August 23, 2004
FROM THE ARCHIVES: THE POW-Cs:
When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A.: Senator Covered Up Evidence of P.O.W.'s Left Behind (Sydney H. Schanberg, February 24th, 2004, Village Voice)
Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.
Over the years, an abundance of evidence had come to light that the North Vietnamese, while returning 591 U.S. prisoners of war after the treaty signing, had held back many others as future bargaining chips for the $4 billion or more in war reparations that the Nixon administration had pledged. Hanoi didn't trust Washington to fulfill its pro-mise without pressure. Similarly, Washington didn't trust Hanoi to return all the prisoners and carry out all the treaty provisions. The mistrust on both sides was merited. Hanoi held back prisoners and the U.S. provided no reconstruction funds.
The stated purpose of the special Senate committee—which convened in mid 1991 and concluded in January 1993—was to investigate the evidence about prisoners who were never returned and find out what happened to the missing men. Committee chair Kerry's larger and different goal, though never stated publicly, emerged over time: He wanted to clear a path to normalization of relations with Hanoi. In any other context, that would have been an honorable goal. But getting at the truth of the unaccounted for P.O.W.'s and M.I.A.'s (Missing In Action) was the main obstacle to normalization—and therefore in conflict with his real intent and plan of action.
We're as happy as anyone to bash the Senator and Mr. Schanberg has enough blood on his charge sheet from the war that he ought to be especially careful about making accusations, but it seems especially unfair to criticize Mr. Kerry for leaving behind bars people he's said were war criminals. Maybe he thought justice was being served? Posted by Orrin Judd at August 23, 2004 12:18 PM
There's no statute of limitation for war crimes, so I'd love to hear Candidate Kerry explain what President Kerry will do to bring to justice all those people that Anti-War Activist Kerry testified before Congress that War Hero Kerry saw committing such crimes and why Senator Kerry hasn't made this an issue before now.
And could he please detail what crimes the various "Band of Brothers" he's touring with did.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 25, 2004 6:28 PMSchanberg levelled similar charges at McCain, if memory serves me. The two Senator/Vets were eager to normalize relations with Vietnam, angering many fellow vets in the process. But both McCain and Kerry argued that warmer relations would facilitate, not inhibit, the recovery of any POW/MIA's. Indeed, that appears to have been the case. Destroying records which weakened their case is another matter, however.
Posted by: Tonto at February 25, 2004 6:37 PMThe Village Voice as an organ of the VRWC?
Posted by: MG at February 25, 2004 7:56 PMShanberg left The New York Times for New York Newsday in the 1980s because the Times wasn't liberal enough. Given that pedigree, I'm guessing Sydney's not going to get his VRWC membership card any time soon...
Posted by: John at February 25, 2004 8:54 PMOne problem I have always had with "left behind" scenario is that I don't see how a kidnapper can bargain with a hostage.... that he denies or cannot acknowledge even holding to start with. If they come home, everything immediately becomes full public knowledge.
Conversely, it may be true simply because the Vietnamese were not thinking in what we would define as a rational manner. (Though they seemed to be not complete idiots when it came to manipulating the Western media.)
However, in that case, it would, I think, occur to the Vietnamese early on that their held-back hostages were worthless, and that even holding them by say, 1977, and certainly under Reagan, could literally send the US back to war with them were even one of them to escape, or new get out, whatever. Hence the POW's would have been taken to a very deep hole one moonless night, end of story.
This is not to let anyone off the hook, merely to point out that the scenario (of Vietnam keeping them) seems patently unworkable from the start, and the idea that they could still be alive much beyond 1980 I would rule out categorically.
Posted by: Andrew X at August 23, 2004 1:09 PMKeep in mind that Schanberg seriously downplayed the severity and extent of the Khmer Rouge evacuation of Phnom Penh when he was a Times correspondent covering the region. Mona Charen documents this pretty well in her book.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 23, 2004 10:39 PMDiscount prescription Fioricet online
Posted by: fiorcet at November 17, 2004 12:03 AM