Kerry's Anti-war Book Riles Former Green Beret
We were sent to Vietnam to kill Communism. But we found instead that we were killing women and children.
- John Kerry
If you believe Ted Sampley, those who fought in the Vietnam War were duty-bound to support the war effort, regardless of their personal feelings. Dissension is, to his way of thinking, treasonous, and because John Kerry became a vocal anti-war figure after his return, he is not worthy to be President.
John Kerry downplayed any threat posed by the communist government of North Vietnam in his 1971 book, "The New Soldier," and instead charged that American soldiers "were killing women and children" and helping to create "a nation of refugees, bomb craters, amputees, orphans, widows, and prostitutes" in Vietnam.
The book, a copy of which CNSNews.com has obtained, is very difficult to find 33 years after it was written. Single copies of the book reportedly are selling for as high as $849.95 on the Internet.
The cover of the book displays long-haired, bearded men carrying an upside-down American flag in an apparent mockery of the famous planting of the American flag on Iwo Jima during World War II.
The book might not mean much if Kerry weren't the front-runner in the race for the Democrats' presidential nomination and fresh off another win this week in the Wisconsin primary.
First of all, we're talking about a book that was published 33 years ago. What possible bearing could the views espoused in Kerry's book have on his credibility and political bonafides?
John Kerry had as much right as anyone to voice his opinions for or against the war in Vietnam. Indeed, his combat experience, and his three Purple Hearts, gave him a credibility and a perspective that few protesters possessed. When last I checked, free speech was still enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
But Kerry's anti-war activism of three decades ago is being attacked by among others, a retired Green Beret, who labels the U.S. senator's behavior upon returning from Vietnam "a Benedict Arnold type of betrayal."....
Ted Sampley, a retired Green Beret and founder of the Web site VietnamVeteransAgainstJohnKerry.com, told CNSNews.com that Kerry's book and his anti-war activism during the early 1970s represented nothing less than "a Benedict Arnold type of betrayal."
Sampley, a Vietnam veteran and publisher of the U.S. Veteran Dispatch, said "the communists used [Kerry's and his group's allegations] and gained great propaganda value out of that."
So how does Kerry's vocal opposition to the war qualify as betrayal? If he was talking about his own experience and his observations, as well as perhaps even discussing the experiences of his comrades-in-arms, how does that qualify as dishonest or treasonous?
In Sampley's world, anything less than blind obedience and unquestioning fealty seems to pass for betrayal.
But Sampley refutes Kerry's charges of widespread atrocities. "Many of the people who made those [atrocity] allegations were not even Vietnam veterans," Sampley said.
"From my experience of two combat tours in Vietnam, I never witnessed anything like [Kerry] described anywhere, and if I had, I would not have allowed it to happen," Sampley said. "Most American soldiers are really offended [by Kerry's allegations], because everyone would not have behaved like that, and it was a lie."
So Sampley is willing to take his own experience as an indication of the Vietnam experience in it's entirety? First of all, Kerry has never stated or even intimated that "everyone acted like that". American soldiers were, as a group, not guilty of atrocities. That is not to say, however, that there were not isolated incidences of atrocities being committed (My Lai?). War, being the violent, deadly activity it is, breeds atrocity. Just because Sampley didn't witness any atrocities does not mean they didn't take place.
No, the real problem here is that Sampley still seems blinded by the "we had to be there to fight the Communist menace" argument. This argument was hardly convincing in 1971, and the passage of time certainly hasn't changed that reality. If Ted Sampley doesn't support John Kerry, that is his choice and his option. Just spare us the self-righteous slander and character assassination.
