McCain and the POW Cover-Up

From the American Conservative (the article is reprinted from The Nation):

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain’s role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain’s military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn’t talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that “men were left behind.” This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the U.S. prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

There has been discussion about meetings with others who were imprisoned at the same time as McCain, and they do not speak of a war hero. It was said that he worked with his captors. If it's essential, I will look up the links to the data. They had a nickname for him, like 'Songbird,' or the like, because he 'sang like a bird.' I will try to find the article. Youtube has vids of him during talks about going to look for the missing soldiers, and he verbally disses a sister of one of the missing POWs. A truly vile man.

I also read an interesting article, when McCain was returning to Viet Nam for some ceremony a couple+ of years ago, and had to be pressed to meet with the man who saved his life. Seems odd, to me.

Oh please.

3> ? Are you requesting links, or just shaking your head in disbelief?

Edited to add:

http://www.vvof.org/mccain_hides.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoZ3BPqXrq0&feature=related

I'll dig up a few more over the weekend, when I have more time.

>1 codyed: The American Conservative is reprinting stuff from The Nation? Well, dog my cats.

>2 K.J.: re "songbird" etc. Check under "torture".

It's hard to sort out the potential historical importance of this story from the deep-rooted pyschological desire that people have for answers in a messy world where sometimes there are no answers. Thereafter it can be tempting to get a one-way ticket to Conspiracy Land.

That said, it is worth trying to sort out.

In case anyone thinks Schanberg is playing partisan politics, check out this article from 2004:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-02-17/news/when-john-kerry-s-courage-went-m-i-a...

My 86YO Canadian military retiree dad, conservative though not predictably so, was very worried that Sen. McCain would be elected US president. Dad was adamant that one who had been through POW experience should not be trusted with such responsibility, because you just don't know where his mind is. At the time, I thought Dad was exaggerating risk.

Oh please.

Ditto. Who do we trust? McCain or people who will believe any conspiracy wingnut?

Now there's a false dichotomy. Maybe the best answer would be "neither."

10: Or, if you like, "who do you think is closer to the truth"?

#11

Having watched the 1992 televised public hearings in their entirety, I know that Schanberg is reporting the truth about McCain's role there. The legislation also speaks for itself.

I have no opinion about the speculations by Schanberg and others about McCain's motives. The "Manchurian Candidate" bit doesn't impress me any more than the far-fetched movie did back in 1962.

5> I agree. Perhaps a more clear understanding of why he is blocking this search would help the situation. I have family that spent time in that quagmire, and the one who spent the most time on the ground does not buy McCain's story, but won't tell us more about why he feels that way. He was a Marine, and is rather tight-lipped about much of what happened.

As for the 'wingnuts' comment, how about we stick to agreeing and disagreeing, and leave the childishness for the children?

13: Funny that when I referred to conspiracy wingnuts, despite the fact that I didn't reference you at all, you decided I was talking about you. I think that says everything that needs to be said about how seriously anyone should take your arguments.

12: The question would be, if McCain didn't think that there weren't any POWs left, what woud be his motive for the legislation? More to the point what would be Vietnam's motive for keeping any? If they were hoping for ransom, one would expect them to have made some demands. There appear to have been none. If they were hoping to gain political or dimplomatic advantage, then they would have needed to make the fact they had captives public. They did not. The end result is that the idea that there are numerous withheld captives languishing in Vietnamese prisons seems to be most likely wishful thinking by bereaved relatives, since no other scenario makes any sense at all.

From the original article:

As previously mentioned, in April 1993 in a Moscow archive, a researcher from Harvard, Stephen Morris, unearthed and made public the transcript of a briefing that General Tran Van Quang gave to the Hanoi politburo four months before the signing of the Paris peace accords in 1973.

In the transcript, General Quang told the Hanoi politburo that 1,205 U.S. prisoners were being held. Quang said that many of the prisoners would be held back from Washington after the accords as bargaining chips for war reparations. General Quang’s report added: “This is a big number. Officially, until now, we published a list of only 368 prisoners of war. The rest we have not revealed. The government of the USA knows this well, but it does not know the exact number ... and can only make guesses based on its losses. That is why we are keeping the number of prisoners of war secret, in accordance with the politburo’s instructions.” The report then went on to explain in clear and specific language that a large number would be kept back to ensure reparations.

And this:

Throughout the Paris negotiations, the North Vietnamese tied the prisoner issue tightly to the issue of reparations. They were adamant in refusing to deal with them separately. Finally, in a Feb. 2, 1973 formal letter to Hanoi’s premier, Pham Van Dong, Nixon pledged $3.25 billion in “postwar reconstruction” aid “without any political conditions.” But he also attached to the letter a codicil that said the aid would be implemented by each party “in accordance with its own constitutional provisions.” That meant Congress would have to approve the appropriation, and Nixon and Kissinger knew well that Congress was in no mood to do so. The North Vietnamese, whether or not they immediately understood the double-talk in the letter, remained skeptical about the reparations promise being honored—and it never was. Hanoi thus appears to have held back prisoners—just as it had done when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their forces from Vietnam. In that case, France paid ransoms for prisoners and brought them home.

16: And yet, they never made a demand for reparations predicated on those terms. For them to actually have leverage in such negotiations, the Vietnamese would have to reveal directly that they had these men as bargaining chips. They have never done so.

The Paris negotiations were predicated on the Vietnamese turning over the prisoners which they actually did turn over. Speculating that they had some other prisoners that they never revealed and which they held back assumes that they thought they could gain some advantage in negotiations by holding men they did not admit to having. That makes no sense.

Those officials that dealt closely with the POW issue knew that the number of released prisoners was low, even if they did not know the exact number being held back. The Vietnamese had an idea that the Americans knew the number was low. Nothing had to be stated explicitly. I am just speculating here, but if the Vietnamese were certain that their reparations would be forthcoming, they could arrange for the release of the other prisoners.

Nothing is straight forward in negotiations, especially between nations at war with each other. It's not a corporate merger or lawsuit.

The credibility issue here is this: it isn't "just" McCain and Kerry who found no compelling evidence of any live POWs being held in Vietnam. The Senate Select Committee that investigated the issue, and which unanimously came to that conclusion, included the following Senators: John Kerry, Bob Smith, John McCain, Bob Kerrey, Chuck Robb, Hank Brown, Chuck Grassley, Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Herb Kohl, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, and Jesse Helms.

Six of them were Vietnam veterans, McCain was the only former POW. Bob Kerrey is a Medal of Honor recipient. Smith has been heavily active in the POW/MIA area, making it his primary issue in the Senate (he was the driver behind the creation of the Select Committee). I'd like anyone to explain how Jesse Helms would have been party to covering up evidence that Vietnam was holding prisoners, since he pretty much took any opportunity he could to wave an axe at those he considered foreign enemies.

18: This is the sort of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" theory that is what forms the core of conspiracy theories. And it is mostly at odds with reality. If a nation has an advantage it expects to use in negotiations, it makes it known. Vietnam, even after the promised payments were not made, didn't let anyone know that they had more prisoners to release in order to spur the payments. If they had them, and intended to use them to gain leverage to obtain, effectively, ransom, then they would need to let someone know they had them. They never did.

(I'll note that there were not reparations contemplated following the Vietnam War; the negotiators stayed well clear of that term, or anything that could be said to imply that they were being paid).

Bitterly opposed by the Pentagon (and thus McCain), the bill went nowhere. Reintroduced the following year, it again disappeared. But a few months later, a new measure, known as “the McCain Bill,” suddenly appeared. By creating a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the documents could emerge—only records that revealed no POW secrets—it turned the Truth Bill on its head. The McCain bill became law in 1991 and remains so today. So crushing to transparency are its provisions that it actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios, and justifications for not releasing any information at all—even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity. Later that year, the Senate Select Committee was created, where Kerry and McCain ultimately worked together to bury evidence.

McCain was also instrumental in amending the Missing Service Personnel Act, which had been strengthened in 1995 by POW advocates to include criminal penalties, saying, “Any government official who knowingly and willfully withholds from the file of a missing person any information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in Title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.” A year later, in a closed House-Senate conference on an unrelated military bill, McCain, at the behest of the Pentagon, attached a crippling amendment to the act, stripping out its only enforcement teeth, the criminal penalties, and reducing the obligations of commanders in the field to speedily search for missing men and to report the incidents to the Pentagon.

That might explain the unanimity.

In Germany as a tourist in 1984, I had a chat with the desk clerk at the small hotel. (He did most of the chatting; his English was spotty, while my German is pretty non-existent.) Somehow he progressed from telling me where to find a good restaurant to telling a bit of his life story. He said that he had been a prisoner-of-war in Russia for 9 years. Huh? (Counted for me on his fingers.) But the war didn't last that long. I finally got out pen & paper, wrote 1939-1945, and handed him the pen. He wrote "1944-1953." I later asked the hotel owner, who spoke perfect English, if I had misunderstood him. The answer was: No, I hadn't misunderstood; it took many years for Germany to pay off the ransom/reparations to get all of their prisoners back.

If a nation has an advantage it expects to use in negotiations, it makes it known.

That is bureaucratized nonsense. Not everything has to make it on an official form. There is more to the world than the DMV.

21: No, actually it doesn't. The changes to the Missing Service Personnel Act came in 1995, two years after the Select Committe was dissolved after issuing its unanimous findings. How does that explain anything?

23: You still haven't explained why, after the promised payments had not been made, the Vietnamese didn't reveal that they were holding back prisoners to gain leverage. All you have is a story that simply doesn't make sense.

Its conspiracy theory at its finest. No actual data, just that it was "understood" to be radically different from anything that anyone actually talked about. A bunch of speculations rambling on in the absence of any actual evidence of any kind, filled in by guesses, lurid tales of cover-ups (and since there are cover-ups, no one has any evidence that they actually exist). And actions by nations that don't match up in any way with what their supposed goals were.

There is speculation that the Vietnamese withheld prisoners because it was "understood" that they would release them if they got paid. But they never told anyone they actually had them. Does that make more sense than the idea that Vietnam may have wanted to give the impression they might be holding more prisoners than they actually were in order to puff up their leverage without actually lying at the negotiating table?

One question someone might ask is this: suppose the government had been covering up actual evidence of POWs Vietnam held back for decades. How is it possible that no DoD personnel have had a crisis of conscience and come forward with actual data? Why is it that the primary faces for the POW/MIA issue are lying scumbuckets or glory hounds like Jack Bailey, Bo Gritz, and Scott Barnes?

You and I can attach explanations to things all day long, but they would still remain speculative. Either the Vietnamese held back prisoners or they did not. There is no middle ground. For all we know the Vietnamese held them back for purely irrational reasons.

The bureaucratic maze became reality in 1991. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the senate committee may not have had all the information necessary to make an informed finding.

26: Sure, they could have. The problem is that there just isn't any evidence that they did, or that there was a cover up. Why, exactly, would Kerry and McCain want to cover up evidence that the Vietnamese had withheld prisoners? And how would they somehow convince ten other Senators to go along with them? It just doesn't add up.

27: The Senate can demand documents that are not generally available. Classified documents must be turned over to Senate Committees if they request them. There is no basis for concluding that because it might be difficult for a private citizen to get classified or confidential documents that the same is true for a Senator or Senate committee.

You can't make a proper request if you don't know what you are looking for.

30: Now your arguments are just getting weak. "All documents relating to prisoners of believed to be held in Vietnam or any personnel currently or formerly declared missing in action in Vietnam. This request applies to the following surrounding countries . . . " A committee can demand follow up documents too. Heck, they could demand every document relating to the Vietnam war if they wanted to.

I think it's hilarious that you want to paint me as a conspiracy nut even though your line of argument follows from speculation. If A, then how come B did or did not do C. Well, B assumes rationality, interest, etc. Maybe a senator can help Tami Sheheri with her FOIA request (PDF). But that might indicate interest.

We know Jesse Helms didn't like foreigners, right? So it follows that he would have jumped at the chance to harp on the Vietnamese. That's one idea. But it could also be the case that, given the specifics of the meeting, Jesse Helms could have been ignorant of certain evidence, beholden to certain political interests (not necessarily special in nature), and etc.

But either the evidence is convincing or it is not. Either the Vietnamese held back prisoners or they did not. A bureaucratic committee doesn't have the last word. That's bureaucratic thinking at its most base.

Let's take a look at that "bureaucratic maze" you keep referring to. Here's the vilified bill:

SECTION 1. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION CONCERNING UNITED STATES PERSONNEL CLASSIFIED AS PRISONER OF WAR OR MISSING IN ACTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- (1) Except as provided in section 2, the head of each department or agency of the Federal Government holding or receiving any information referred to in paragraph (2) relating to any United States personnel currently classified as prisoners of war or missing in action shall make such information available to the public.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any record, live-sighting report, or other information relating to the location, treatment, or condition of any person referred to in such paragraph on or after the date on which such person passed from control of the Armed Forces of the United States into a status ultimately classified as prisoner of war or missing in action, as the case may be.

(b) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INFORMATION- At the same time that the Secretary of Defense makes available to the public the records and other information that is subject to the deadline established by section 3(a), the Secretary shall also make available to the public a complete list of United States personnel classified as prisoners of war, missing in action, or killed in action (body not returned) after 1940, including during a period of war. The list shall include--

(1) the current classification of each listed person for Department of Defense purposes; and

(2) each change that has occurred in the listed person's classification (for Department of Defense purposes) since the original classification.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL- A record or other information, including any fatality report, may not be made available to the public pursuant to section 1 if--

(1) such record or other information is exempt from the disclosure requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of subsection (b) of such section;

(2) the record or other information is in a system of records exempt from the requirements of subsection (d) of section 552a of such title pursuant to subsection (k) of such section; or

(3) the record or other information specifically mentions a person by name unless such person or, in the case of a dead or incapacitated person or a person whose whereabouts is unknown, the closest living relative of such person (as determined by the official custodian of such record or information) expressly consents in writing to the disclosure of such record or other information.

(b) INAPPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITION TO MEMBERS OF FAMILY- The prohibition contained in subsection (a)(3) does not apply to the access of a member of the family of a person to any record or information to the extent that the record or other information relates to such person.

(c) DELEGABILITY OF CONSENT AUTHORITY- The authority of a person to consent to disclosure of a record or other information for the purposes of subsection (a)(3) may be delegated to another person or an organization only by means of an express legal power of attorney granted by the person authorized by such subsection to consent to the disclosure.

SEC. 3. DEADLINES.

(a) EXISTING RECORDS AND INFORMATION- In the case of records or other information that are required by section 1(a) to be made available to the public and are held by a department or agency of the Federal Government on the date of the enactment of this Act, the head of such department or agency shall make such records and other information available to the public pursuant to this Act not later than 1 year after such date.

(b) NEW RECORDS AND INFORMATION- Whenever after the date of the enactment of this Act a department or agency of the Federal Government receives any record or other information referred to in section 1(a) that is required by this Act to be made available to the public, the head of such department or agency shall make such record or other information available to the public pursuant to this Act not later than 1 year after it is received by that department or agency.

(c) EXCEPTIONS- If the head of a department or agency determines that his disclosure of any record or other information referred to in section 1(a) by the date required by subsection (a) or (b) will compromise the safety of United States personnel known or thought to be held as prisoners of war, then the head of such department or agency may withhold such record or other information from the disclosure otherwise required by this Act and shall immediately notify the President and the congressional intelligence committees of that determination.

For those who don't know, 5 U.S.C. 552 is the Freedom of Information Act. The only "bureaucratic maze" people have to go through is the one that they go through when requesting any document from the U.S. government. And this bill limits the use of those exclusions when applied to the family of the individual whose records are being requested. Note that this bill does not apply to requests from Congress, only to disclosing information to the public at large, which is the same for any document under FOIA. It is hard to see how this bill, in any way, creates a "bureacratic maze" in any way, shape, or form.

A bureaucratic committee doesn't have the last word.

As I pointed out, the POW/MIA conspiracy theorists have a credibility problem. A Senate Select Committee of twelve senators operated for two years, interviewed a thousand plus witnesses, conducted more than 200 depositions, held 200 hours of public hearings, looked at a million documents from the DoD, got the Vietnamese to open all their records and had investigators working all over the world, and then unanimously concluded that there was no evidence Vietnam was holding any POWs.

What is the response? Wild-eyed mischaracterizations of a fairly innocuous bill introduced by McCain that parallel the provisions of FOIA. Like I said, a credibility problem.

Maybe a senator with a crisis of conscience can help those families with FOIA requests? I think that wold be an interesting experiment considering that 5 U.S.C. 552 necessarily limits who can request certain documents.

>34 StormRaven:

Really, why bother arguing? You might as well argue vaccines with Jenny McCarthy. There is a deep-seated psychological need to believe stuff like this. That crazy movements like this must have a Judas--in this case, McCain, the POW who betrayed them all!--is not a matter of facts and debate but of psychological necessity.

There is nothing in >34 StormRaven: that suggests that what they have found necessarily follows from the evidence. Senators are human beings, too, last I checked. What does and does not constitute evidence, for example.

From the article:

Two Defense secretaries who served during the Vietnam War testified to the Senate POW committee in September 1992 that prisoners were not returned. James Schlesinger and Melvin Laird, both speaking at a public session and under oath, said they based their conclusions on strong intelligence data—letters, eyewitness reports, even direct radio contacts. Under questioning, Schlesinger chose his words carefully, understanding clearly the volatility of the issue: “I think that as of now that I can come to no other conclusion ... some were left behind.” This ran counter to what President Nixon told the public in a nationally televised speech on March 29, 1973, when the repatriation of the 591 was in motion: “Tonight,” Nixon said, “the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come. For the first time in 12 years, no American military forces are in Vietnam. All our American POWs are on their way home.” Documents unearthed since then show that aides had already briefed Nixon about the contrary evidence.

35: A Senator is not constrained by FOIA. If he requests information from an agency, then the exclusions don't apply. FOIA doesn't limit who can request documents, the FOIA limitations are:

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information deleted shall be indicated at the place in the record where such deletion is made.

.

I'll also point to section (d) of FOIA, which states: This section does not authorize the withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated in this section. This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress.

Your argument can be structured this way:

Authoritative figures A, B, C, and D say X is true. Therefore, X is true.

39: More like this:

Group A conducts extensive investigations into X, and says X is true. Group B conducts no investigations, wildly mischaracterizes things like the text of bills and says that as a result X is not true. Group B has a serious credibility problem on the issue.

Look, if you can't even get the basic nature of laws correct, and something as simple as FOIA is a "bureaucratic maze" to you, then you really don't have much credibility on much of any subject.

How does that follow?

If someone is ignorant of X, then they must be ignorant of the whole alphabet. You're not nearly as reasonable as you think you are.

I think, if anything, you are credulous and subject to treating official investigations like the last word from tribal elders. Reasonable skepticism of official proclamations isn't a vice it's a virtue, even if you get some things wrong. Far too many people are willing to take the claims of experts and the powerful at face value. You would think all the overturned cases and freed inmates from death row would demonstrate the fallibility of formal institutions.

41: The problem is if you cannot comprehend something like FOIA, which is about as strightforward a piece of law as one can find, then there's some serious question about their ability to handle any kind of analysis.

I'm not treating the official investigations like the last word. I'm treating them as more credible than those who have questioned them, since they actually investigated the subject, and the opposition has offered nothing to counter their conclusions more substantial than wild-eyed speculation and misstatements about the laws involved.

there's some serious question about their ability to handle any kind of analysis.

That still doesn't follow. It's bad induction. Most people can remember instances in which they have found themselves befuddled by seemingly simple objects or just done something badly. That does not imply that they are befuddled by or bad at everything else. This is basic stuff. Should I therefore make a broad claim about your ability to analyze others? That's what I mean about experts.

>42 StormRaven: The problem is if you cannot comprehend something like FOIA, which is about as strightforward a piece of law as one can find, then there's some serious question about their ability to handle any kind of analysis.

Nah. There's no grandfather clause or literacy test for asking questions.

> 36 You might as well argue vaccines with Jenny McCarthy.

We need a thread on vaccines. As crazy as Sister makes me, I've done the numbers (I think on DPT) and it definitely would have been in my kids' interests to skip that vaccine as long as I could convince everyone else to vaccinate THEIR kids. (Tradeoff is between public health and one's own kids health.) My recollection is that Europe moved far before us for a safer DPT vaccine.

As for MMR (Jenny's bete noir?), my sister's kid did react to it (some do) and ANY mom--even Jenny McCarthy--seeing that, goes into protective mode. (Especially if she works in an alternative med office which sees the kids that regular medicine has forsaken.) Anyway, although my kids are vaccinated, and I'm thinking, that in addition to vaccines there may be microcontaminants--or SOMETHING--in play, these moms are not nuts to seize on something that preceded their kids' problems, which by the way are XXX more common than just a few decades ago. (End of tirade, Tim and Jesse--and Sister who drives me nuts with this stuff.) {:>

14> Back off, tiger. My point is that there is no need to denigrate anyone, including the sources those of us who might disagree with you choose to submit. I didn't take your comment personally, and was only suggesting that adults are expected to behave as such, when in an adult environment. If you want to be taken seriously, you might start by allowing others to disagree with you, without slamming their sources as 'conspiracy wingnuts.'

46: As Bob Kerrey said concerning the Senate Select Comittee on POW/MIA Affairs, "Nobody wanted to be on that damn committee. It was an absolute loser. Everyone knew that the POW stories were fabrications, but no one wanted to offend the vet community."

So wingut is a polite term for the conspiracy theorists on this.

Most people can remember instances in which they have found themselves befuddled by seemingly simple objects or just done something badly.

Sure, but here we have an argument that an entire category of people - those supposedly seeking information from the government regarding POW/MIAs from Vietnam, are stymied by the "bureaucratic maze" of "the McCain Bill", which turns out to be essentially identical to FOIA. FOIA is, a sunshine law, designed to open access to government records, and which thousands of people use on a daily basis to request and obtain documents from every component of the government. And yet the provisions of this law, transparent to most everyone, are somehow completely opaque to the POW/MIA community. If true, this makes one wonder if they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I don't think it is true for a second. I think that they just didn't get the answers they were hoping for, and as a result, have decided that by calling the law a "bureaucratic maze" they can keep sympathy among people who don't bother to go and actually look at the text of the legislation. As I said before, I'd like someone to explain how provisions that parallel the provisions of FOIA are a "bureaucratic maze".

Another thing that is never explained in this story is how McCain supposedly got all the other members of the Select Committee to go along with his supposed cover up. And if the "McCain Bill" was so bad, how did he not only convince the majority of his fellow Senators and the majority of members of the House to pass it too? Especially since, in 1991, both houses were controlled by the other party. How exactly did he arrange a cover up as a member of the minority party? McCain wasn't even vice-chairman of the committee, Bob Smith was.

(Smith, by the way, was personally motivated to involve himself on the POW/MIA issue as his own father had gone missing in WWII and his final fate has never been determined, giving Smith a personal connection to the issue. I'd like to see an explanation of how McCain got him to engage in a cover up).

The POW committee hearings were a prelude to opening up trade negotiations with the Vietnamese govt. As long as the issue was out there there weren't going to be negotiations--there would have been too much outrage. US elected officials had to show there was nothing there and then major multinationals such as Ford, GM, Coca Cola etc. (who are front and center in political contributions) could move into that Southeast Asian nation and take advantage of low cost labor and relaxed environmental standards. Republicans and Democrats alike put business before everything else--well, except for maybe personal pleasure.

I remember watching a lot of it and it was run mostly by Kerry of Mass. and Smith of N.H. For the most part the hearings made very good political theatre--it may have been doubtful even then that anyone held back was still alive but my suspicions (operative word) are that not every prisoner did come home--that at least a few were held back--maybe even killed later on and that that is not inconsistent with the history of conflict throughout the ages.

As for McCain he doesn't seem to get a lot of love from former Viet Nam veterans.

South Korean wingnuts:

"Somewhere in North Korea, more than 500 South Korean prisoners of war have been held for more than half a century"

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6340H020100405

Swedish (and Russian) wingnuts:

"New evidence on Wallenberg mystery - 'Great likelihood' Swedish war hero was alive after he was reported dead: Russian archives"

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/evidence+Wallenberg+mystery/2759122/story.ht...

47> So wingut is a polite term for the conspiracy theorists on this.

By your opinion, which doesn't hold much water, with some. I also don't find M'sieur Kerrey to be an authority on much of anything, so his opinion doesn't carry much weight with me, either. Codyed has brought up some interesting points, with facts that he found to support his points. I feel that there is enough evidence to warrant investigation into the matter. You disagree, and you might notice that we do not denigrate your sources by calling them childish names. Bring it up a notch, why don't you.

I thought this matter had been cleared up by Chuck Norris's brilliant trilogy of Missing in Action films.

By your opinion, which doesn't hold much water, with some.

Well, not conspiracy theory winguts for sure. Haven't you gotten your head handed to you often enough?

I also don't find M'sieur Kerrey to be an authority on much of anything, so his opinion doesn't carry much weight with me, either.

Yes, a Vietnam veteran, Medal of Honor recipient, and Senator who participated in a two year investigation into the matter doesn't know much of anything on the subject.

(Just in case you were not clear on this, Bob Kerrey is not John Kerry).

Codyed has brought up some interesting points, with facts that he found to support his points. I feel that there is enough evidence to warrant investigation into the matter.

Okay, let's have a select Senate Comittee of a dozen interested Senators, half of whom are Vietnam veterans, take two years, review a couple million DoD documents, have a million DoD documents declassified, go through the archives of the Vietnamese government, interview a thousand people, conduct 200 depositions, hold 200 hours of public hearings, and have investigators go through records in several locations in Russia and Southeast Asia. I mean, we want to be thorough and have a comprehensive investigation.

Oh wait, that's already been done.

I suppose you could FOIA some documents if that's not too hard for you to figure out.

"Somewhere in North Korea, more than 500 South Korean prisoners of war have been held for more than half a century"

Here's the major difference: North Korea does not deny that the men are there. They claim they stayed "voluntarily", which is almost certainly bullshit, but they don't maintain that they released all the prisoners.

49: I think one of the major problems with the theory that POW/MIAs were held back by Vietnam is simply the scale that would be required to keep this conspiracy going. It would require eight presidents from both parties, their White House staffs, the secretaries of state and defense, their staffs, and a pile of nonpolitical career diplomatic and military service personnel all either knowingly or negligently aiding the conspiracy. This would require thousands of people to participate by action or ommission, and probably millions once changes in personnel over the decades are taken into account.

But the problem is apparently that the provisions of FOIA create a "bureaucratic maze" than cannot be penetrated by the truth seekers.

53> Haven't you gotten your head handed to you often enough?

By you? That's a bit of arrogance, isn't it? You disagree with me, and occasionally attack me personally, but I still have my head firmly attached to my neck. I know because I just checked. Yep. It's still where the gods put it, a few years ago.

Kerrey is a politician. End of story. He would not be the first one to put ambition ahead of truth, and I do not take anything a politician says as fact.

Okay, let's have a select Senate Committee of a dozen interested Senators, half of whom are Vietnam veterans, take two years, review a couple million DoD documents, have a million DoD documents declassified, go through the archives of the Vietnamese government, interview a thousand people, conduct 200 depositions, hold 200 hours of public hearings, and have investigators go through records in several locations in Russia and Southeast Asia. I mean, we want to be thorough and have a comprehensive investigation.

Unh hunh. That's what they told you they did. Did you personally see all of those documents? I sincerely doubt that you did, so until you can tell me with certainty, and with evidence, that you did so, the statements made by them subsequent to their 'investigation' are still third-party statements made by politicians. Since when did any of them impart information that was not self-serving? Iriley's comment has some truth to it, as well, and might be the thing that swayed some to overlook the issue of the missing POW/MIAs. We don't know, and we want another look.

I suppose you could FOIA some documents if that's not too hard for you to figure out.

Must we all agree with you? I don't, and you can be as snarky as you wish, but it won't change my opinion one iota.

By you? That's a bit of arrogance, isn't it?

Actually, the source is your only passing familiarity with reality. It wouldn't be so easy to expose your shocking lack of knowledge about, well, anything, if you didn't post such ridiculously stupid garbage all the time.

So, Kerrey isn't credible, despite the fact that you have no actual basis for showing him not to be other than he is a "politician". Who do you think is credible? Guys like Jack Bailey, Bo Gritz, or Scott Barnes?

Unh hunh. That's what they told you they did. Did you personally see all of those documents? I sincerely doubt that you did, so until you can tell me with certainty, and with evidence, that you did so, the statements made by them subsequent to their 'investigation' are still third-party statements made by politicians. Since when did any of them impart information that was not self-serving? Iriley's comment has some truth to it, as well, and might be the thing that swayed some to overlook the issue of the missing POW/MIAs. We don't know, and we want another look.

You know what? You can take another look. The proceedings of a Senate Committee are public record. Their unanimous report is also public record. If you, or anyone else, want to check on what they did and compare it to the report, you can get the documents and transcripts and conduct an investigation yourselves. The only reason "you don't know" is you haven't bothered to check. But that would entail actual work, so I doubt you or any conspiracy theorist will do it. You'll just kvetch and spin fantasies.

As normalization didn't take place for three years after the committee concluded its business, Iriley's argument is of limited interest. Iriley's argument also assumes that thousands of non-interested military and diplomatic personnel went along with a cover up for no apparent gain to themselves at all. One has to wonder why politically powerful people opposed to normalizing relations with Vietnam (such as Bob Dole) didn't criticize the committee if it was supposedly a whitewash. Once again, there's a serious credibility problem for the conspiracy theorists.

Must we all agree with you?

Do you even know what FOIA is?

#55--To be honest I think you can come up with a better response than that.

I've heard that argument a number of times before. For instance during the Nafta debate--where it was argued that: 'How could the president (Clinton at the time) and 4 former presidents (Bush, Carter, Ford, Reagan) + all their respective Secretaries of State (another 5 in number--including Kissinger, Schultz) all be wrong while meanwhile Perot, Nader and Jesse Jackson be right? It just wouldn't make sense--you would think. But the thing is everyone was right--presidents, secretaries of state and Perot, Nader and Jackson. It only depends on what side of the dividing line you are on--who you owe your allegiance to. And what was clear to me was the allegiance of the Clinton administration and all the former administrations was to big business and the needs and desires of big business. If you lost your job then because of that and had to take a lower paying job or just be unemployed you were clearly a loser. Again it all depends on where you are.

In the case of opening trade talks with Vietnam an accomodation had to be made and was to the govt. of Vietnam. Likewise these hearings had to be held to appease the general public. The fact that the hearings came approx. 15 years after we pulled out of Vietnam made it easy to argue that nobody had been left--and that quite probably there was no one alive at that point. The end goal was achieved soon afterwards opening up Vietnam to American/multinational development.

In any case it is consistent with war and peace that not everyone is accounted for and that if you are holding someone you don't want to return--for whatever reason--you can make them disappear.

58: Well, one problem here is that Bush was president when the Select Committee was invesitgating, so what the Clinton administration would or would not favor is not really relevant to their conclusions. The problem is not assuming that the Presidents et al. were right and that the various people arguing that there were still POWs being held were wrong. The problem is that to assume that the government is covering up evidence that those prisoners exist and are being held one has to assume that all those people - at this point eight Presidents, their staff, all of the secretaries of state and defense, and all their staffs, and a huge number of other, non-political career state and defense personnel have all been involved in the cover up. This would be one of the hugest conspiracies ever conceived, and it is impossible to imagine that a secret shared among thousands, if not millions, could be kept.

The thing is, the number of unaccounted for soldiers in Vietnam is quite small. As compared to the total of confirmed dead, those listed as unaccounted for amount to about 4%. The comparable figures from, for example, WWII and the Korean War amount to 20% and 15% respectively. Claiming that the government hasn't tried to uncover the truth here in the face of these sorts of numbers seems quixotic at best.

It would require eight presidents from both parties, their White House staffs, the secretaries of state and defense, their staffs, and a pile of nonpolitical career diplomatic and military service personnel all either knowingly or negligently aiding the conspiracy

From the article:

In its early months, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs gave the appearance of being committed to finding out the truth about the MIAs. As time went on, however, it became clear that they were cooperating in every way with the Pentagon and CIA, who often seemed to be calling the shots, even setting the agendas for certain key hearings. Both agencies held back the most important POW files. Dick Cheney was the Pentagon chief then; Robert Gates, now the Pentagon chief, was the CIA director.

Further, the committee failed to question any living president. Reagan declined to answer questions; the committee didn’t contest his refusal. Nixon was given a pass. George H.W. Bush, the sitting president, whose prints were all over this issue from his days as CIA chief in the 1970s, was never even approached. Troubled by these signs, several committee staffers began asking why the agencies they should be probing had been turned into committee partners and decision makers. Memos to that effect were circulated. The staff made the following finding, using intelligence reports marked “credible” that covered POW sightings through 1989: “There can be no doubt that POWs were alive ... as late as 1989.” That finding was never released. Eventually, much of the staff was in rebellion.

Skeptics and conspiracy theorists like to portray reality in very discreet units in which everything falls into place, given the right perspective. But reality is messy and ugly and continuous. Here we have an example of rebellious staffers putting together a finding which runs against the prevailing winds of the committee and...nothing. Far from being a conspiracy in which everyone keeps their mouth shut. People spoke out and no one cared.

60: The first paragraph requires an implausible conspiracy. It requires that members of the DoD and CIA for no political or other gain to themselves, engage in an ongoing conspiracy to cover up something. As pointed out before, there is no basis for withholding any documents from a Senate committee - the exclusions in "the McCain Bill" explicitly do not allow for documents to be withheld from Congress. It is also vague - what POW files were supposedly withheld? The article doesn't say. It just says they were "the most important" ones. How could the writer possibly know that?

The second paragraph omits some important elements. The "credible" marked reports were followed up on by the committee and found to be baseless. This is the thing about an investigation: you have reports that have to be investigated, and investigations are done. Some things, it turns out upon investigation, don't hold up. That would be why that finding was never reported. The idea that the staff was in revolt is a completely unsourced claim - no staffers are cited, no other witnesses are provided. It is the sort of vague, completely unsubstantiated charge that consporacy theories are built upon.

And here we are, almost twenty years after the committee ended its business. None of the supposedly rebellious staffers have produced any documentation or other evidence that the committee didn't do its job properly. We just have outside speculation. Like I said before, FOIA the documents. They are public record.

The "credible" marked reports were followed up on by the committee and found to be baseless.

What criteria did the committee use to judge the "credible" marked reports "baseless."

62: Well, one was on site investigations. They gave such short notice to the Vietnamese of their intent to visit several sites that they were accused of being engaged in espionage.

That's great. If we are to file FOIA requests and interview former congressional staffers, then I think we should have details on the methods used by investigators. Now, the investigator dispatched to Vietnam--was he credible?

64: Some of those involved in site visits were committee members. Is Kerrey credible? You can phrase a FOIA request pretty broadly. Ask for something like "all documents related to the investigations of the Senate Select Comittee on POW/MIA Affairs".

Here's a question. Assume for a moment that it is in fact true that no POWs are held by Vietnam, and none were being held when the Select Comittee was investigating and there was not a massive impossible to hold together conspiracy that was covering up their existence. And that the various shreds of alleged evidence were, in fact, the alternate explanations offered by the various agencies. What would it take to convince you that this was, in fact, true?

#64

Investigating:

A satellite photo taken over Laos in 1988 shows the letters "USA" --- about 12 feet high and 36 feet across --- in a rice paddy. Next to them is what some analysts say is a secret "escape & evasion" code formerly provided to pilots. So, how do we investigate?

According to the testimony I heard during those hearings, we go and ask Laotian officials. Eventually they come back and announce that the puzzle is solved, and take our investigators to meet a man said to have owned the rice paddy. There, the interpreter passes on the news that the letters "USA" were put there by the man's own son, who had seen them on an envelope and been so taken by their shape that he had to go make a giant-size copy. We say "Ah! That explains it!"

I found the report on that bit of "investigation" so fascinating that I still have it somewhere on tape.

#59--you made the point that no one was providing any motivation for whitewashing the issue. Opening up Southeast Asia for development and trade was IMO motivation enough--as multinationals, banks etc. (those who would be the main benefactors) are big time political campaign contributors and most everyone if not everyone on that committee could always use a little extra cash for their next run--might as well mention extra perks such as business/pleasure trips or hiring the friend of a friend.

And I think as well that dismissing any and all 'conspiracy theories' is a mistake as there are such things as conspiracies and there have always been. And our govt. and its institutions have had their fair share of them The Kennedy assassination has never really been resolved. It's obvious that Nixon thought he could get away with Watergate. The CIA has been behind numerous assassination and coup plots. One CIA director conveniently destroyed much of the MK Ultra files shortly before he died and as one of those Senate Committees was closing in on the 'truth' or their version of it. Iran contra? All the bs behind the March 2003 Iraq invasion? So I think at least under the right circumstances our Govt. and it's institutions are very capable of plotting, carrying out illegalities and later on obscuring the truth and/or letting the culprits off more or less scot free.

In any case--to McCain--they made a movie about him in which he was the focal point of resistance in his particular prison camp. Considering how some of his fellow prisoners seem to feel about him it's a little mistifying.

John Kerry and his presidential campaign was kind of torpedoed by some of his own fellow Swiftboaters.

Bob Kerrey--has been accused of abetting and/or actually taking part in murders of innocent(?) villagers when he was a Navy Seal.

I mean credibility is in the eye of the beholder. They all may have reasons for not wanting to delve too much into their Vietnam experiences.

57> It wouldn't be so easy to expose your shocking lack of knowledge about, well, anything, if you didn't post such ridiculously stupid garbage all the time.

You prove my point once again, which shouldn't surprise anyone. You seem to be intolerant of opposing ideas. Surprisingly, I seem to get under your skin, although it was not my intent, and that's a lot of power to give someone. I promise to use it sparingly, and for the common good of mankind.

As for the rest of your point, the others have addressed it very well in my absence, and I have nothing to add to their contributions that is likely to make any difference to a closed mind. You do not have all of the answers any more than do the rest of us. We are asking questions, whereas you seem comfortable with the current dogma. Not everyone agrees with you.

PS - If there is going to be any name-calling try to hold off for a few days, until I get back from Paris, if you can. I'd hate to miss it.

FYI - ik foia fs.

You seem to be intolerant of opposing ideas.

No. The problem is that you seem to confuse "ideas" with "facts". You see, there are lots of people who have very different ideas than I do and I get along just fine with them. The garbage you post is almost always riddled with outright falsehoods, which is why it is so easy to demonstrate the stupidity of your posts.

The posts you think have "addressed the point" haven't. I just haven't bothered to respond to an assertion so ridiculous as Kerry should be discounted because of the obviosuly fraudulent "swiftboat" lobby (isn't it funny that during the 2004 Presidential campaign you would have likely discounted them out of hand, yet now they are supposedly credible). There are some assertions that don't really merit a response because they are so clearly silly.

69> There are some assertions that don't really merit a response because they are so clearly silly.

Oh, come on! Don't disappoint us. Give it a go, for the gipper and all that. By the way, what is a storm raven? Is it a bird of prey, or is it more like a pigeon?

Edited to add:

The problem is that you seem to confuse "ideas" with "facts".

I'm not confused, but I am puzzled that your 'facts' seem to have more importance and credibility than the facts presented by others. Why is this so? We have all cited documents/articles/vids which support the points we are making, yet you dismiss these with a wave of your wing. If 'silly' should be used in this discussion at all, it is for your determination to make everyone toe the SR beliefs. I don't, and if that still gets up your nose, well...would you like a Kleenex?

Leaving K.J. to spin himself into irrrelevance with his conspiranoid fantasies and turning to people who can be taken seriously.

you made the point that no one was providing any motivation for whitewashing the issue. Opening up Southeast Asia for development and trade was IMO motivation enough--as multinationals, banks etc. (those who would be the main benefactors) are big time political campaign contributors and most everyone if not everyone on that committee could always use a little extra cash for their next run--might as well mention extra perks such as business/pleasure trips or hiring the friend of a friend.

The problem here is one of credibility on the theory. The idea that opening Vietnam was a big motivating factor is somewhat less than convincing. First, people had been attemtping for years to normalize relations with Vietnam - Carter first made overtures in 1977, so in 1991 there would have been little reason to expect that it might be imminent. And, of course, it didn't materialize until a couple years later under an entirely different administration. That is an awfully weak basis to argue that not just Kerry, McCain, and Kerrey colluded, but the other nine members of the specific Senate Committee, every member of the Senate went along with it and every Presidential administration from Carter to now plus numerous nonpolitical people in the Departments of Defense and State, plus hundreds to thousands of other people did as well.

And I think as well that dismissing any and all 'conspiracy theories' is a mistake as there are such things as conspiracies and there have always been. And our govt. and its institutions have had their fair share of them The Kennedy assassination has never really been resolved. It's obvious that Nixon thought he could get away with Watergate. The CIA has been behind numerous assassination and coup plots. One CIA director conveniently destroyed much of the MK Ultra files shortly before he died and as one of those Senate Committees was closing in on the 'truth' or their version of it. Iran contra? All the bs behind the March 2003 Iraq invasion? So I think at least under the right circumstances our Govt. and it's institutions are very capable of plotting, carrying out illegalities and later on obscuring the truth and/or letting the culprits off more or less scot free.

Here's the problem. Conspiracies generally don't stay a secret for long. Nixon thought he could get away with Watergate. He clearly didn't. The "bs behind the March 2003 Iraq invasion" didn't say secret either. That doesn't seem to support the idea that there is a much more massive government conspiracy that has remained entirely secret when the government has proven time and again that it has a hard time keeping much less widespread secrets. There is a point when the people necessary to make a particular conspiracy work goes beyond the bounds of plausibility. Watergate had less than a dozen people involved, and it cracked almost immediately.

Plus, there's no real evidence for this particular conspiracy. There's a bunch of innuendo and a lot of conjecture and not much more. You have conspiracy claims that seem to contraqdict one another. First, we have the claim that DoD, via nonpolitical personnel, was calling the shots of the Senate Committee's proceedings. Then we have the claim that McCain, Kerry, et. al. wanted to butter up their political buddies by steering the committee towards the conclusions they reached to pave the way to normalize relations with Vietnam. But those claims run counter to one another.

Sure, there's a strong desire to have the men who didn't come back actually be alive. I don't blame the families for hoping it to be true. But that doesn't actually make it true, and the evidence we have pretty much points towards it not being true.

In any case--to McCain--they made a movie about him in which he was the focal point of resistance in his particular prison camp. Considering how some of his fellow prisoners seem to feel about him it's a little mistifying.

John Kerry and his presidential campaign was kind of torpedoed by some of his own fellow Swiftboaters.

Bob Kerrey--has been accused of abetting and/or actually taking part in murders of innocent(?) villagers when he was a Navy Seal.

And this just puts the nail in the coffin. This is innuendo being used to bootstrap a bunch of other innuendo. Just to take the swiftboat allegations - these have been shown to be at best, highly dubious. At least one affiant had no actual knowledge of the events he related in his affidavit. Many of the remainder of the affidavits were contradicted by other veterans who observed the events, by Navy records, and by their own statements made at other times. In other words, we have a whole bunch of innuendo that is contradicted by multiple sources. In 2004 I did not support Kerry - I thought then (and still do) that he would have made a lousy President, for a bunch of reasons that had nothing to do with his Vietnam service. And I thought the swiftboat allegations were crap at the time, and investigation had shown that belief was probably true. The idea that this somehow shows that kerry would have something to hide about his service is simply silly. The idea that Bob Kerrey would have something to hide is also silly. Kerrey has been open about the events at Thanh Phong, accepting responsibility for the civilian deaths (because he was the commander of the team that went to the village). That doesn't seem like the actions of a man hoping to create a veil of opacity around his service. The McCain allegations are just as nonbelievable as the Kerry ones.

I mean credibility is in the eye of the beholder. They all may have reasons for not wanting to delve too much into their Vietnam experiences.

And yet the sources you cite to cast doubt on the credibility of these men are almost completely uncredible themselves. And you have to assume that several other Senators on the committee, plus the entire remainder of the Senate went along with them to supposedly cover stuff up. And DoD personnel who had nothing to gain from doing so. And Department of State personnel. And so on.

As I said a while back, those arguing that there are prisoners held back simply have a credibility problem. Your citing "swiftboat veterans for truth" only serves to amply illustrate the truth of my statement.

credibility problem

How do you explain the fact that one of three bodies handed over during negotiations in 1981 was identified as that of a pilot known to have been a prisoner in 1967, who had never appeared on any list provided by the Vietnamese of live or dead prisoners, and of whom they had denied having any knowledge?

It would also be interesting to hear an explanation as to why Schelsinger, Laird, Tighe, Quang, and others said that men were left behind/held back. All wingnuts?

It would also be interesting to hear an explanation as to why Schelsinger, Laird, Tighe, Quang, and others said that men were left behind/held back. All wingnuts?

Schlesigner and Lair's quotes have been taken entirely out of context. If you look at their quotes, it is clear that they were telling Nixon that, at the time, his certainty that all prisoners had been returned was not warranted, and it was not at the time. Neither has stated that they had then, or have now any evidence that prisoners were actually held back. Mining their quotes as some sort of evidence that they knew that POWs were held back serves to further undermine the credibility of the "cover-up" lobby.

The context in qhich Quang made his statements is important. At the time, Sino-Vietnamese relations were going south in a hurry (and erupted into a disastrous war in 1979). The Vietnamese were soliciting the Soviets as their source of support against the Chinese threat (and really, the Soviets were their only possible source of support). For them to engage in some puffery to help convince the Soviets they had leverage which they didn't have makes sense in context.