Thursday, April 13, 2006

Call To Arms

There comes a time when like minded people need to stand up for what they believe is right. America is fighting today to battle Islamic extremism whose very beliefs threaten our way of life. Freedom of speech is under attack and if we hold it to be of importance in this great country of ours we need to fight back against those who wish it to be taken from us. I mentioned in my post “Advice for Soldiers” about C.S. Lewis’ book The Abolition of Man and how in that book Lewis writes about objective values. He writes further about Communists who wish to dictate to the world what they can and can't believe. The Communist leaders wanted to do away with God and in his stead place themselves as the new gods able to control the masses. Well today Islamofacists want to do the same thing. They want to dictate to the world exactly what they believe Allah wants us to do. They want to take away freedom of speech and in its place put Sharia (Islamic law).

Here in America something similar is going on albeit in different regards. I am thinking specifically about John Kerry and his recent creation of a “legal trust fund” to handle the costs associated with his lawsuits against the group known as the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. Instead of this fund being purely defensive the sense that I get is that Kerry is using this fund as a preemptive attack on his enemies. Kerry's activities are actually a stealth war against those vietnam vets who have called him to account for his many lies over the years disparaging honorable men, which, if the truth be known, is a Machiavellian move to eliminate a thorn in his side which torpedoed his presidential campaign. Basically he is a bitter loser. Here is an excerpt from an article on the SV&PFT website:


WASHINGTON,D.C.-- "Vietnam veterans will not be intimidated by the likes of John Kerry, " retired Air Force Col. George “Bud” Day said today, responding to news the Massachusetts Senator had created a legal defense trust fund to pay his on-going court battles against a group of highly decorated Vietnam veterans. "No matter how much money Kerry raises he can't buy his way out or hide his disgraceful betrayal of those brave veterans who gave their all in the service of America."

Col. Day added: "I'm sure he (Sen. Kerry) has many rich, veteran-hating friends. Maybe Hanoi Jane (Fonda) will pick up his legal bills. But, he's not exactly penniless. Why one of the wealthiest men in the Senate would expect others to pay his lawyers and use questionable Senate privileges against veterans he's wronged is shameful. Like everything about this character, it's phony, deceitful, and a sham."

Col. Day is the Chairman of the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), a group of Vietnam combat veterans, primarily former POWs, who sued Sen. Kerry last year for "conspiracy and defamation" in Philadelphia Federal Court. Col. Day is the most decorated Air Force veteran alive, a Medal of Honor recipient, a veteran of three wars and a former POW held captive by Vietnamese Communists for over five years.
The rest of the article can be found at

The Swift Vets and POWs for Truth have to defend themselves in court for speaking the truth about John Kerry during the 2004 election. As they say on their website they did not ask for this fight back in 2004 or do they want it now. They are doing what they believe is the right thing to do. They are clearing the names of the Vietnam vets who John Kerry has defamed ever since he got back from his 4 month “tour” in Vietnam.

Please support these guys in their battle against Kerry. Support them for standing up and speaking the truth. Support them for exercising their right of freedom of speech. Support them for continuing to love their country enough to fight the lies and innuendoes that continue to this day to hinder the efforts of America's fighting men and women. Take action now because if we don’t do something now it will be too late. Visit their website and donate to their cause and then tell everyone you know about it.

I was not contacted by anyone at The Swift Vets and POWs for Truth to write this. I am doing so on my own accord because I believe it is the right thing to do. There will be more to come on this topic soon.



The Swift Boat Vet's I believe are the only political cause I've ever actually sent money to in my life. I read their book back in 2004 when it came out, and it makes a pretty convincing and damning case that nearly all of John Kerry's "heroics" in Vietnam were a fraud. It'd be pretty hard to take the opinion of a weasely senator over that of Colonel Bud Day. The only way Kerry can really prove otherwise is to release his full medical records, which of course he still refuses to do. (Even though he claimed he would over a year ago.)

But I never really needed any extra incentive to distrust this man. Until he apologizes for what he did in 1971, he will receive no quarter from the likes of me. Even then, it's probably not a forgivable offense.

He discredited himself beyond repair quite a long time ago. Him and his fellow senator. I'll never understand the voters of Massachusetts. They must all be on crack.

Gypsy said...

Couldn't agree with Buck Sargent more, why the people of MA continue to vote for Kerry and Kennedy is beyond my understanding.

I too read the SBV's book when it came out, the lies and distortion told by Kerry made me sick. For pete's sake the guy can't even salute properly. (Remember his "reporting for duty" comment?) He won't release his records because he has a lot to hide. If he didn't...well you get the idea.

I'm glad you blogged about this t.f., and brought it to light. As for Kerry and his legal fund...well...his wife is worth what...a gazillion dollars? Let her pay his darned bills.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Sgt. Boggs for having the conviction and courage to tell the truth. You are an inspiration to others of us who know the truth and do very little with it. You are a leader. It is strange indeed that the likes of you and Buck Sargent, already giving your all to keep us free from the enemny you so aptly described, are also rallying us civilians to stand up at home and face the enemy within. There is no time to sit idly by if we want to have any chance at all to recover from the damage done within our country by the likes of Kerry and his ilk. Thank you for ALL that you are doing.
Your appreciative and responsive readers, A&N

Courtney said...

Wow. Kerry is ridiculous. I will definitely spread the word! I just tried to give them money and it said "Thank you for your support. We are no longer accepting contributions." Is their another way to support them? I am searching for their book on

Great post!

Courtney said...

Nevermind- I went to the right website and it let me contribute!

the dude said...

Chuck Norris should roundhouse kick John Kerry in the face! Then we can give him a truly deserved purple heart.

tfdad said...

The website you want for donation purposes is (vietnam veterans legacy foundation). Even if you're not sure about contributing, go to their website and click 'donation' to see their 6 minute video explaining who they are and why they must fight.

I can think of a lot of people I'd rather piss off than these men. I hope they all get the exquisite pleasure I will, to see this fool hoisted further up his frickin' petard. Who needs cable when life gives you Shakespeare in realtime?

Anonymous said...

Did someone say Shakespeare??

Sigh no more
Boggsy Sigh no more
Liberals were deceivers ever
One foot in mouth and one on shore
To one thing constant - - never
So sigh not so
To Kerry- - go blow
And be you strong our Army
Converting all your sounds of woe
Into hey nonny nonny!

Guess Who?
Your number one fans

Brian Coughlan said...

I found this contribution pretty disappointing. The Swift Boat Vet's, have been throughly discredited and exposed as a republican funded front to smear Kerry.

Exposed to such a degree in fact that the term "swift boating" has become synomous with disingenous and deceptive smear campaigns.

Indeed, Senator John McCain roundly condemned the swift boaters and their ads.

That they now have to answer for that in court, seems fair enough. After all their campaign, and egregious and personalised attack, may have swung a presidential election.

If they are telling the truth that will come out, if not, then they should be held to account.

Below is the most comprehensive and balanced source of information on the subject.

Brian Coughlan said...

This is absolutely not balanced! However, it is heartfelt and compelling.

tfdad said...

Brian, Let's hear you say "I've been smoked out (cough, cough)". Thoroughly discredited? Why, because your precious, infallible Wikipedia doesn't deal with the fact that the MSM carried water for the Dems by hypocritically and systematically ignoring & besmirching the testimony of 200+ of the finest men that exist in our country today? If one tenth of that number that served with Bush had made the same claims about him, he would have been run out of office with Republicans leading the pack.

One of the Ten Commandments (#9) isn't 'Thou shalt not lie', its "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor". On the judgment day (what does Wikipedia tell you about that?) I'll stand with the Swifties and you stand with Kerry. Deal?

Brian Coughlan said...

"Why, because your precious, infallible Wikipedia doesn't deal with the fact that the MSM carried water for the Dems by hypocritically and systematically ignoring & besmirching the testimony of 200+ of the finest men that exist in our country today?"

I don't consider wikipedia infallible, however it carries a wide spectrum of pro and against articles. On balance though, the scales seem to tip against the swift boaters.

I guess though, your comment is a sort of admission that these guys got a savaging by the media?

It will be interesting to see if the same thing happens in the courts.

I'm just saying that every story has two sides, it's important to be exposed to both to make an informed decision. Boggs article, and your comments appear to completely ignore that reality.

This is another example of the US dissolving into two groups, both embracing completely opposite realites.

In republican world, Kerry is a traitorous coward.

In democrat world, an honorable decorated veteran.

Both can't be right.

As regards the commandments, what about "thou shalt not kill?". I don't recall a provision for self defence, preemptive action or war.

Gotta watch those commandments ... they can bite yah.

Praguetwin said...


I agree with you that Kerry is a phony. My test for politicians is how much they seem believable.

Watching Kerry in the debates gave me everything I needed to know about Kerry. If someone wants to vote for the guy after that performance, God help him.

As much as I wanted someone to replace Bush (mostly because of the shakey credentials and poor performance of his cabinet), I just couldn't bring myself to vote for the guy.

He probably is a phoney. I don't doubt he was thinking about his future political life while he was still out on the boat, which is unacceptable. I don't doubt he falsified statements. And if he did, and this can be proven, he should be held accountable. I agree with Buck Sargent that he should release his medical records, and from what I know of the man, he probably never will.

However, some of the statements made by the Swift Boat Vets are very serious, and if these should prove to be false, they should be dealt with in kind.

In short, some of them are possibly just as disingenuous as Kerry seems to be.

Niether of us were there, and therefore have no way of knowing. It is all heresay as far as I'm concerned. If people want to throw their money away at Kerry or at the Swiift Vets so we can have a huge trial over "He said, he said," that is their choice. I just don't see how anyone can be so sure one way or the other. We are talking about 35 years ago here, after all. Don't we have better things to worry about?

People like to pick sides, and discredit the other no matter what the facts are. I'd love to know what really happened, but I doubt we ever will.

Brian and TF, You guys should pick sides. Make a bet. It will be fun.

I think Brian is justified in using his " precious, infallible Wikipedia." I can't think of a less corrupted source of information currently. You can actually get in and read the debate between the writers on controversial subjects. The debate how to cover Sadr is particularly demonstrative.


Was it you who said, "I only know enough about Wikipedia to not trust it?"

Could you perhaps suggest a more reliable sort of online encyclopedia?

Anyway, Boggs, I read regularly and still like what you are doing. You have a clear voice and that is a rare commodity these days.

Keep up the good work.

the dude said...

I don’t usually chime in here because I’ve heard it said, “Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics, even if you win you’re still retarded.” A little harsh but funny nonetheless. But every once in a while someone yanks my crank and I can't resist. So here I go.

Encyclopedia Britannica, is the one of the most reliable sources out there. They ask only leading scholars to write for them. With Wikipedia anyone can write, though it is filtered that doesn't mean it is trust worthy. Case in point, my friend just entered an article on Wikipedia on green design and only recently has he shown interest in the cause. I highly doubt he has any credibility on the topic and in fact he to would agree. And just so that it’s noted, Wikipedia’s slogan is: “The free encyclopedia anyone can edit.” I also find it quite strange that the original author of the entry is nowhere to be found. If you want an impressive works cited on anything, it’s not to hard to spend a few hours on the net and come up with the same list that this author has. I’m not saying that is what was done, but it’s just a statement of fact.

Next comment:

Brain said, “As regards the commandments, what about "thou shalt not kill?". I don't recall a provision for self defence, preemptive action or war.
Gotta watch those commandments ... they can bite yah.”

Brian: Do you really want to open the "thou shall not kill" can of worms? Have you read the Old Testament at all? If you have you would about read about the many times in which God commanded his people to go to war. In war, people are killed. If you want to use the words from the Bible then you must understand what they mean, not just a literal translation from the one verse you chose to use, but a contextual understanding of any and all verses, which correlate with it. After all the word “kill” is not in that verse, it is in fact “Thou shall not murder.” Those two words mean two entirely different things. If you don’t like the Bible then here are Webster’s definitions:

Kill- To put to death. To deprive of life. To put and end to.
Murder- The unlawful killing of one human being by another. (i.e; Cain and Able)

Here is a bit of context for you:
Ecc. 3:3 “There is a time…to kill and a time to heal,”
1 Sam 15:18 “…Go and completely destroy the Amalekites…”
Ps 144:1 “Praise be to the Lord…who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.”
Rev. 19:11 “With justice he judges and makes war.”

This is a response to you and all those who have “Who would Jesus Bomb” bumper stickers.

Anonymous said...

This is an important topic, Sgt. Boggs because it is one example of what is happening in our Country politically and of the ilk of some who want to get elected and run our country and determine our fate. It is possible to know the truth even if you weren't there. Get real!! I wasn't around when my house was built 100 years ago but I know they did it, and how good a job they did because I live here and see the fruits of their work. I have seen Kerry's fruit with my own eyes and it is rotten. If you read on in the Bible God describes the difference in murder, self defense, accidentally killing, war and more. But then some love to pick and choose instead of getting the whole story - -something they proclaim they do but are actually remiss at. False wittness is false wittness. Period. It is true when two stories are diametrically oppossed someone is not telling the truth or maybe nobody is telling the truth but never are both telling the truth. At that point we can bring in other facts and observations and see which way the scale swings. Get some common sense and stop being so balanced that you refuse to make a decision. We better start deciding where we stand, which side we are on if you will, or the middle of the fencers will take us all down. Great debate Boggs. You do seem contriversatial! But then the truth always is - - -isn't it. TFDad. Look what you started! Is your wife holding you back? We love this Blogg site and all who write. Thank God for freedom of speech!!!!!

Brian Coughlan said...

the dude. A response.

Wikipedia is exactly as you describe, but that is it's genius, not it's failing. As another poster noted, not only is the information posted, but the entire argument between the many parties contributing is also posted.

Anything remotely controversial is picked over in painstaking detail by many clever people. What eventually emerges is generally excruciatingly balanced.

No printed encyclopedia can possibly compete either in scope, content, speed or detail. Printed matter is outdated, even before it's printed.

As regards the Bible, there are certainly bits of it that are laudable but in balance, I'm with Thomas Paine when he says in "The Age of Reason":

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

We scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible. In the anonymous publications, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a great deal of elevated sentiment reverentially expressed of the power and benignity of the Almighty; but they stand on no higher rank than many other compositions on similar subjects, as well before that time as since.

The Proverbs which are said to be Solomon's, though most probably a collection, (because they discover a knowledge of life, which his situation excluded him from knowing) are an instructive table of ethics. They are inferior in keenness to the proverbs of the Spaniards, and not more wise and oeconomical than those of the American Franklin.


Brian Coughlin,

John Kerry was in Vietnam for three months out of a yearlong tour (a fourth month was spent just offshore in preparation). He got the three purple hearts he needed to invocate an obscure DoD rule at the time that allowed him to forego the remainder of his deployment. This man was an officer, a leader of sailors, yet he absolves himself of his command and his responsibility (and let's not forget, this man was NOT drafted), to run away from the war after having served barely a third of his tour. None of his injuries were serious, none required even a single day of hospitalization, and all were of the variety that my fellow soldiers shrug off and come right back to duty from. And that's based on his own descriptions of them, not anyone else's. I won't get into the details of his medals, but they're highly suspect just based on the citations alone. Medal inflation across the military was a problem back then and it's still a problem today. They're handing out awards like candy over here.

John O'Neill (the primary author of the Swift Boat Vet's book) was the officer that took command of Mr. Kerry's boat when he left. Believe me, if our LT left and a new one came in, that guy would learn everything he ever wanted to know about his predecessor, and then some. Especially if he was a leader of Kerry's caliber.

Let it be known that Mr. O'Neill more than completed his full tour of duty. Kerry's authorized biography is incredulously called "Tour of Duty", and the man never even made it through half of it. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

The only reason any of his history even got brought up is because Candidate Kerry sought to make it the centerpiece of his campaign. If you're are going to run on a platform of military heroism as your sole qualification, don't be surprised when people who know otherwise call you on it.

And citing John McCain for anything other than self-serving political positioning is a waste of time. The man is ecumenical on such matters because he wants to run for president and doesn't want to turn off lefty fence sitters. Being an American hero doesn't give him a lifetime pass on integrity. It's something you have to continually earn.

And saying that the media discredited the Swift Boaters is laughable. They don't have the credibility anymore to discredit anyone. They coined that phrase themselves in a vain attempt, but all they were doing was preaching to their own choir. The more blowhards like Chris Matthews talk it up, the more it's clear they doth protest too much.

If you'd actually read the Swift Boat book (which I'm sure you haven't and won't), they give a lot more background to Jim Rassmann's account than he was able to know, considering he was underwater at the time. Not exactly the best vantage point for eyewitness testimony.

But this is neither here nor there. The bottom line is that nothing can erase the fact that John Kerry committed slanderous offenses on the Senate floor in 1971 that border on treason. He lied about and stabbed in the back every single person he served with (however briefly) and it is something that is completely unforgivable. Read it for yourself:

All of his "witnesses" turned out to be complete frauds. Some never served in Vietnam, and others were never even in the military. But he took them for their word over that of his own comrades.

I once saw a replay of a debate on the Dick Cavett show between Kerry and Mr. O'Neill back in that era, and I must say O'Neill cleaned his clock. Made him look as foolish and arrogant as he really is.

You know, this is what I hate most about liberals. They force you to fight these same tired old battles over and over and over. Kerry lost because a majority of Americans didn't believe or trust him. That's the bottom line.

tfdad said...

Thanks for you contribution Buck Sargent. (I, too, was a buck sargent many years ago. For 3 solid years I single-handedly kept the Viet Cong from overrunning Beale AFB, CA, using little more than my volt-ohmmeter and needle-nose pliers.)

Brian, and our passive-aggressive buddy Praguetwin (who makes me want to find my copy of David Copperfield to reread all the Uriah Heep chapters) don't want the world to contain good guys and bad guys. That might suggest there's a moral order to the universe. And so they want to make the world the way they want it to be by repeating the necessary mantras- Bush lied people died, No blood for oil, the Swift Boat Vets have been thoroughly discredited, Rumsfeld must go (chickenhawk indeed, the man was an instructor of instructors of Naval pilots) etc, etc, ad frickin infinitum.

If words had no power, none of this chatter would matter. But they do, and only a fool at this point in the history of the world ignores them. You guys over there are doing an incredible job, which will one day be understood by most reasonably intelligent, non-politically blinded folks. But as much as you've accomplished, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it will all come to naught the day the lies about America kill off the will to do the necessary task of draining the malarial swamp we call the middle east. That is, the political will. The will of our troops, was, is and never shall be the issue.

This is the battle. I'm tempted to say the only battle, that counts. And its this battle that is being valiantly, steadfastly fought wherever men and women, military or civilian, refuse to let the lies of the Kerry crowd prevail.

Brian and Pragueie are right about one thing. Its not a black and white issue. But its not a one-color-of-gray issue either. This is a moral universe; otherwise normal people wouldn't recoil in horror from man's inhumanity to man. When a Saddam, an Uday & a Qusay are deposed, the world's a better place. True, we can't make the world perfect. But as long as we have the power to do so, we can make these fools regret that they ever thought it was a bright idea to take us on. We can also, thanks to you guys, AND THANKS TO PRES BUSH, DICK CHENEY, DON RUMSFELD, AND CONDIE RICE, enable the good people of Iraq envision a better life for themselves and their children.

And so I get excited seeing you guys link arms with the Viet Nam vets, who served their country with honor too, but who had it stolen from them by the Kerry crowd.

Anonymous said...

Thank God! We were beginning to think that America had no real men left (except for the brave few fighting our honorable wars). As women you make us proud of you for what you have said today, and we are more willing than ever to fight these liberal limps to our last breath and support the true men of our Country. You will never know what an encouragement you are. Thank you!!!
Texas women

T. F. Boggs said...

I have to agree with most of the comments already posted. As you said about me Brian I am pretty disappointed with your comment. From some of your other comments I thought you wouldn't be so easily duped by others saying things like the Swifties have been thoroughly discredited. Nothing could be farther from the truth in this case. If you take the time to read their book and do some of your own research then you will understand this fact as I do.
John O'Neill, author of the Swifties book against Kerry, himself is a democrat and told Nixon back in the day that he didn't vote for him but was just debating Kerry in order to get the truth out. Kerry's feeble brothers in arms wouldn't stand up to 200 plus men in any court of law. These men had nothing to gain politically by speaking out against Kerry; instead they simply wanted to get the truth out.
There are several guys in my unit up for the Purple Heart right now and they don't deserve it. If any one of them get it and then base a presidential campaign upon it, I would most decidedly speak out against them. It would be my pleasure to tell the world that they were frauds then and now (future).
As buck says in his second comment, if my unit were to get a new Lt to replace the one we have now then we would be sure to inform him all about the guy he replaced. There are no secrets in the military. Gossip is an everyday routine and we all know about each other. O'Neill would have known all about Kerry within a week of taking over for him.
Another point I want to make is that both sides to a story are not always needed to make a decision. For example I do not need to talk to Saddam and ask him for his story concerning the thousands of people he "supposedly" had killed and tortured. I can know these things from the testimony of others who it both happened to and who knew people who it happened to. The same is true for the Kerry situation. I will believe the testimony of 200 men who have yet to be proven wrong and had nothing to gain personally over the testimony of one man who sought to gain the most powerful position in the world.
I hope you will continue to visit my site despite our differences on this issue. I also urge you to read the Swifties book and decide for yourself. If you do I am sure you will come to a much different conclusion then you have here.

Praguetwin said...


I take offense to the following. (Actually though the word "offense" is just a manner of speaking since it is impossible to offend me in a way that would hurt my feelings).

"..., and our passive-aggressive buddy Praguetwin (who makes me want to find my copy of David Copperfield to reread all the Uriah Heep chapters) don't want the world to contain good guys and bad guys. That might suggest there's a moral order to the universe. And so they want to make the world the way they want it to be by repeating the necessary mantras- Bush lied people died, No blood for oil, the Swift Boat Vets have been thoroughly discredited, Rumsfeld must go (chickenhawk indeed, the man was an instructor of instructors of Naval pilots) etc, etc, ad frickin infinitum."

I, for one, have never used any of these mantras (except for that Rumsfeld should lose his job for not predicting the ensuing chaos in Iraq. I predicted it, and I have a lousy BA from UC Davis. I expect the Sec. of Def to know better). I don't like slogans or absolutes. I have no idea what you mean by me wanting the world to be the way I want it to be.
I'm not trying to take anyone down, I believe in truth and for God's sake man, I know as well as you, and as Buck Sargent clearly explains, Kerry is a fraud.

I'm not backing the guy, but forgive me if I don't accept wholesale a bunch of guys who I never met as being the carriers of the gospel. As Buck Sargent points out, they came forward only because they knew otherwise (about Kerry). I'm with you all on this one. Kerry sucks. No questions here. I didn't vote for the guy. I think this whole court thing is a little over the top, but whatever. It is a free country.

But do you have to call my character under question with personal attacks, Sir? Can you not, instead take issue with the content of my argument? Must you sling mud and attach jingoistic slogans to my name which I have never expoused?

I agree with Buck Sargent's assesment quite alot in the end. Kerry is pathetic. But the beauty of democracy (or the problem with it) is that people have to decide that for themselves. If Brian wants to stand behind the guy, well, that is his choice in a free country. Just don't stand me next to him.

It isn't fair to join Brian and I at the hip, TFdad.

No offense Brian, but backing Kerry is like shooting yourself in the foot (no pun intended).

Good topic Boggs, but shouldn't we be talking about Iraq?

P.S. What is the whole Copperfield Uriah Heep reference about?..... seriously! Before my time I guess.

Brian Coughlan said...

"Brian and Pragueie are right about one thing. Its not a black and white issue. But its not a one-color-of-gray issue either."

Well at least there is a point we agree on:-)

The reason I chimed in (I read all your posts Sgt. Boggs, but don't always comment) this time, is because the issued was presented as a stark one dimensional proposition.

Kerry Bad/Swift boaters good.

While I have not read the book, I have read enough to know that these guys are at best unreliable, and at worst biased frauds. The wikipedia article alone provides hours of linked pro and con material to trawl through.

As prague twin points out, we are not joined at the hip:-) I'm far more sympathetic to Kerry, and the democrats, and I openly despise Bush, and this war. I hope this is not a surprise, I'm sure I've said similar stuff before.

That said I can still have respect for Boggs and guys like him, because they are individuals, doing what they can in a very difficult situation.

As regards history, the results are in for Vietnam, and the US were the bad guys in that conflict. This does not mean that some american individuals were not honourable and heroic people, living inspiring lives in desperate circumstances.

However, something on the order of 2 million Vietnamese died in that conflict, many of them civilians. Against 60,000 american soldiers. A borderline genocide in a country of that size. What worries me, and people with my views of war, is that the same thing is happening again. Waiting 10, 15 or 20 years to see if history gives you a "free pass" is not an option.

T. F. Boggs said...

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were Treated and Appreciated by their nation."

— George Washington

This is one of the reasons I wrote on this topic. More on Iraq to come in the near future.

Gypsy said...

Brian you're passing judgement on the SBV's yet refuse to read the book? Whatever media you are using to summarily dismiss them is as one sided as it gets.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for this comment IMHO:
"As regards history, the results are in for Vietnam, and the US were the bad guys in that conflict. This does not mean that some american individuals were not honourable and heroic people, living inspiring lives in desperate circumstances."

The US were the bad guys? Please do your research on something other than Wikipedia.

The American military was not defeated in Vietnam, and the American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. You'd never know that based on MSM though.

Did you know many of the Vietnamese citizens died AFTER we were pulled out? There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam.

A personal sore point with me, if you can see fit to capitalize Vietnam...then please capitalize American.

Gypsy said...

Oh yeah, and the fall of Saigon happened TWO years after we withdrew from VN. Thanks in part to the lack of will of the American public, and Walter Cronkite.

Gypsy said...

Oh and one more question Brian. Where did you get the "against 60,000 American Soldiers" figure?

* 3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters).

* 2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (Jan.1, 1965 - March 28, 1973). Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964.

* Casualties 58,183, with approximately 2000 still MIA.

Ok I'll stop now.

Brian Coughlan said...

"The US were the bad guys? Please do your research on something other than Wikipedia."

I'm not sure what exactly you have against wikipedia. It is an excellent research tool. If you don't trust the resulting summaries, then read all the links. You may disagree with the outcomes, but in most significant articles tens, or even hundreds of people have debated and argued the summaries to an almost absurd degree.

I obviously trust these outcomes far more the partisan commentary of a single person.

As regards Vietnam :

Because of it's own geo political concerns, a rich and powerful country from the other side of the world, invades and occupies a small poverty stricken asian nation.

Then engages in a brutal land war with the indigenous population lasting a decade.

Robert McNamara, in his regretful memoir of the war, references a figure of 3.2 million.

The US lost roughly 60,000 soldiers.

All of the above information is on the record and indisputable, except perhaps the figure of 3.2 million, the minimum estimate is 2 the highest is 4 million people. Many of them civilians.

I did not dispute that the US won the war. I absolutely think the US did. How else could you describe a war where the low end kill ratio is 30 to 1 in the US's favour? Where on one side all the deaths are military, and on the other 50%+ are civilian?

Clearly a glorious victory.

Thats not my point.

My point is that the same group think that allowed the US to keep killing people in Vietnam for a decade, under the guise of helping them is happening in Iraq.

I'm not demonising anyone here, least of all the individual men and women in the armed forces doing there best under very trying circumstances.

When Boggs says the stuff he does I beleive him. He convinces me. However, he is just a single guy. For everyone of Boggs there is probably some fool who enjoys kicking down doors, threatening people and checkpoints, and yes even a tiny minority that enjoy killing.

Boggs, do you know anyone like that? I'd be surprised if you don't.

Boggs and guys like him are the silver lining, war is the cloud.

You need to get rid of the cloud.

Brian Coughlan said...

Oh and one more question Brian. Where did you get the "against 60,000 American Soldiers" figure?

I was talking about casualties.

Praguetwin said...

Nice quote Boggs,

Thanks for the explaination.

I think as a nation, most people have learned to seperate their opinion of the war from their opinion of the soldiers.

What an abomination it was the way the Vietnam vets were treated upon their return. A truly low point in our history it was.

The lesson has been learned that no matter your opinion of the war, the soldiers that fight in it deserve our respect and admiration.

The Ugly American said...

Brian you are seriously confused bud. First of all Kerry is a proven liar. Can you acknowledge this?

Example 1. He lied on the floor of the US Senate on March 27th 1986.
In that speech, Kerry accused President Ronald Reagan of leading the United States into another Vietnam in Central America, accusing the administration of Nixon-like duplicity and saying that he should recognize it because of his Vietnam experience.

Kerry told his colleagues he was on Navy duty in Cambodia at a time when President Richard M. Nixon lied to the public and said that there were no U.S. forces in that country. He even took enemy fire. In his words,

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me."

Now you can check the congressional record to confirm the qoute is accurate. Do you acknowledge this was a lie?

If you can't do that then we have nothing further to discuss. If you can then you have to ask yourself who do you believe?

1 highly decorated LT who served 4 months in Vietnam and is running for President but is also a proven liar. Or 2 over 200 highly decorated men who served full tours or in many cases multiple tours in vietnam who call him a liar and who are not running for president but are lawyers, construction workers, accountants etc?

If you choose 1 then your bias and irrational logic is exposed.

If you can prove these other 200 honorable men are all liars then we can reconsider the case not before then.

As for who the bad guys were in Vietnam again you are very poorly misinformed. I won't go into it further as I would prefer an answer to the questions posed.

Charles said...


You are very, very confused and I don't think you are understanding any of the facts that are laid before you. You, instead, grip on to the lies of Kerry and the Left.

Good luck in life, bud.

TF: I am on duty and supporting my fellow Vets, the Swifties...even if they are Squids. :-)

Gypsy said...

Brian, Brian, Brian. :)

We did not "invade" Vietnam. The country was split, with NVN being communist and the south a republic. When NVN decided to "reunify" the country, the US was asked to provide military assistance to train the South Vietnamese to defend themselves, which we began doing as early as the 1950s.

Originally the ROE was not to engage in fighting but what with increasingly violent guerrila attacks by the Viet Cong...well, you get the picture.

Sorry, but it's late and I'm too tired to do your research for you. Try out something other than Wikipedia ok?

Brian Coughlan said...

A few short rebuttals:-)

1) All politicians bend the truth and many lie. I'm completely uniformed about this comment in 1986. I'm guessing however that no one has died as a result of it? If it's contest of who are best/worst liars, GWB is surely top of the pack with his pre war whoppers? Not a wise tack

2) Invasion of Vietnam? Sure. Every occupier says they were welcomed with open arms, many have some puppet goverment arrange for the welcome. The results speak for themselves. 2 million dead give the lie to your self serving comments.

3) Vietnam was a disaster. Not for the US, but for the Vietnamese. The US relative to the Vietnamese suffered hardly a scratch. Yet you guys are making it all about you. Thats got to be some kind of pathology.

Same with Iraq, tens of thousands dead civilians and yet it's all about American lives and American security.


Brian's true colors finally shine through. He HATES BUSH. 'Nuff said.

As far as Vietnam goes, it's pretty naive to think no one would have died in Vietnam had we only not gotten involved. The scale of the slaughter perpetrated by the Communists after we left illustrates this pretty well.

Plus, the only way to truly understand why we were in Vietnam is within the context of the Cold War. Look how many countries fell under its dominion in the latter half of the seventies. Failure of America to lead = free reign to the enemies of freedom. Who else is going to stand in their way? Europe?

Reagan brought us back from the brink simply by having the guts again to not only announce "No farther," but by actually taking steps to roll them back. Kennedy was the first to say such things; Reagan was the first to actually follow through. And Bush is following that same example today. It's not a feel-good, "why can't we all just get along?" foreign policy, and it requires a lot of stamina and long range perspective to understand, but it is clearly the best option among a range of worse options.

Sticking our head in the sand will not make Islamic fanaticism simply go away. It needs to be confronted head on.

Anonymous said...

One piece of wisdom that came out of Poland after the iron curtain came down was:

Don't think.
If you think, don't speak.
If you think and speak, don't write.
If you think and speak and write, don't sign.
If you think and speak and write and sign, don't be surprised.

Long live the freedom of speech. Long live the USA.

Anonymous said...

Liberalism has always been around, since the garden of Eden. It teaches the big lie. It has had many names but is the same big lie. All that I have read in your blog, Sgt Boggs, makes me see it even clearer than before. A man tried to break into my home a week ago. I called the police. I was glad there were police to take care of him and keep me safe. "Radical" muslims are attacking the world to enslave us all or to kill us. I am glad for our Military who are protecting us and "taking care" of them. I was a blind and lost and a powerful but grcious God saved me and took care of my enemies, the last one being death. I am very grateful to many for doing what I cannot do for myself. Yet there is something I can do. I had sense enough to call the police and I obey the laws. I told God thank you and learn of him. The fact that many hate Him does not change Him. I trust Him. I support the Military with ever ounce of energy I have and with my few resources. There is nothing as ugly as an ungrateful person who loves the lie and hates the truth. So after all the debate I still want to say, Thank you Sgt. Boggs for doing for me what I cannot do for myself. Thank you Buck Sargent for doing the same. Thank you both for embracing the truth. I want to thank every American and citizen of the world who knows the truth when they hear it, accepts it as their own, and does their part to fight evil by supporting the truely brave men of this world who are on the front lines in this War. Please do not be discouraged by those who willfully or ignorantly refuse to see and propagate the lie. In the end they will not win. And please remember that it is impossible to correct a fool because in the end he will only hate you for it. I love your blogs, Boggs- - -and yours too, Buck Sargent. You are a real inspiration to many who are standing by the goods while you carry on the battle. I am very proud of you all.

Melinda said...

I had the distinct pleasure and honor of meeting John O'Neill when he was invited to my campus to speak. I told him then that he and the men who stood with him reminded me very much of my father, a fellow Vietnam vet, who is a man of few words, but had PLENTY to say when the likes of John Kerry opened his trap.

I didn't then, nor do I now, rely on the lazy, seriously flawed mainstream media for information. And, in everything I was able to dig up, I came back again to a group of men who had nothing to gain, but quite a bit to lose by standing together and calling Kerry out for the "man" that he is.

Kerry's lack of recognition and contrition for his behavior makes him beyond repair in my eyes. The fact that he's asking other for money is laughable, pathetic, but behavior befitting him.

Thanks for another great post, Boggs.

Praguetwin said...

Great debate going here. Please don't stop!

Melinda says they had nothing to gain, but in my mind $6.7 million might be a motivating factor.

Buck Sargent,

Indeed it would be nieve to assume that no one would have died had we not got involved in Vietnam. However, it would even more nieve to assume that there would have been more deaths had we not. Irrespective of what would or wouldn't have happened in Cambodia after the withdrawl (many would argue that our involvement was at least partially responsible for the rise of the Khmer Rouge), at least a million Vietnamese could easily have been spared.

Could everyone just stop and try to comprehend a million people.

A million people.

That is over 300,000 9/11s.

But who is counting, right?

Anonymous said...

For more insight check out Mike Yon's latest Dispatch "The Word" at

Not only is it insightful but it is useful to those serious about winning this war. It also is a plea for our Military Men to send in their stories of war to be posted, the good-the bad-the ugly, unedited so that all may see the truth as our soldiers see and record it. Much more interesting than speculation from armchair historians and wariors. Wish you would do one, Buck Sargent.

Praguetwin said...


Obviously 3,000.


Brian Coughlan said...

"Sticking our head in the sand will not make Islamic fanaticism simply go away. It needs to be confronted head on."

No one is suggesting that we do that. However, killing tens of thousands of civilians to get at one man, or a small group of mullahs, is completely moronic and counter productive.

By the way, what tipped you to the fact that I hate Bush? Was it my post, in this thread!! where I say

"I'm far more sympathetic to Kerry, and the democrats, and I openly despise Bush, and this war. I hope this is not a surprise, I'm sure I've said similar stuff before."

I'm guessing that was it? Dang, you got me!!!:-)

Melinda said...

Praguetwin, I read that article you linked to when it ran originally...I re-read it again via your link thinking maybe I missed something.

An organization collecting $6.7 million from private citizens who choose to donate doesn't strike me as personal gain for the men who make up the Swiftboat Vets., which appears to by highly underwritten by George Soros for his personal whims, collects tons of donations from plenty of people whose sanity I question, but I don't see those who stump for MoveOn as "personally" gaining; quite the contrary, their tinfoil glares in the spotlight.

Personal gain (what I pointed to) and an affiliation with a successful organization (which you linked to) are not the same thing.

Matt said...

Bear with me, as this is a lot to read, but I find it interesting as I have read this article more than once by now. I used to be addicted to Wikipedia myself, but I've read more and more harrowing tales of defamation:

Taken from:

* * * * * * *

Wikipedia coming under scrutiny again
12/4/2005 9:17:49 PM, by Charles Jade

In August, developers and contributors of the Wikipedia "encyclopedia" met to discuss issues facing the organization. The issue then, and now, is quality. As far as John Seigenthaler is concerned, there seems little to debate. The distinguished journalist and long-time advocate of civil rights, who also was part of Robert Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign, found himself accused of assassination in his Wikipedia entry.

John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.

Nearly the entire article was false, and according to Mr. Seigenthaler the entry was up for 132 days. He is now pursuing legal action against the anonymous person who defamed him through a "John Doe" lawsuit using the poster's IP address. Unfortunately, due process does not sit well with him in this case.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.

To Mr. Seigenthaler, Wikipedia is "populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects," and, presumably, should not exist in its current form. That would be one way to solve the problem, though another might be to correct entries, even if in a laggardly manner. That's what Adam Curry did, which caused another problem.

Only among the nerd elite could the podcasting phenomenon generate a historical controversy (rather than the obvious controversy over whether it's actually a phenomenon at all). Adam Curry, former MTV VJ, Internet entrepreneur, and possible historical revisionist had his IP address tracked to some changes made to the history of podcasting. The changes included wiping the downloading and syncing technology contributions of Kevin Marks from the entry like an airbrushed photo out of a Soviet era history book. It was, of course, a mistake.

After about 20 minutes of trying to figure out the interface of the editing system I became exasperated and gave up. "What was I trying to prove anyway?," I thought to myself. Some of my experimentation resulted in a piece of the wiki entry being edited out.

Curry has since apologized, but the incident nonetheless highlights the problem with Wikipedia again. Literally anyone who can use a computer to access the site can edit entries (this would apparently not include Adam Curry except by accident).

The question is what to do about it. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has talked about flagging "stable" articles. Setting aside what constitutes stability, there is the question of who decides. Having editors determine the veracity of an article runs contrary the contributory process of content creation that is the ideal behind Wikipedia. Wikipedia, like the World Wide Web, is as broad as it is shallow, and no one outside the borders of a few authoritarian dictatorships is seriously considering "doing" anything about the Internet. Scholars—or anyone—citing Wikipedia would probably best be advised to transfer to vocational school and learn air-conditioning repair.

What to do about Wikipedia? Caveat lector.

* * * * * * *

Since reading this article, I began scrutinizing the legitmacy of Wikipedia. I'm not saying scholars and obvious academics don't post appropriate information, (nor need you these to accurately reflect your knowledge), but the reputation of Wikipedia can be subtle, misleading, and malicious.

Praguetwin said...


The original funding came from people very closely allied to the Republican party, much like the money for came from Sorros. These are flip sides of the same ugly coin.

The Swift Boat Veterans are supported by the Repulican party and I'm guessing most of them are Republicans and Bush supporters. If I'm wrong, let me know.

The point is that this whole thing, true or false, right or wrong, is clearly partisan motivated just like (which I despise).

And now it has grown into a very successful organization indeed. Whether they could have predicted this going in is debatable. Suffice to say, I think giving more money to an organization that has already received 6.7 million dollars is just plain silly.

I'd rather send something to the forgotten soldiers in Afghanistan, like Buck Sargent suggests on his site. Or, send humanitarian aid for the poor citizens of Iraq. Or any number of things. A $300 a year donation can clothe, feed, educate, and give basic medical care to a child in Uganda, for example (which my company does). It is a small thing to do but seems a more reasonable use of resources than sending money to the SBVFT.

Courtney said...

I have to agree with Matt regarding Wikipedia. I graduated from an internet highschool and our teachers wouldn't allow us to use Wikipedia for references. These are some of the websites I did use a lot in my research:

It is very important to make sure your sources of information are accurate and truthful!

As far as Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets are concerned- My conscience and personal judgement would lead me to trust what Colonel Day has to say over whatever Kerry has to say about the issue. I even made a monetary donation to the organization after I checked out the facts. I read through these websites before I made my decision:

The person who wrote the last website used a very annoying font and annoying colors on his website- so watch out!