Have Kerry & Senate Select Committee POW/MIA Affairs come up?

[anarchy1999]

Based upon all I have been reading this morning I see this as being a potential stumbling block for Kerry. Kerry was the chairman of this committee. Anyone have any info or thoughts on this issue?

snip:
The Senate Select Committee on POW-MIA affairs spent 15 months, and $1.9 million, produced a 1,223 page report, and concluded, "We acknowledge that there is no proof that U.S. POWs survived, but neither is there proof that all those who did not return had died. There is evidence that indicates,,, the possibility of survival, at least for a small number, after Operation Homecoming".

On April 1992, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, told the Select Committee that all copies of the POW briefing would be destroyed.

snip:
"It (the committee) had a shot at really doing something. And the chairman (Kerry) prevented it from happening. He blocked it every step of the way. It was the most frustrating and unblievable thing I ever saw in my life."
(a highly experienced investigator of the senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs)

http://home.twave.net/~whawks/did_you_know.html


There is lots more to look into. McCain was also on this committee.

http://www.google.com/search?q=senate+select+committee+on+POW/MIA&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssctest.html


Call-In
Vietnam Revisited, Day 2
C-SPAN Special
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)

ID: 31851 - 09/01/1992 - 6:09 - $390.00
http://www.c-spanstore.com/31851.html

[KoKo]

1. It's puzzling that McCain and Kerry both stalled on this. A Vietnam Vet

brought all this out in a C-Span interview last year. I think there were some postings here on DU about it as well.

It's puzzling that they tried to squash this. Maybe they felt information about themselves would come out that wouldn't be favorable?

I don't know what other explanation there could be.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. There's bad blood there

Esp. with McCain and some of the families. Here's an article about it:

http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/schanberg_mccain.html

[bigtree]

3. If you can find where Sen. Kerry blocked any of this you let me know

Right?

... text of the Report of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs dated January 13, 1993 is available on this website. ...
http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssctest.html

Also here:
http://www.miafacts.org/sscreport.htm

What conclusions do you draw from the testimony and the evidence presented and recorded by this committee?


From the AII POW/MIA article cited:

But what if some of these returned prisoners, as has always been the case at the conclusion of wars, reveal information to their debriefing officers about other prisoners believed still held in captivity? What justification is there for filtering such information through the Pentagon rather than allowing access to source materials? For instance, debriefings from returning Korean war POWs, available in full to the American public, have provided both citizens and government investigators with important information about other Americans who went missing in that conflict.

Would not most families of missing men, no matter how emotionally drained, want to know? And would they not also want to know what the government was doing to rescue their husbands and sons? Hundreds of MIA families have for years been questioning if concern for their feelings is the real reason for the secrecy.


These may be valid concerns but why should we be led to believe that either of these men had any reason to cover up the existence of anyone left behind?. I can understand the frustration and grief of the families, but for god sakes, why can't we accept that these two men conducted their investigation with honor, notwithstanding the rights of the families to see these documents? Reporter Issakof says that he saw nothing in the documents that would argue against those conclusions, save some redactions.

Why would we allow these two men John Kerry and John McCain to be tarnished by innuendo. Did they not undertake this mission in good faith. Did the committe not gather volumes of evidence with numerous public hearings? Where is the official proof outside of charges from, bless them, the families, or some unnamed investigator?

This is an old issue that has been discussed and rediscussed. Until there is some direct evidence that someone held back anything they shouldn't have or thought about doing so then bring it foward. Until then, these accusations should be pursued with the utmost respect for the POW/MIA families and survivors, and not sensationalized by rumor.

[anarchy1999]

7. I haven't drawn any conclusions, was seeking others input.

I believe as usual there was a whitewash. I believe that we did leave men behind and there were many covert operations. Nothing other than SOP. I do find Kerry's vote in support of the Iraq war in light of this info, to be disturbing to say the least.

Once again, there is lots to read up on and I've only scratched the surface.

[bigtree]

8. Your conclusions, sir, before you were "read up on" it.

I believe as usual there was a whitewash.

I believe that we did leave men behind and there were many covert operations. Nothing other than SOP.

I do find Kerry's vote in support of the Iraq war in light of this info, to be disturbing to say the least.

That's groundless innuendo and based mostly on . . . hearsay?.

[anarchy1999]

10. Have you read the Hendricks deposition or his testimony?

n/t

IMHO I don't think it is groundless innuendo or based upon hearsay, as a journalist he seemed to be pretty responsible or at least that is what I gathered from reading his deposition.

Please understand I am in no way trying to bash Kerry.

I do see the potential for damage in questioning from the right and his challenge to Bush to "Bring it On".

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Wow, yet another of Kerry's "investigations" that went nowhere

Is Kerry the main expert on derailing investigations? Seems he's always around to "take charge" and make sure nothing ever happens.

"It (the committee) had a shot at really doing something. And the chairman (Kerry) prevented it from happening. He blocked it every step of the way. It was the most frustrating and unblievable thing I ever saw in my life."

It's a pattern with this guy.

[Karmadillo]

5. Here's a slightly more balanced account

Registration required. (I added a couple of extra paragraphs since there are so many that are only one sentence long.). Article is well worth reading from beginning to end.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-kerryprofile16jan16,1,7194433.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

<edit>

Some doubts about U.S. pronouncements on the missing in Vietnam proved to be well-founded.

After a year of investigation, the Kerry committee uncovered evidence that the Nixon administration prematurely closed the books on as many as 133 servicemen who could have been alive and in captivity after "Operation Homecoming" in 1973. Kerry said at the time that "valid questions" remained about 43 of them.

The trick, then, became writing a final report to summarize the conflicting findings. Staying up into the wee hours, Kerry helped draw up a document that Republicans and Democrats could agree on unanimously.

The 1,223-page report, released in January 1993, concluded that "while the Committee has some evidence suggesting the possibility a POW may have survived to the present, and while some information remains yet to be investigated, there is, at this time, no compelling evidence that proves that any American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia."

The studied wording won approval even from Smith, although he later said he did not agree with all of its conclusions.

"It was John Kerry's work that got it done," McCain said.

Some family members continue to hold Kerry and McCain in low regard, insisting that they gave short shrift to any evidence that pointed toward Americans remaining in captivity.

But Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive, said that by releasing millions of pages of previously classified information, Kerry and McCain helped "suck the poison out" of America's relationship with Vietnam.

more...

[sandnsea]

6. This is how we got remains back

This is how we got groups into Vietnam to begin looking for remains. This is how we began normalizing relations so Vietnam would not become an isolated NKorea and the Vietnamese could begin engaging with the world and moving forward. This is how the Vietnam war will be won. Peacefully.

There will always be a handful of people who will always go for the conspiracy theory. Can't do anything about that.

[anarchy1999]

9. No conspiracy theory here: Deposition of David E Hendricks - SSC

DEPOSITION OF DAVID E. HENDRIX

Thursday, October 29, 1992
U.S. Senate
Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs
Washington, D.C.


This excerpt is on the 3rd page of the deposition. It is a very long read.

snip:
Q. You have been involved in this issue, at least writing about it, for 8 to 10 years now. I have some just general questions that if you have any answers you'd like to share with. Why would the Vietnamese Government and/or Cambodian and/or Lao Government, hold prisoners back, in your opinion?

A. Well, in my opinion, it was originally historically the precedent with the French and that's been discussed often. They are not dumb. They probably knew American politics in 1970, '73 time frame better than we did in America. I'm sure that they knew that when they were promised $4.2 billion in money and aid from the United States by Kissinger and President Nixon that it was something that would probably have to go through Congress. And the sentiment in the United States at that time was to get done, get off of Vietnam, and it probably wouldn't come. So it was leverage.

Also, the Vietnamese were still very heavily involved with getting aid from the Soviet Union. So these people, especially some of the late arrivals with new technology were good for bartering off to either Communist China or to the Soviet Union. That was my same question when I got involved in this in late 1984. And you're right, it's coming up to 8 years now, almost. Our question used to be, why would the Vietnamese keep those people? Within about 6 months or a year after we got involved in this, our question became why would the United States not acknowledge them? And I think that those two questions have to come together.

I think that it is now moot in the mutual best interest of the United States and Vietnam and I'm talking about cynical politics more than any ethics or anything. It's to the best interests of both nations to come together, I am told and these from significant sources, because of the oil situation off the coast of Vietnam. It is my understanding and I am told that certain high level U.S. Government officials who were involved with an oil company by the name of Liberty Oil and other oil companies that had leasing and drilling rights off the coast of Vietnam -- this comes totally separate from anything that Charles Shelton and this LeBlanc friend of his.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/hndrx3.html

Once again, back to oil.

[sandnsea]

11. oil conspiracy theories

Oh okay. I see. :eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

12. Up is Down, Black is White, Left is Right

I'm sure you understand the ultimate purpose of this thread sandnsea.