Who’s worse — Kerry or the rest of us?

Terry Garlock's picture

Just a few critical days before the recent election, John Kerry spoke these fateful words at Pasadena City College: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Kerry’s remarks were taken as an insult to those serving in our military unless you believe his explanation that it was a botched joke, and in the aftermath our media pursued it like the Keystone cops while Kerry’s fellow Democrats left him like rats from a sinking ship.

The buzz is Kerry’s presidential aspirations might have ended with those brief remarks.

A friend, who knows I oppose Kerry for any office anywhere, asked me how I felt about Kerry’s potentially fatal stumble. I told him I think the whole episode reflects more poorly on our media and the American people than on Kerry himself. He was puzzled, you probably are, too, so I’ll explain.

To explain, I’ll focus on just a few of Kerry’s many antics. Ignore the 2004 arguments over whether Kerry manipulated events to score the medals he brought home from Vietnam. Forget about his double-invisible reverse on throwing his medals over a fence marked “trash” in protest. Disregard the Kansas City meeting Kerry attended in November 1971 in which assassination of U.S. senators was voted on as an anti-war measure; besides, to Kerry’s credit he voted no. Never mind Kerry’s anti-military voting record in the Senate. Let’s focus on just three events.

First, In April 1971 Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chaired by Sen. Fulbright, a politician desperately seeking to discredit the war in Vietnam. Kerry testified about a Jane Fonda-sponsored event called “Winter Soldier” in which men representing themselves as Vietnam veterans told stories of atrocities, “... 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 ...”

Kerry also told the senators that “... war crimes committed in Southeast Asia ... not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command ...”

Kerry’s testimony was not only completely false, he knew it was false because he helped fabricate it. Steve Pitkin of Boca Raton, Fla., was one who testified to atrocities at Winter Soldier, and since then has confessed that he actually didn’t see any atrocities at all in Vietnam, but that John Kerry personally pressed him to lie.

Pitkin revealed that Kerry coached him at Winter Soldier on what war crimes to fabricate – rape, racism, brutality, artillery fire on civilians — and how to say it when the cameras turned on for Kerry to interview him.

The news media and American public bought Kerry’s story because they were sick of the war. After Kerry became a household name from his famous testimony, those households likely never heard the news that several military investigations and efforts by investigative reporters followed up on Kerry’s testimony and found not one single credible atrocity in the Winter Soldier stories.

They also found most of the “veterans” who testified were frauds; some had never been in the military, others had never been in Vietnam, some had been in Vietnam but never in combat. Just a few had actually been in combat in Vietnam but even their atrocity stories evaporated under scrutiny.

Kerry’s entire story on war crimes in Vietnam was a lie, and he used it to launch his political career. He got away with it. More than any other individual, Kerry is responsible for the false negative stereotype of Vietnam veterans as dysfunctional misfits.

Second, later that same year, while still an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve, while our troops were still fighting and dying, Kerry met with the enemy in Paris, apparently to coordinate anti-war activities in the U.S. He betrayed his country this time, and got away with it presumably because nobody had the backbone to prosecute. Jane Fonda had the same good fortune.

The third event is Kerry’s recent gaffe at Pasadena City College. He said something that may have been an unintentional moment of honesty that exposed his long-standing disdain for the military. Or, if you believe his explanation, he clumsily screwed up a joke pointing a finger at President Bush.

Either way, what does it say about our superficial news media and fickle American public that Kerry gets a pass for lying to Congress, smearing a generation of our troops and betraying his country, but has his political hopes dashed by a brief remark that breaks the rules of political correctness?

Substance is irrelevant. Appearance is everything. How sad for all of us.

login to post comments | Terry Garlock's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 8:25am.

We drop huge bombs on a populated city, kill 100,000 and it is to save lives, ours.
Then we get overly concerned about one nutty soldier who kills several villagers out of fear, unnecessarily.
Many, many bad things happened in Viet Nam by soldiers tired of being scared to death and not wanting to die. Same is true in Iraq.

However the facts are, those individual occurrences are small, percentage-wise, to all occurrences of entanglement, if that justifies the whole!

As to John Kerry, he may have, may not have, generated about as many medals as did Ollie North, another war nut. Kery didn't like war, Ollie did.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 8:51am.

If you think that there can be no moral rules that apply in warfare, you should read Thomas Nagel's classic piece, "War and Massacre," which was published just after My Lai.

Here's his thesis: "I wish to argue that certain restrictions are neither arbitrary nor merely conventional, and that their validity does not depend simply on their usefulness. There is, in other words, a moral basis for the rules of war, even though the conventions now officially in force are far from giving it perfect expression."

Here's a link to a full text, though not the best of all possible formats. (A class reading at UC-Davis)

War and Massacre

One striking quote from the piece:

"Once the door is opened to calculations of utility and national interest, the usual speculations about the future of freedom, peace, and economic prosperity can be brought to bear to ease the consciences of those responsible for a certain number of charred babies."


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 1:13pm.

I have seen the war and massacre thing befor. Good for arguments and speeches, but it doesn't solve the problem: can you kill innocents for the greater good, especially our good?
You can, you can't, well maybe, depends, all BS to me.
Same with torturing a helpless person--there is no justification if you are civilized. The information forced is so rare a detriment to more deaths, that it is wrong to do. Use truth serum, etc., if you must know.
Consciences of people have nothing to do with it. If it bothers you to kill someone, that is no better than if it doesn't. Why would it be?
Other words come into play but fit right back in with the egg heads writing explanations: justified, religious, rules, needs, worth it,
calculations, conventional, etc.
Hell, we will all kill if it saves our life!

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 5:17pm.

I deeply suspect that there is much more of substance in Nagel's sort of discussion than can be assessed by saying "All BS to me."

Beyond that, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 6:23pm.

I think he is a dualist. Good and evil God's exist. I suppose that is why he thinks one can do whatever he thinks he is smart enough to decide.
I don't have much use for Psychiatrists nor Tom Cruise's bunch of BS.
Pills have been the thing since electro-shock, lobotomy, and torture was debunked. Words, words, words. Good, in the case of need to kill time, when you don't know what else to do. Especially if they end up saying opposite things over and over in different ways---take your pick. Just change my conditions and pills and leave me alone! I know that doctorial thesis requires argument both ways to try to prove one way, but people don't fit that mold.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 7:25am.

Either you didn't read the piece or you simply did not understand it. Was it all just gibberish to you?

Nagel is not a dualist--not at least in the sense that you have in mind. (One would be hard-pressed to find anyone who is in that sense today.) Where did you get this and why do you say that?

Nor is he a "psychiatrist".

Nor does anything that he says even remotely resemble Tom Cruise's "bunch of BS."

Nor is he "saying opposite things in different ways over and over".

Nor is he "arguing both ways to prove one way".

Nagel is a philosopher and he is arguing for a single position: that there are non-arbitrary and non-conventional moral rules that apply in warfare.

You had implied that there can be no injustice or unfairness in warfare. This is a philosophical position, and one that I think is demonstrably false.

If there are no moral rules that govern warfare, then it makes no sense to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Nor is there any moral difference between necessary and unnecessary force. Terrorize and torture at will--whatever gets the job done. Absolutely ANYTHING goes. The systematic rape by Janjaweed soldiers in the Sudan is thus not an atrocity because, hey, what's an "atrocity"? Al Qaeda is on solid ground in the assertion that people working in the towers are legitimate targets. If the Final Solution proves worthy of its name, then go for it. When Chivington ordered his men to shoot the babies at Sand Creek, he was just doing a thorough job. After all, as he put it that day, "Nits make lice."

Indeed, if "all is fair in war" then it is hard to see what the big stink is over the recent case in which several American soldiers raped a 14-year-old Iraqi girl that they had spotted. They took turns with her, then killed her mother, father, and 5-year-old sister before killing her.

Of course, not everyone agrees with Nagel's conclusions. But it is a seminal work on the topic--one of the few must reads for any thinking person whose attention is turned to the morality of warfare. His conclusions might be resisted by way of argument. But no thinking person dismisses his discussion as "a bunch of BS."

"Words, words, words"? Oh my.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 2:14pm.

What does "in that sense now" mean? This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. The old: the world is flat stuff. No, it isn't now, but it was proven to be once upon a time. And, of course, all of your problems are due to your Mother.
Leaders act on the here and now using history as a guide: word manufacturers can explain anything, any way you want.
I once saw a 43 page essay on women's gloves. To this day, I don't know what the conclusion was.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 2:27pm.

I'm not sure what a "word manufacturer" is, but if your suggestion is that we cannot trust philosophical argumentation, then your position is clearly self-defeating.

For either you can defend that assertion or you cannot. If you cannot, well, then, it is indefensible. If you can, then you'll do so only by means of a--you guessed it--philosophical argument. But then, of course, by your own lights, we can't trust whatever argument you have just offered.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 2:49pm.

Plain spoken words are good. Rambling on through yes and no unendingly quoting hundreds of other word merchants is bad.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 3:47pm.

Me be plain spoken.

Me still not know what "word merchant" mean.

Me no like ramble, too. Me do like argument that have logic. Good argument good. Bad argument bad.

You have NO argument. And you no answer my argument.

You think all long talk no good? Why think? You no read book? You only like sound byte? Some long talk must be to get to bottom. Other people no like get to bottom. Only scratch surface.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 7:46pm.

Someone who makes a living with lots of words. There is a society or two for support for these people. Also, people who intend to confuse or give choices to others by a neverending explanation for a subject.
Hitler, Castro, Mussolini, and others could talk for 6-8 hours while standing. They were always afraid to take a clear stand without having also explained what else could also be true.

Submitted by instantly2 on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 5:12am.

Substance sure seems to be irrelevant to Terry Garlock. Per usual, there is almost no accurate information in this piece. Does he bother to do original research or simply cut and paste from the wingnut blogs?

Steve Pitkin is Garlock’s star witness here. Of course he doesn’t tell us that ol’ Steve had to revise his own recent “testimony” a couple of times. Seems like his first sworn affidavit was so full of false information he had to redo the whole thing.

But little matter, because Pitkin didn’t “testify to atrocities at Winter Soldier” at all, or didn’t Garlock bother to read the transcript? Here it is right here, where you will see Pitkin testifying to poor training and lousy morale in Vietnam – which he has never disputed – and to smoking dope and hearing about Woodstock.

Pitkin Testimony

Garlock then repeats the canard that “several military investigations and efforts by investigative reporters followed up on Kerry’s testimony and found not one single credible atrocity in the Winter Soldier stories.” Wrong, Terry. Or didn’t you read that, for instance, James Henry’s testimony was recently shown to be corroborated more than thirty years ago:

Unknown to Henry, Army investigators pursued his
allegations, tracking down members of his old unit over
the next 3 1/2 years.

Witnesses described the killing of the young boy, the old
man tossed over the cliff, the man used for target practice,
the five unarmed women, the man thrown beneath the
armored personnel carrier and other atrocities.

Their statements also provided vivid corroboration of the
Feb. 8,1968, massacre from men who had observed the day's
events from various vantage points. …

Evidence showed that the massacre did occur, the report said.
The investigation also confirmed all but one of the other
killings that Henry had described. The one exception was
the elderly man thrown off a cliff. Coulson said it could
not be determined whether the victim was alive when soldiers
tossed him. …

The War Crimes Working Group records give no indication that
action was taken against any of the men named in the report.

LA Times

Really, you’d be surprised what you’d find out if you tried reading real newspapers sometime.

Garlock then brings out this chestnut: “They also found most of the ‘veterans’ who testified were frauds; some had never been in the military, others had never been in Vietnam, some had been in Vietnam but never in combat. Just a few had actually been in combat in Vietnam but even their atrocity stories evaporated under scrutiny.”

No, Terry. Despite wingnut bloggers’ secondhand claims to the contrary, not a single man who testified at WSI has been publicly shown to be a fraud. Not a single one.

Oh, and if you’re relying on the favorite faded quote from Guenter Lewy’s book on Vietnam – the quote about the NCIS investigation and report – you should know that not only has not a single other historian ever seen the alleged report, the government can’t find it, and Lewy himself finally had to admit he couldn’t remember if he’d ever even seen it or just been uhm, told about it.

Chicago Tribune
Baltimore Sun (secondary)

Facts seem to be of little import to Mr. Garlock. Appearance is everything. How sad for the readers who have to wash their boots off after wading through this stuff.

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 11:24am.

Garlock has an almost Pavlovian need to denigrate John Kerry.

Rebuttal of Garlock's lies and false charges on the exact same subject from last March

If Terry Garlock's lack of intellectual honesty is indicative of the caliber of officer the United States sent to Vietnam in the 60s, it is small wonder the U.S. lost that war.


Submitted by instantly2 on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 1:00pm.

Without doing any new research. Do you suppose he even bothers to read the comments pointing out his mistakes?

However, I think far from being indicative of the caliber of Vietnam vets, Garlock is an insult to their integrity and an embarrassment to their intelligence.

(PS, that was my post back in March, under a defunct screen name.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.