MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned you're a military guy. There's been a lot of discussion about Bob Kerrey, your former Democratic colleague in the Senate, about his talking about his anguish about what happened in Vietnam . You were on this program 30 years ago as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And we went back and have an audiotape of that and some still photos. And your comments are particularly timely in this overall discussion of Bob Kerrey. And I'd like for you to listen to those with our audience and then try to put that war into some context:

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End audiotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Thirty years later, you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim.

I mean, you know, we--it was--I mean, we've got to put this war in its right perspective and time helps us do that. I believe very deeply that it was a noble effort to begin with. I signed up. I volunteered. I wanted to go over there and I wanted to win. It was a noble effort to try to make a country democratic; to try to carry our principles and values to another part of the world. But we misjudged history. We misjudged our own country. We misjudged our strategy. And we fell into a dark place. All of us. And I think we learned that over time. And I hope the contribution that some of us made as veterans was to come back and help people understand that.

I think our soldiers served as nobly, on the whole, as in any war, and people need to understand that. There were great sacrifices, great contributions. And they came back to a country that didn't thank the veteran, that didn't--I mean, everything that the veteran gained in the ensuing years, Agent Orange recognition, post-Vietnam stress syndrome recognition, the extension of the G.I. Bill, you know, improvement of the V.A. hospitals, all came from Vietnam veterans themselves fighting for it. Indeed, even the memorial in Washington came from that.

MR. RUSSERT: By your own comments, Bob Kerrey was not alone in doing the things that he did.

SEN. KERRY: Oh, of course, not. And not only that, we, the government of our country, ran an assassination program. I mean, Bill Colby has acknowledged it. We had the Phoenix Program, where they actually went into villages to eliminate the civilian infrastructure of the Vietcong. Now, you couldn't tell the difference in many cases who they were. And countless veterans testified 30 years ago to that reality. And I think--look, there's no excusing shooting children in cold blood, or women, and killing them in cold blood. There isn't, under any circumstances. But we're not asking, you know, nor is Bob Kerrey saying, "Excuse us for what we did." We're asking people to try to understand the context and forgiveness. And I think the nation needs to understand what the nation put its young in a position to do, and move on and take those lessons and apply them to the future.

MR. RUSSERT: The folks who oversaw the war, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, you do not now 30 years later consider them war criminals?

SEN. KERRY: No, I think we did things that were tantamount that certainly violated the laws of war, but I think it was the natural consequence of the Cold War itself. People made decisions based on their perceptions of the world at that time. They were in error. They were judgments of error. But I think no purpose is served now by going down that road. I think, you know, the rhetoric of youth and of anger can be redeemed by the acts that we put in place after time to try to move us beyond that. And I think there are great lessons to learn from it. But we would serve no purpose with that now. But we have to be honest about the mistakes we made. We don't have legitimacy in the world, Tim, if we go to other countries, in Bosnia or China or anywhere else, and not say, "You know, we made some terrible mistakes."

And that honesty, that lack of a sense of honesty is part of what is driving people's anger toward the United States today. That's why we have the vote in the U.N. That's why people--our allies, too--are disturbed by this defense posture. You can't abrogate the ABM treaty and move forward on your own to build this defense in a way that threatens the perceptions of security people have. And if you build a defense system, Tim, that can do what they say at the outside, which is change mutual assured destruction, you have invited a potential adversary to build, build, build, to find a way around it. The lesson of the Cold War is, you do not make this planet safer by moving unilaterally into a place of new weapons. Every single advance in weaponry through the Cold War was matched by one side or the other, and that's why we put the ABM treaty in place, and that's why we need to proceed very cautiously and very thoughtfully.

Jason Neichter - 10/12/2004

War Crimes laid out in the Geneva Convention. If we want Saddam Hussein and the like to be prosecuted by these rules, then we cannot weaken the validity of these rules by breaking or bending them. Abu Ghraib prison is a key example of how our armed forces violated the Geneva Convention. Though it appears as if Rumsfeld without documentation passed down the orders that led to some of the abusive interrogation methods, he will never be held accountable because we refuse to let our leaders be subject to answering to a world court or any court for that matter.

Wiley Siler - 10/11/2004

What I find most laughable is that people want to debate the issue of free fire zones and if they are war crimes. Excuse me, but will you be indicting the tens of thousands of soldiers who have operated under free fire zones in the wars since Vietnam?

The operational theater in Iraq uses free fire zones TODAY. A pilot sees traffic on a road that is declared "free fire" and they can vape them without remorse. Ground troops have the same ROE in several sites in Iraq.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3561374&;thesection=news&thesubsection=world

Does that mean taht the current administration is guilty of war crimes?

The issue cannot be measured differently for one administration/war and another.

larry dean buchite - 2/22/2004

the term military was used to refer members of the armed services during my military service (U.S.Army 1966-1969).i am not a college profesor i was just a grunt it may not be correct term but i do not think anyone has been harmed by its use. i am glad we have not stooped to name calling i could but i will not lower my self as did mr livingston.

Melissa Ann Macauley - 2/19/2004

It is technically true that "military" has been used to distinguish ground from naval forces (e.g. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point as opposed to the Naval Academy at Anapolis). It is not true that only the "ignorant" use it in reference to all branches of the armed services. The Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to all the services. The Department of Defense web site uses the term to identify service men and women in all the branches. Military history is not restricted to the study of the army. USAA identifies itself as the insurance company for members of the U.S. military and their families, and they even include the Coast Guard! I hope this assuages Mr. Livingston's inexplicable anger over the use of the term with reference to Senator Kerry.

Frank Richard Trombley - 2/18/2004

The debate about Vietnam war is full of very creative interpretations of war crimes. People should read the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949, Articles 27-33, and then tell us whether the types of activity that went on in Vietnam, particularly free fire zones, are not 'war crimes'. A crucial feature of the crime of genocide is the intention of the person committing the act. Is an infantryman who utters racial epithets and then opens fire on civilians of that race, or who has a history of racist abuse against that particular group, guilty of a genocidal act? I think there is a prima facie case for this. The provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention stipulate not only killing members of the group, but also 'causing serious bodily or mental harm' to members of the group. How many intentional acts of this kind can be catalogued in the period of the intervention in Vietnam? The USA is a nation of lawyers. Indeed, one of the largest concentrations of members of this profession is in Washington D.C. Yet presidential administrations, politicians and journalists who rub elbows with these people cannot seem to remember the fact that successive American governments have undertaken specific treaty commitments with the advice and consent of the Senate to observe the law--reflecting as they do the will of the American people. It is unfortunate that the word 'patriotism' is associated more with political manipulation than true concern for the American republic. I would suggest that anyone who denies wrongdoing at the public level when it is patently obvious is lacking in the virtues that helped to found our nation, and to preserve it in times of crisis--or playing politics.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 2/18/2004

1) “In the first place, Kerry was not "a military man." He was in the Navy, not in the Army. It is saddening & instructive how many ignorant people today don't understand the difference between naval & military.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the navy a part of the United States military? After all, the Air force, Navy, and Army are ALL parts of the United States military.

2) “Kerry's complaint about the ABM treaty is stupid. We made that treaty with a state that hasn't existed for several years, the Soviet Union.”

Actually, I find Kerry’s argument stated in the article to be limited, but certainly not “stupid.” I would have added that the Star Wars plan is too expensive and unreliable to invest into at this time, but nevertheless, it is a perfectly rational argument.

William Livingston - 2/18/2004

In the first place, Kerry was not "a military man." He was in the Navy, not in the Army. It is saddening & instructive how many ignorant people today don't understand the difference between naval & military. For instance, recently John McCain, a naval aviator, was referred to as an Air Force pilot. The willful ignorance of today's reporters and researchers is frustrating at times. Frequently a tracked armed personnel carrier or self-propelled artillery piece is referred to as a "tank."

It would be helpful if folks are going to blabber about a subject they become at least passingly acquainted with the technical details of it before hand.

Kerry's complaint about the ABM treaty is stupid. We made that treaty with a state that hasn't existed for several years, the Soviet Union. Our British cousins might as well hark back to a treaty made with Confederacy if we are thought bound by a treaty made with the Soviet Uniomn. Baloney!