Kerry has not changed his mind on these matters over the years.
But even before these, William Hoar, in a article in the Conservative Digest in Feb. 1987, pointed out that Kerry had not changed even by then:
“John Kerry is as far to the left as he was when he appeared on the national scene as a disaffected veteran making excuses for the Viet Cong. Speaking at Yale, Kerry declared that U.S. policy in Vietnam was ‘tantamount to genocide,’ and on Meet the Press asserted that our soldiers were guilty of ‘all kinds of atrocities’ and branded America’s leaders as ‘war criminals.’ Questioned about the involvement of so many Communists in his pro-Hanoi ‘anti-war’ activities, Kerry said that was not ‘relevant.’ The angered wives of American Prisoners of War accused Kerry of using the P.O.W. issue to further his political ambitions. Retired Major General George S. Patton III who commanded troops in Vietnam, became enraged at what was happening and said he had proof in the field that Kerry’s actions had given ‘aid and comfort to the enemy,’ just as had those of Kerry friends, Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda.
Kerry typically termed the Vietnam conflict a “war of the people” fought by “indigenous peasant reformers.”
In this claim it is obvious that Kerry had bought the biggest, most outrageous lie of the campus protests and the leftists who led the anti-war movement. This claim by the anti-war movement that the Viet Cong was an independent South Vietnamese political movement was shown to be a lie in “Summary of Fact,” a report issued in 1987 by Hanoi's Military History Institute. “Following the road set out by the Party Congress, on December 20,1960, the People's Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam was established.” That is, the NFL, or Viet Cong, was revealed by the Summary as having been the creation of Hanoi’s Communist Party. That one sentence destroys the arguments of Kerry and the anti-war movement. Those who supported the war were never confused about this. Kerry never changed his views on how to deal with Communism, seen in the fact that years later, Kerry fronted for the Nicaraguan Communists, and flew to Nicargua to meet with Daniel Ortega.
Here, excerpted, is what another Vietnam veteran, Joe Crecca, wrote recently in an article, Thoughts of a Vietnam POW:
“The rigors and hardships of beng a POW aside, I remember the ‘peace’ marches that were taking place back home in the U.S.
“John F. Kerry was not just one of these demonstrators. He was leading them.
“In the present political arena Kerry has evidently succeeded in gaining the support of some well-meaning but misled Americans. Given his past record, it is just astonishing that he has garnered any support from our nation’s veterans. I hope all will consider their support for Kerry in light of his actions which were so detrimental to our Vietnam combat soldiers, sailors, and airmen, many of whom are not here today to tell you themselves.”
Here is a another example, excerpted from an article, Kerry vs. Veteran Vote, by Chuck Lawrence, Vietnam veteran and author:
“I guess Veterans for Kerry has a nice ring to it. It sounds like it shows solidarity amongst the veteran community. Yet, there is a hugh divide developing and growing related to this issue. Voting for a fellow veteran simply because he is a veteran is not good enough.
“Let's not forget that Kerry's antiwar activities as well of those of others were very destructive to the morale of those troops still serving in Vietnam. Furthermore, under Kerry's leadership, VVAW members dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.
“The conduct by Kerry and his friends played a significant part and role in Vietnam vets being ostracized by our society at large.
“Do we really want a president who organized and led anti-war and anti-American protests and demonstrations under the flag of the enemy we were fighting? He would prefer that his past remain quiet and not be brought forward, like his book, The New Soldier, that he and his group pulled out of print when running for Congress. He wants things to disappear.”
And the national media is helping him make things disappear. The only mention of these problems in the mainstream media was in an article in The Wall Street Journal of Jan. 26, 2004, Conduct Unbecoming, by Stephen Sherman,Vietnam veteran and first lieutenant with the U.S. Army Fifth Special Forces Group (Airborne), 1967-68.
“That Mr. Kerry served at all is a reason for a bond with fellow veterans. That his service earned him a Bronze Star for Valor (“for personal bravery”) and a Silver Star (“for gallantry”) is even more compelling. Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts...joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation, both financed by Jane Fonda. Many veterans believe these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were onstensibly being undertaken. Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as his awards at the Capitol in protest; later he claimed to have thrown away someone else's medals.
“Mr. Kerry hasn't given me reason to trust his judgmemt. As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights.
“The bond between veterans has to be tempered in light of the individual’s record. Just as Mr. Kerry threw away his medals only to claim them back again, Senator Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but took back that vote by voting against funding the result. I can understand that former comrade-in-arms for hugging the man who saved his life, but not the act of choosing him for president out of gratitude.”
A few days later, The Wall Street Journal, in an unusual move, printed all 37 letters they received in response to the above letter. 34 of these letters were decidedly negative. Here, for example, is one of them:
John Freiberger lll – “Returning from Vietnam we somehow coped with all the venmous hate spewed at us because we were in Vietnam. The worst of that...came from the likes of John Kerry and his band.”
Three of the letters were supportive, for example:
John Gauthier - “At least he was there and served with distinction. I think he was entitled to some resentment at the time.”
While this is a small sample, the distribution is so skewed, 34 to 3, that it strongly suggests that if the national media were to tell the American people the truth about Kerry, they would reject him overwhelmingly.
In light of the failure of the American press to tell the American people anything about Kerry's past that has caused so many veterans to complain, we have sent this article out to the media in major cities all over the free world (see www.newslink.com) to warn them of what is really happening in America and the danger they could face because of it. We are urging them to send reporters to America with the courage to raise these issues to help the American people decide on their next president. We will not tolerate another Tet Offensive conspiracy, especially now that Bernard Goldberg, a CBS insider, has explained to us in two books (Arrogance: Rescuing America From the Media Elite and Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News) just how national media bias works.
Said Mr. Magruder, a psychologist, “Psychologists talk about people who are ‘tender-minded’ and those who are ‘tough-minded.’ It is a matter of how they characteristically approach problems and it is a personality trait that remains stable over long periods of time. Bush and the people around him have clearly shown themselves to be tough-minded. They will deal with the problem of terrorism no matter how difficult it becomes. And the time is approaching when they will have to become even more tough-minded as the current policy on terrorism, going after them one by one, is limited. Even Rumsfeld is beginning to recognize that. They must start thinking about a plan for deterrence along the lines of mutually assured destruction ( MAD ) like we had during the Cold War era.
Senator Kerry , with a “tender-minded” approach, trusting to negotiation, dialogue, and compromise to work in a new world of terrorists, deadly religious fanatics, and suicide bombers, plus his history of weakness in dealing with Communism, would certainly fail in the face of such challenges.The upcoming struggle between the two dominant political parties will not, in the final analysis, be over the economy, environment, taxes, education or health care. The titanic clash lining up in 2004 will be about one critical issue—national security. Without a country, the rest is irrelevant.
Go to www.JohnKerry.com. Look up “foreign policy” and “homeland security” under “issues”and see for yourself if Kerry has “credibility on national defense issues.” We see nothing but recycled old ideas and programs, calls for better education, “progressive internationalism,” more security for nuclear stockpiles, and more money for firemen, policemen, and to improve against air and cargo threats. But he refers to an “unseen” enemy, has no views on them, has no plan to defeat them. He doesn't just “lack credibility” on national defense policy. He has no national defense policy.
Its all very sad. For 35 years, Vietnam vets have waited for one of their own to become president. Now that one of them has a shot at it, it turns out his views seem just too out of contact with reality.
I believe that veterans will, once again, put the safety of the nation first. I believe they know that a vote for Kerry would be a vote for national suicide.
This article may be reproduced in any form.
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
Return to Magruder Articles Index
Website Design Courtesy of Annette R. Hall, http://www.i-served.com