*****************************************************************************
          The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070 / 14.4v.32bis / 24 hrs
*****************************************************************************
Posted with permission The New American
---------------------------------------
Issue: 03-07-94

                      CLINTON SELLS OUT On POW/MIAs
                      -----------------------------
                          by William F. Jasper

President Clinton's Announcement on February 3rd that he was lifting the U.S. 
trade embargo on Vietnam should have surprised no one. By now even the most 
naive must know that when President Clinton opens his mouth, it is probably to 
announce that he is reneging on yet another campaign promise. This, together 
with numerous signals over the past year - from the Administration and its 
friends in the Establishment media - plainly foretold that the betrayal was 
coming. Even so, the anticipation did not ameliorate the pain, bitterness, and 
frustration of those who believed (or hoped against hope) that the promise 
might be genuine, that the candidate might truly keep his word to account for 
the sons, fathers, and brothers left behind in Indochina.

"Everybody my age, whether they were in Vietnam or not, knew someone who died 
there, knew someone who was wounded there," the President stated in explaining 
his decision to lift the 19-year-old embargo. But he is "absolutely con-
vinced," he said, that renewing economic relations with Vietnam is the best
way to resolve the fates of the 2,238 U.S. servicemen still listed as missing 
in that war.

Sensational Show
----------------
Because of his draft-dodging and anti-war activism, which had plagued him in 
the 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton knew that he would face especially fierce can-
nonades from veterans groups and POW/MIA families for breaking his pledge for 
the "fullest possible accounting" of their comrades and loved ones. The trick 
would be to make a convincing show that: 1) the Administration is making a 
full-fledged effort to uncover the truth and recover our men or their remains; 
2) actual, concrete progress is being made; 3) the communist Vietnamese gov-
ernment is cooperating fully in the effort; 4) many or most Vietnam veterans 
and military personnel support lifting the embargo; and 5) that it is in our 
nation's economic interest to reestablish trade ties with Vietnam.

All of these points are patently false, but the Administration and its allies
made a sensational show of it nonetheless, with a continuous stream of emis-
saries and "search teams" flocking to and from Vietnam this past year, making 
an endless parade of press conferences about "progress" and new discoveries of 
remains. The final coup for the Administration came with political cover pro-
vided by "liberal" Vietnam veterans in Congress who offered a resolution to 
lift thc embargo so Mr. Clinton could look like it wasn't his initiative - he 
was merely responding to the "will of the people."

A column carried by the Scripps Howard News Service on January 2nd, "Home-
front Problems for Clinton on Vietnam," by Jack R. Payton, foreign editor of 
the St. Petersburg Times, is typical of the coverage given to the shameful 
Senate measure, which passed 62-38:

        [T]he two men pushing the resolution were John Kerry, 
        D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz. Both are Vietnam veterans. 
        Kerry was wounded three times fighting the Vietnamese 
        Communists and won a Silver Star. McCain, a fighter pilot 
        and also a Silver Star winner, was captured and held
        prisoner for almost six years. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., another 
        senator supporting the resolution, lost a leg and won a
        Medal of Honor in Vietnam. Nobody can accuse any of these 
        men of being unpatriotic or soft on communism [emphasis added].

Obstructionist Senators
-----------------------
Nobody except those who are familiar with their careers, that is. Senators
Kerry and McCain have been key obstructors of the investigations into POW/MIA 
matters and have been hell-bent, it seems, to sweep aside all delays to nor-
malization of relations with Vietnam. As chairman of the Senate Select Commit-
tee on POW/MIA Affairs, the suave Kerry, aided by the irascible McCain, did 
everything possible to debunk the evidence and witnesses brought forward to 
show that live POWs remained in Southeast Asia after Operation Homecoming, the 
official return of our POWs in 1973. As Al Santoli, journalist, author, Viet-
nam veteran, and noted POW-MIA investigator, reported in a January 24, 1994 
column in the Washington Times, "Sen. John Kerry had 120 boxes of potentially 
explosive National Security Agency files reclassified before Senate [POW/MIA] 
investigators could study them."

Granted, we expect patriotism from our military men, but the uniform does not 
confer immunity from the weaknesses and vices to which all men are suscept-
ible. From ancient times to the present, there have always been accomplished 
men at arms who have put self-interest above country and who have been willing 
even to betray their own people. Alcibiades, Athenian general and politician, 
aided the enemy Spartans in the conquest of Athens. 

In our own nation's annals, it may be remembered that Benedict Arnold was one 
of George Washington's ablest generals, was wounded twice in battle, and was 
the daring hero of Ticonderoga, Lake Champlain, Saratoga, and other fierce 
campaigns. Yet his name is synonymous with treason. Fellow traitor Major Gen-
eral Charles Lee was second in command only to Washington, but, like Arnold, 
sold out to the British. Young Aaron Burr showed such extraordinary courage at 
the Battle of Quebec that he became a minor national hero overnight. But, like 
Arnold and Lee, his avarice, mendacity, and vainglorious ambition overshadowed 
his earlier valor. He became a U.S. senator, then Vice President (and nearly 
President), before plotting his treason at Blennerhassett's Island.

Are we unfairly sullying the senators with these comparisons?  Hardly. Those
who have followed the POW/MIA exposes in this magazine* and elsewhere over the 
years, know that the continuing lies and cover-ups concerning this matter con-
stitute a string of diabolical and criminal acts running through several Ad-
ministrations that, together, comprise one of our most shameful national sins.

Concerning Senator Kerry's role in this, the Center for Security Policy, a 
Washington DC-based conservative think tank, made this startling revelation
on February 4th:

        The Center has obtained a secret video of Sen. Kerry meeting 
        in Hanoi in December 1992 with Vietnam's communist president
        and former minister of defense Le Duc Anh. In it, the Vietnam 
        veteran and former anti-war activist told his host that "All 
        we need to lift the trade embargo is to show the American peo-
        ple that there is a process" for resolving the POW-MIA account-
        ing - not real results as President-elect Clinton once promised. 
        He [Kerry] promised that "I can assure you that we will not make 
        public anything embarrassing to your government."

Recent Revelations
------------------
At least in this it can be said that Kerry - and Mr. Clinton - have kept a 
promise. In the past couple years such a flood of new evidence has come forth
- from high-ranking U.S. civilian and military personnel, defectors, aerial
photos, U.S. files, Soviet archives, etc.- that Kerry, Bush, Clinton, and com-
pany have had to show great ingenuity in finding ways to cover it up. For in-
stance, in order to divert his own committee's time and resources away from
its intended investigative duties, Kerry wasted valuable committee hearings
and assets attacking and investigating alleged "fraud" by dedicated POW acti-
vists.

Here are just a few of the many recent revelations that have been smothered,
ignored, or "debunked":

* "Cold Spot." From 1971-75, the U.S. Air Force and CIA carried out a program 
of monitoring North Vietnamese and Laotian communist radio traffic under the 
code name "Cold Spot." Al Santoli, in the Washington Times column mentioned 
above, reported that Cold Spot intercepts were describing "the movement and 
detention of U.S. prisoners - long after Operation Homecoming." The Santoli 
article records:

        An October 8, 1973 communique from the governor of Nghia Lo
        to the Minister of Defense in Hanoi confirmed the transfer 
        of "112 USA pilots" from Lai Chau [near the Laotian border]. 
        The "USA prisoners" were taken to a prison that previously 
        held "Thai [captured in Laos] and Vietnamese" prisoners. And, 
        "their snapshots were finished and I will send them to Hanoi 
        to register with the Ministry of Defense ... and names and
        ages of all will be attached."

        On November 11, 1973, the governor of Sontay Province reported
        to the Ministry of Defense in Hanoi: "112 USA prisoners in 
        prison in Sontay Province." He named a doctor who treated 10 
        prisoners with "pain in their hearts.... They are not in a good 
        way. Therefore, I quickly send this cable for you to decide what 
        to do."

* Soviet Confirmations. Last September the Pentagon made public a document 
from a Soviet GRU (military intelligence) secret report to the Politburo in 
December 1970 quoting remarks made at a North Vietnamese Communist Party meet-
ing to wit the Viets were holding some 735 U.S. POWs, but were only acknow-
ledging possession of 368 at the time.

* U.S. "Defections." Chief of the U.S. Joint Task Force/Full Accounting Gar-
nett Bell, one of the most seasoned POW/MIA experts, was relieved of his posi-
tion after he testified before the (Kerry) Senate Committee last year that
POWs were alive after 1973. Renowned forensics scientist, Dr. Ellis Kerley,
head of the Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii, was removed from his
position for refusing falsely to identify bones and teeth as those of MIAs. 
Colonel Millard A. Peck resigned as chief of the Special Office for POW/MIA 
Affairs in the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1991 because of the "high-level
knavery" and the "mindset to debunk" which he found rampant in the agency.

Experts Not Wanted
------------------  
The case of Garnett Bell, is particularly instructive. Bell, now 52, first 
went to Vietnam in 1965 in the Army infantry and was assigned to supervising
Montagnards in the central highlands of Vietnam along the borders of Laos and
Cambodia. Later he received special training in languages, intelligence, un-
conventional warfare, and prisoner/hostage rescue.

He was first assigned to POW/MIA investigations in 1968, debriefing communist 
defectors. He is fluent in the Vietnamese, Lao, and Thai languages and is 
probably as familiar with the geography, culture, politics, and history of 
Southeast Asia as any Westerner. These assets - together with his training, 
extensive POW/MIA investigative experience, and extraordinary recall ability -
made Bell the ideal choice to head POW/MIA field operations. POW activists 
were understandably hopeful when, in May 1991, he became the chief of the new-
ly created U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs in Hanoi. Finally we would get 
somewhere.

However, Bell told The NEW AMERICAN, he and his small staff were not allowed 
to do much. The "live sighting" inspections were "done by an Air Force man who 
would come in from Colorado." According to Bell, this man had no current ex-
perience in Vietnam, no language proficiency, and no background experience in 
POW/MIA affairs. We asked Bell why he and his staff were not allowed to do the 
investigations; after all, they were the experts in the field? "We asked the 
same thing," he said, but were told simply, "We have people to do that."

Bell was replaced by young soldiers half his age who do not know the language, 
have no in-country experience, and have no POW-MIA backgrounds. The Adminis-
tration and the media have focused on the big buildup of search teams over 
there and the increased number of excavations of crash sites, but that is all 
just purposeless "activity for show," says Bell.

Contrary to the Clinton Administration's line about Vietnamese "cooperation," 
this expert says the communists are "playing the same game they played with 
the French." Which involved incessant lying about the number of POWs and re-
mains they were holding and trickling out a few bones a year for over 30 years
(1954-1986) for ransom. "In 1986, after insisting all those years that they 
had nothing , they returned some 24,000 remains - for an undisclosed sum."

Is it possible that American POW's could still be alive, after all these 
years, in Southeast Asia or in the Soviet Union? Readers of THE NEW AMERICAN
may recall that in the September 24, 1991 issue we reported on the fate of 
Sung Kil Kim, a Korean, who along with 18 other men from his village were 
taken captive by Soviet forces in 1945. Believed dead by their families, many
of them survived in Soviet captivity for over 40 years and several were allow-
ed to return to Korea in 1990 and 1991.

Sung Kil Kim's son, Ki Young Kim, a Seattle businessman, journeyed to the Sov-
iet Ukraine to see his father but, tragically, arrived just months after his
father had died. However, some of his father's fellow captives, then in their
80s, were still living there and were able to relate to Ki Young Kim details 
of the ordeal and share photos and memories of his father. "My father survived 
45 years," Mr. Kim told THE NEW AMERICAN, "He was 85 years old when he died." 
Yes, it is possible. 

Neither are the communists "mellowing" on human rights. "In 1986 at the Com-
munist Party Congress when the Vietnamese decided to begin opening up [to for-
eign tourism and investment], they transferred a considerable number of per-
sonnel from the military to security,"  Bell explains. He points out that it
is as tightly controlled a police state as you will find anywhere. "You are 
under constant surveillance. You are not free to travel without monitoring. If 
you hire a car, an interpreter, or guide, I can guarantee you he or she is a 
security agent." He cited many examples from his own experience.

Who Will We Believe?
-------------------- 
But Mr. Clinton and Senator Kerry say the Viet Reds are "cooperating," and the 
Council on Foreign Relations-run media chorus echoes the line. As we see, for 
instance, with the Wall Street Journal column on the editorial page on Febru-
ary 2nd, "Lift the Embargo Against Vietnam - Help Old Allies," by James Webb 
(CFR), Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan 
Administration. "The present POW search inside Vietnam has been well executed 
by both sides, and the Vietnamese government has fully cooperated in this 
effort," says Webb.

On the same day, Elaine Sciolino (CFR) reported in the New York Times that it 
was "no secret" that Mr. Clinton had been planning for weeks to lift the em-
bargo, but that he had been worried about opposition from veteran's groups.
"But the mood changed sharply," she said, "after Winston Lord, the assistant
secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, returned from Vietnam 
in December with a favorable report on Hanoi's increased cooperation."

This is the same Winston Lord, of course, who sat at the elbow of Henry Kiss-
inger (CFR) at the Paris "peace accords" 20 years ago and helped devise the 
betrayal they called "peace with honor." And this is the same Winston Lord who 
served as CFR president from 1977-85, and who (when he was U.S. Ambassador to 
China) assured us that we could help China go "democratic" by pouring billions 
of dollars and megatons of technology into the communist regime.

You may recall that Lord left Beijing before Li Peng and friends turned loose
the tanks on the throngs at Tiananmen Square. Now he is helping all his CFR
corporate comrades sidle up to the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Export-
Import Bank and other taxpayer-funded "trade" troughs in the name of promoting 
jobs and "free markets."

It comes down to this: Who are we going to believe? Clinton, Kerry, Lord, the 
New York Times, et al. - the ones who were wrong 20 years ago and have been 
wrong ever since? Or Garnett Bell, Colonel Millard Peck, the National Alliance 
of Families for the Return of America's Missing Servicemen, the Disabled Amer-
ican Veterans, the American Legion, and the many other groups and individuals 
who have proven their integrity and credibility on this issue over the years? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*See for example, "They Deserve To Come Home" (September 10,1991), "Bring Them
Home" (September 24, 1991), and "Betrayal In Action" (November 19, 1991) by 
William F. Jasper; and "President Bush to POW/MIA Families: 'Shut Up and Sit 
Down'" (August 24, 1992), "No Thanks to Hanoi Just Yet" (November 30, 1992), 
and "New Evidence From Moscow" (July 26, 1993) by William P. Hoar.

[end]
******************************************************************************
         The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070 / 14.4v.32bis / 24 hrs
******************************************************************************
