Freeper Alert

2004 August 9

Colonel David E. Hackworth is a Vietnam Veteran and respected military professional. He is genuinely bi-partisan and stands above politics. However, that will not cease criticism when Col. Hackworth says something truthful that upsets those who criticize. Col. Hackworth, in addition to Senator John McCain, recently denounced the Swiftboats Vets for Truth as unscruplous politics without foundation of truth.

go see hackworth's site
hackworth on iraq corruption

the freeper argument

the rebuttal

Colonel Hackworth, Cheap shots? You still haven't answered the main question I posed.

There are Navy vets who were there when Mr. Kerry got his medals[1]. They say that he didn't earn them. Period. At least one of the PHs received by Mr. Kerry was said to be a self-inflicted wound when there was no return enemy fire[2]. I didn't know the regs allowed you to get a PH for that.

You and Mr. Kerry both say that he earned his awards.

Upon what do you base your belief in Mr. Kerry while denigrating the vets?[3] His word? You were rather hard-nosed in the investigation of admiral Boorda, but in the case of Mr. Kerry, you appear willing to accept his word alone[4].

I'm happy that you got 8 PHs. I bet you earned them too. I'll bet you that even though your COs didn't sign off on your PHs, they certainly knew about them. I'll bet you that they also signed off on the casualty reports, if they didn't actually write them themselves. BTW, where are the casualty reports that show Mr. Kerry earned his PHs. AFAIK, these have never been made public.

In your article defending Mr. Kerry, you have stated as fact, what is actually merely your opinion[5].

As far as it not being fair to judge his awards, sir[6], it is Mr. Kerry himself who constantly reminds us that he is a Vietnam Vet and war hero, while trying to bury under the rug the fact that he was an anti-war protestor afterwards[7].

It is the Kerry campaign who keeps reminding us of his medals and how valorous he was in obtaining them. If Mr. Kerry feels this is a campaign issue, who am I to say him nay?

Yes, Mr. O'Neill is the point man on the attack against Mr. Kerry here. Does that make his arguments any less valid? Yes, Mr. O'Neill did his best to counter Mr. Kerry on the Dick Cavett show in '71. Does that automatically disqualify him from questioning Mr. Kerry's principles? [8]

And as for not being in a position to judge your honor, sir, what can I do when you diss 250 Vietnam Vets making specific charges against Mr. Kerry and you impugn their honor without properly checking your facts[9]. IOW, you make ad-hominem attacks against them without, in the least, refuting the charges they make against Mr. Kerry. Doesn't sound very honorable or honest to me.

I would have thought, at the very least, that in your defense of Mr. Kerry, you would have called on him to execute his form 180 so as to put to rest the charges against his honor.

It seems to me that if the Kerry campaign has nothing to hide, they would be happy to release their records to the public[10].

As a reporter, it is your job to get as close to the truth as you possibly can[11]. If you do any less, your credibility suffers. I would have expected, in your defense of Mr. Kerry, to call on him to release all of his military records to put any question of his awards to rest.

Instead, you attack those who make these charges without calling Mr. Kerry to do his part to clear up this mess[12]. Pardon me[13], but that doesn't sound very fair nor honest.

While I haven't "walked the walk" on the PH gig, I have served voluntarily in the USN at a time that it was very un PC to do so. But neither have you "walked the walk" in your duty as a reporter. You have not questioned Mr. Kerry on his continual refusal to make his military records public[14]. Especially since Mr. Kerry's military service is such a central part of his campaign theme.

Continue defending him, if you will. That doesn't bother me. But don't trash his detractors with what are little more than ad-hominem attacks. Instead, answer their questions - honestly [15]. And the fact is, right now, you have no idea if Mr. Kerry is telling the truth on this matter or the vets are instead. It is in the power of the Kerry campaign to refute these charges right now. I ask you to call on them to do so by releasing all of Mr. Kerry's military records.

[1] no, they served in Vietnam, but not on the same swiftboat or in the same unit. Mr. John O'Neill served after Kerry was back in the United States. These navy vets did not know or serve in Kerry's unit at the same time Kerry was in Vietnam. Starting of the argument with a misleading statement that essentially says "there are some guys who don't know Kerry who say that he doesn't deserve his medals."

[2] "was said" ... At least one, but maybe more is the implication ... but who said, or what people say this ... . And if they are from persons not present, what is the validity?

Also, an enemy mine blowing up a boat would receive no return fire. How cheap to impugn with the allusion to being wimp.

[3] who is denegrating the vets? I don't recall Hackworth denegrating vets. Or does the writer desire an imaginary moral element in order to boost an already weak argument.

[4] Who is different? the admiral who created and organized the free-fire zones, or Lieutenant Kerry who was following orders, and came forward and gave testimony to Congress (thereby assisting in the investigation). Interesting how this argument tries to say that Hackworth accepts Kerry's word alone, despite the actual historical circumstances.

This argument relies upon a reader's complete or partial ignorance. Anyone with a knowledge of the events between 1965 and 1975 is laughing right now.

[5] Actually, it is the other way around. Hackworth is basing his opinions upon documents of the US military and testimony before Congress. This is a rhetoric device called accuse the opponent with the clothing of what you yourself are doing.

[6] What an arrogant little snot

[7] Sorry. Senator Kerry does speak of this second phase of his Vietnam experience. He did so before the UNITY conference. He does not dwell on the experience, but he does refer to and mention the events. He does speak of his testimony before Congress and his reasons why he gave his testimony to Congress. I wouldn't call that trying to bury the experience under the rug.

[8] No, but what does matter is what you do not state. Here, the formula is if ridiculous-comparison happens then my guy has integrity. Well how about the non-ridiculous. John O'Neill was obtained by Nixon to form a counter group called Vietnam Veterans For a Just Peace because Nixon had a grudge and wanted to get John Kerry for his testimony before the Congress. A promoted press event with Nixon at the White House was meant to promote the organization. The Caveat show was part of the orchestration. However, the arguments put forth on the Caveat show have still not been refuted, and Kerry has been widely regarded to have come off well, but this polemic would have you think the O'Neill's merely being present on the show is enough to permit exculpation for slimy politics. Like I said, it is a hilarious argument.

[9] This line indicates the vindictiveness of the source. The 250 vets were the ones Nixon got O'Neill to round up. If it's a case of numbers, then perhaps it would be better to ask the tens of thousands of Vietnam Vets Against the War which Kerry represented. Notice the writer never gives the reader the opportunity to have a comparison, and also accuses Hackworth of checking facts when the writer has offered none. How insulting.

[10] The records are open to the public, have been opened to the public, and were given freely to the press by Kerry early in 2003 when he was considering his run for the presidency. Absolute lies do not an argument make.

[11] But as an opining fool, there is no need to offer relevant factual based information, only slander, innuendo, and projected mendacity.

[12] what mess? If the mess is Vietnam, don't you think coming home to testify to Congress and getting involved in a real grassroots political group (as opposed to O'Neill's fabricated 250 men) to end the war.

[13] don't you love the audacity of this lying snot, so snug does he feel his lies have obtained the great prize.

[14] Repeating the lie, the snot must hope he can make a conclusion with what he feels to be the most driving insight, but alas the lie is still a lie.

[15] What is a man to do, the liar wants the truthsayer to speak the truth?