OT: The Swiftees

[Jared]

Jared,

I don't buy your argument at all. I think common sense works against it, big time. If you were running black ops into a country that you weren't supposed to be in, you would know. You would remember. And no one but Kerry remembers. Every officer in his chain of command denies it. His crew denies it.

His entire crew doesn't deny it...only three members of his crew have. So that's a bit of an exaggeration. And every officer in his chain of command that's a member of Swift Boat Vets for Kerry has denied it. Even though (as a post earlier shows), O'Neill admitted to have been in Cambodia in a conversation with President Nixon.

You're clinging to this theoretical shred of possibility that just doesn't wash. Use your common sense, and remember that all these guys coming out against are from all across the political spectrum (O'Neill voted Perot 2X and Gore in 2000, says he would vote Edwards for Prez, backs the Dem. mayor of Houston) and are also highly decorated, well-respected men. (I hear a rumor that another Admiral, who is the former acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and who was present during the action that got Kerry's 1st purple heart, will be coming out against Kerry in October).

O'Neill worked with Nixon and Colson to lead the attacks on Kerry when Kerry was a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. So obviously, he's just an unbiased non-partisan with no ax to grind.

And there are well-respected men supporting Kerry as well. However, it doesn't change the fact that the stories of these men STILL do not fit in with any of the historical evidence, that these men have flip-flopped on earlier testimonials regarding Kerry's service, and that these men haven't said anything about this until 35 years after the fact (even though Kerry has been in the public's eye). I'm hoping someone in the pro-Swift Boat camp answers this stuff...

I agree that 1 and 2 are not significantly different. I only put them there to illlustrate that he was convinced ('86 testimony "seared--SEARED--into my memory") that he was in Cambodia around Christmas. Then the accusations and evidence come out, and only then does the story change. Then his biographer (who has his journals, and won't let anyone see them beyond what's already been quoted in Tour of Duty) comes out and says he went several times. Then the Kerry campaign says it was only once.

Again, the story doesn't change between 1&2 and 3. If I say I went to Walmart on Christmas Eve, does that mean I've never been to Walmart again in my life? As for the Kerry campaign saying it was only once, I've never seen this report...so if you have a link to it, I'd love to see it.

Even if you forget the dates, even if your crew, CO, and everyone above him, the rest of the captains in your squadrons that you bunked with and operated with and went on missions with, even all of those guys don't remember it ever happening, surely you would remember whether you went one secret, high-risk operation that you got a "magic hat" souveneir from, or whether you went on more than one.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what Kerry himself has said? To my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Kerry hasn't said that he's only been to Cambodia once.

Kerry's claims have never been that he went to Cambodia on his second ship, (94) only his first (44, the one that Graner was a gunner for). It would be silly to try to disprove something he's never claimed.

His Senate testimony said "I only went to Cambodia on PCF-94?"


Anyways, this is silly because it's really getting down to parsing little things. I don't think we'll ever know for sure if Kerry's been to Cambodia or not. But this is what most people that support the Swift Boat Vets harp on. But when it comes to defending their flip-flops, or defending how the historical evidence doesn't support their stories, or how it's odd that they've had such strong feelings and memories but they've only come out 35 years after the fact; they are silent. I'll give you and whoever else wants a chance to defend this stuff....but if no one addresses this stuff, then your silence speaks volumes.

[wco81]

If Bush doesn't earn the votes, well there are other ways:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105524/

[RiverRat]

But Kerry also said one very interesting thing:

George W. Bush has never lost a debate.

That's total B.S. Building up your opponent's expectations and lowering your own is classic pre-debate strategy. That's all it is.

[FatPitcher]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ush_ads_dc

Boooya, busted....

Joe Sandler is the lawyer for both moveon.org and the DNC. He says it's not a problem.

And then there's this:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 3719.shtml

[Teal]

"Joe Sandler is the lawyer for both moveon.org and the DNC. He says it's not a problem."



Booyah, back atchya..

[Jared]

This guy explains the Silver Star incident far better than I could, and he uses the Rood article, Unfit for Command, and Tour of Duty. Notice that the Rood article is much closer to UfC's version than ToD/Kerry's. Also notice that it's an extremely fair analysis.

http://qando.net/archives/003865.htm

As for the Silver Star, it seems like the crux of the article is that the Swift Boat Vets think what Kerry did was stupid. That's their opinion...but the Silver Star citations seem to say something different (and also put doubt on the contention that Kerry got his Silver Star just for killing a member of the VC that ran away):

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

And as for Rood's story not being different than the story in Unfit for Command...well, why don't we hear from Rood himself:

link

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

.....

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.

It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.

Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.

Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.

The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.

What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders.

Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.

Anyways, they're trying to cast doubt on an action Kerry did 35 years after the fact that Kerry got a Silver Star for. It's pretty pathetic.

[Badgun]

I've said it before and will say it again, and without regard toward my personal feelings or hopes about Bush or Kerry. I will be shocked and very surprised if Kerry wins this election. He's just not the kind of person this country has put in the White House.

I thought the same thing when George W was nominated for the last election. But after months of polling showing a close race, I prepared myself for the worst. There aren't just going to be a mass of people on election day that decide not to vote for Kerry just because of personality or attacks that have been made on him for the past several months.

Tell you what, and you can twist this any way you like. You can knock Bush's foreign policy, you can call him a warmonger, and you can blame every last unemployed person on him, but at the end of the day, Bush has shown guts and fortitude which is a quality a lot of us look for in a president. You know as well as I do that there is no magic wand that can be waved by any president to change economic ebbs and flows. Sure people care about the economy, but I will guarantee you lots of democrats will vote for Bush or at least not vote for Kerry based on this Swiftboat thing. How do you think all of these liberal parents feel knowing their kids are putting their life on the line everyday while some gomer that wants to be president protested against the military and got a freaking purple heart for a piece of shrapnel the size of a splinter?

One thing that people like is guts, and Kerry has proven that he has none.

[FatPitcher]

This from a transcript of CNN newsnight.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/24/asb.00.html

"The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968.

O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

(END VIDEOTAPE)"

Funny how all the eyewitness reports from Kerry's boat and the documentary evidence from the navy reports all support Kerry's story. The swiftboat group has come up with little more than 2nd and third hand accusations and the inconsistencies in their accounts quite frankly dwarf the small inconsistencies from Kerry's account (i.e exact times and dates).

But we've seen this all before with Gore and Clinton. Gin up multiple accusations and then keep shifting the goal-lines to keep the rebuttals one step behind. Rely on a lazy press, with a ridiculous notion of objective reporting, to keep repeating the same tired old charges in pretty much the same language. Throw enough mud and some of it, unfortunately, will stick.

Best wishes,

Doug

You know that O'Neill was the one who took over Kerry's boat when he left, right? Anyway...

John said (to Nixon) that he was NEAR Cambodia, operating out of Ha Tien along the Giang Thanh river that was known to everyone in Vietnam in the Navy as "Bernique's Creek." Mike Bernique was the first to travel up it in October 1968 to disrupt a VC tax collection site. This was the start of the SEALORDS strategy.

There is NO WAY to get into Cambodia by water craft from either the
Giang Thanh or the follow-on Vinh Te canal that completes the water path
from Ha Tien over to Chau Doc on the Bassac river. O'Neill patrolled out
of Ha Tien, so he was close to Cambodia, but there is no way to cross
the border by boat from either of these waterways.

Kerry in the 44 boat was in Sa Dec on the Mekong River, fifty-five miles
away from the border, and in close to Saigon. Ha Tien is on the Gulf of
Thailand (Siam).

[Jared]

And as for the whole Bush links to the Swift Boat Vets...there are links, but this isn't the best way to attack. If it isn't working in some way with the Bush campaign, then there won't be any substantial links. Even if they were working with the Bush campaign, do you think they'd really be stupid enough to have actual real substantial links? Either way, it's not the best line of attack.

However, even if there are no direct ties between Bush and the Swift Boat Vets (which is likely), it does show a pattern. Let other people attack your opponents valorous Vietnam service (whether they're linked with you or not). Then, when given a chance to denounce these attacks, say something nice about their service but never actually denounce the attacks. He did it w/McCain, and he's doing it with Kerry.

Regardless of whether they're officially linked or not, Bush isn't denouncing them for their attacks. He's tacitly approving of these attacks. In other words, he's letting other people do his dirty work. This is the important point...not whether there are "official" links between Bush and the Swift Boats or not.

[FatPitcher]

FatPitcher,

Interesting posts, although I find it ironic that you critcize me for citing a huge NY Times article, with lots of references, and then turn around and use as Washington Post op-ed by a guy from the very conservative American Enterprise Institute.

However, the blog entry you cited was pretty fair, although I think it suffers from what most of the analysis of these events suffer from: armchair quarterbacking 30 years after the fact. I imagine you could find a lot of instances where people received medals for behavior that would have been deemed reckless had it not been considered successful. Much like the coach who is a genius for going for it on 4th down and getting it vs. being a dunce for doing the same thing and failing.

Regarding Cambodia:

--The Fred Kaplan article Jared cited in Slate does offer some interesting rebuttal to the Post piece. Cambodian operations had existed, off the books, since early 1967, according to the source he quotes (and I think that's correct from my own studies of the war, though it's been a while).

What I think is that this doesn't prove Kerry right and doesn't prove him wrong. My theory: Kerry did go to Cambodia. It was clandestine, and may be why no one will talk about it -- there's still plenty of CIA stuff, especially operational missions from the Cold War, that are classified. In 1986, during the intense debate on the Contras, Kerry exaggerates the story for political benefit. 1968 was a watershed year in our history, and still fairly fresh in the minds of Congressional representatives. Christmas in Cambodia has a nice ring to it. Honest? No. But hardly something making him unfit for command.

Part of the reasoning for this is that I don't think the Cambodia story benefits Kerry much personally. It's not like he's saying he did something daring. His point with the story was always to illustrate that we have sometimes done illegal things abroad -- which we certainly did in Cambodia.

--Regarding this quote from the blog: "Get the point folks? You don't do "clandestine" insertions with 'noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels'. You do clandestine insertions with stealthy craft which will go in undetected, not announce themselves a mile ahead of their arrival."

That's highly selective reasoning and splitting hairs over the meaning of clandestine. Bombing the crap out of Cambodia was hardly stealthy either, yet we did it soon after this alleged incident. The clandestine part was that we denied involvement and kept Congress in the dark, not that we were sneaking up on the Cambodians.

--The blog pretty much says, the Swifties have a point about the Silver Star, but it was probably merited. So what exactly does that prove?

Anyway, I am finding this whole story fascinating (obviously) so I'm open to reading more about it. I'm especially interested in any proof about Kerry's injuries being self-inflicted.

Well, you have to remember that the "official" record used to be Tour of Duty. This is yet another incident where Kerry's account turned out to have holes in it, even if those holes don't really mean that his medal wasn't earned. Like I said earlier, I think it's their weakest case, because it boils down to opinion, but Kerry clearly omitted and changed facts in his account. That is why this incident is worth talking about at all.

The op-ed was my thought on why the incident was important, not as a way of citing facts. All the facts I cited can be found in various places if you want to look for them.

[Bill_Abner]

but he (Kerry) comes across as an elitist, and that isn't going to fly with voters in the end.

That'w why I said what I said. Kerry is a classic Northern intellectual liberal. And I've got nothing against that at all. But this country doesn't put classic Northern intellectual liberal in the White House. Since 1950, seven northern liberal democrats have run in the general election. They all lost but for JFK, and he just squeaked by in 1960, and a big part of that was that Nixon forgot to get makeup for the TV debate.

Only winning one out of seven tells me that this country isn't predisposed to northern liberal democrats.

Well, and Nixon didn't have Mayor Daley in his pocket either!

I saw Kerry on The Daily Show last night. While he did the usual politician thing in parts, reciting his usual points about jobs, health care, and Iraq, he actually seemed relaxed and more human, for lack of a better word. Maybe John Stewart just has that effect on people. But Kerry also said one very interesting thing:

George W. Bush has never lost a debate.

Hard to believe considering the President will never be mistaken for a master debater or a cunning linguist. But I think that works to his advantage. A lot of people can see themselves in George W. Bush.

Maybe that's my problem. I can see myself in Bush, and I think, "what the !@#$ am I doing running the country!"

I saw that too. But I think Gore lost those debates more than Bush won them, and the debates this year are under very different circumstances. Bush cannot say many of the things he said in 2000. Stuff like, "It's not America's job to police the world" isn't gonna work. The "downhome country spun centrist Bush" that many people voted for has been replaced by the idealogue military hammer Bush. That may very well play to his base and to some indies. We don't know. But this debate will be very very different than the set of debates Gore bungled in 2000. And don't forget, Kerry is a fantastic 1-1 debater in his own right. I want to see the VP debates too. I wonder if Dick will morph into the Predator and eat Edwards live on National TV? Actually, the VP debate is going to be fascinating. The trial lawyer against the Halliburton front man. Ali vs. Frazier.

As for debating the issues being a Bush advantage. What issue does Bush talk about? Honestly, this is something I'd love for a staunch Bush fan to explain to me because I feel like an idiot when this comes up.

Does he talk about the net loss of jobs (the first Pres to have this happen since Hoover I believe), the economic gutting in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania? Increasing health care costs? The fact that he refuses to aid legislation to raise the minimum wage? The fact that wages aren't keeping up with inflation even though inflation remains low? The lack of funding for No Child Left Behind? His track record on the environment (ha!) The quagmire in Iraq?

Again, history tells us that these elections are more of a critique of the current Pres more than it is about the challenger, so while the flip-flop thing plays very well in August, come November, people who are deciding (that doesn't include many of us posting here) aren't going to stand in the polling booth wondering about Kerry's flip flop on education reform .

They're thinking about Bush.

Bush can talk about homeland security, and do it with a straight face because aside from the fact that 9/11 happened on his watch, there hasn't been another attack, thankfully, since, and that will certainly play to his favor (and it should). But IMO the only reason Bush is even in this race is because of fear, and the fact that he has rallied the far right like no other Repub in history. On the actual issues...I don't see this being a Bush advantage at all, but again, there are two sides to this so I'd love to hear the other side's take.

[FatPitcher]

But Kerry also said one very interesting thing:

George W. Bush has never lost a debate.

That's total B.S. Building up your opponent's expectations and lowering your own is classic pre-debate strategy. That's all it is.

It's true, though. I was living in Texas when he mopped the floor with Ann Richards, who was a rising star in the national Dem scene at the time. He sounded extremely intelligent and well-spoken, which I know many people would find shocking.

The debate with Gore he won simply because he didn't sound like an accountant throwing out numbers that mean nothing to the average person.

[wco81]

Guts and fortitude?

He wanted this war and he sent others.

About a year ago, it was an issue that he wouldn't visit the graves of the fatalities. Dont' know if he has but the White House is trying to minimize coverage of the fatalities and the other casualties, which number over 6000. Many of these are serious like people losing limbs or eyes.

So they want as little news coverage as possible. Like when those contractors snapped pics of those flag-draped coffins and they got fired for it.

So how much guts and fortitude does it take to try to conceal the horrific costs of this current war by attacking your opponent about his past?

[Teal]

"Let other people attack your opponents valorous Vietnam service (whether they're linked with you or not). Then, when given a chance to denounce these attacks, say something nice about their service but never actually denounce the attacks. He did it w/McCain, and he's doing it with Kerry."



And Kerry's not doing this with moveon.org? Of course he is. But you don't see him denouncing them. Did he denounce Mellencamp for writing and singing a song at a Kerry event that referred to Bush as a thug? Nope. And let's not forget about "Ms. Americana" herself, Whoopi, and her glowing remarks. What's good for the goose, I guess...

[FatPitcher]

And as for the whole Bush links to the Swift Boat Vets...there are links, but this isn't the best way to attack. If it isn't working in some way with the Bush campaign, then there won't be any substantial links. Even if they were working with the Bush campaign, do you think they'd really be stupid enough to have actual real substantial links? Either way, it's not the best line of attack.

However, even if there are no direct ties between Bush and the Swift Boat Vets (which is likely), it does show a pattern. Let other people attack your opponents valorous Vietnam service (whether they're linked with you or not). Then, when given a chance to denounce these attacks, say something nice about their service but never actually denounce the attacks. He did it w/McCain, and he's doing it with Kerry.

Regardless of whether they're officially linked or not, Bush isn't denouncing them for their attacks. He's tacitly approving of these attacks. In other words, he's letting other people do his dirty work. This is the important point...not whether there are "official" links between Bush and the Swift Boats or not.

I agree, and I think it's because he actually thinks they'll stop if he denounces them. They won't. The Republican strategists simply can't fathom that these are guys aren't on their side and aren't doing it to help Bush. (Dems can't either.)

[FatPitcher]

This guy explains the Silver Star incident far better than I could, and he uses the Rood article, Unfit for Command, and Tour of Duty. Notice that the Rood article is much closer to UfC's version than ToD/Kerry's. Also notice that it's an extremely fair analysis.

http://qando.net/archives/003865.htm

As for the Silver Star, it seems like the crux of the article is that the Swift Boat Vets think what Kerry did was stupid. That's their opinion...but the Silver Star citations seem to say something different (and also put doubt on the contention that Kerry got his Silver Star just for killing a member of the VC that ran away):

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

And as for Rood's story not being different than the story in Unfit for Command...well, why don't we hear from Rood himself:

link

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

.....

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.

It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.

Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.

Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.

The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.

What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders.

Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.

Anyways, they're trying to cast doubt on an action Kerry did 35 years after the fact that Kerry got a Silver Star for. It's pretty pathetic.

Notice that the beaching tactic was planned. Before this, you thought that Kerry formed a brilliant plan on the spur of the moment...am I right?

There is also talk (confirmed by only one of Kerry's crew, the others don't recall the conversation) that there was a discussion amongst the crew about beaching the boats in this situation just to get medals. Pretty pathetic if true, eh?

And if you give Rood's testimony any credibility, you have to admit that the rest of the guys in Kerry's squadron (Thurlow et. al.) were also legitimate eyewitness even though they were not on Kerry's boat.

On the Cambodia thing, even the crew who dies not outright deny it, does not recall it. So no one supports Kerry's claim, the documentary evidence (the "official Navy records" that doubters keep saying are infallible) says his boat never went to Cambodia, and his commanders (the ones who would have sent him on these assignments) deny it. It never happened, period. (Kerry never said he want multiple times, but his biographer who possesses his journals said he did at the urging of the Kerry campign, after the SBVT first cast doubt on his claims.)

The SBVT are willing to take lie detector tests. Kerry won't even release his complete records (in fact, he's removed several records from his site that contradicted Tour of Duty).

[Jared]

Notice that the beaching tactic was planned. Before this, you thought that Kerry formed a brilliant plan on the spur of the moment...am I right?

Umm...no. Before this, I just knew he served in 'Nam and won 3 Purple Hearts. Is there somewhere that Kerry specifically says that it was a spur of the moment plan?

There is also talk (confirmed by only one of Kerry's crew, the others don't recall the conversation) that there was a discussion amongst the crew about beaching the boats in this situation just to get medals. Pretty pathetic if true, eh?

There is also talk that President Bush is part of the illuminati and is working with a master reptilian race that is planning on taking over Earth. Pretty pathetic if true, eh?

Come on, man. Of course it's pathetic if true. Of course, it's also the allegations of a single person from memories 35 years ago confirmed by (to my knowledge) no one else. Anyone can make a claim like this. But that's the thing, it's just a claim.

And if you give Rood's testimony any credibility, you have to admit that the rest of the guys in Kerry's squadron (Thurlow et. al.) were also legitimate eyewitness even though they were not on Kerry's boat.

Nope. Rood's testimony is credible because it fits with the primary historical evidence from the time. That's the thing....Rood's description of the events is very consistent with the official accounts on reports from the time...the others less so. (And by the way, this is the account that the Swift Vets account differs least from the official reports. They seem to be saying what Kerry did was stupid, even though Rood's reports and the Silver Star citations seem to tell it differently. The more major differences are on the other Purple Hearts and the Bronze Star accounts.)

On the Cambodia thing, even the crew who dies not outright deny it, does not recall it. So no one supports Kerry's claim, the documentary evidence (the "official Navy records" that doubters keep saying are infallible) says his boat never went to Cambodia, and his commanders (the ones who would have sent him on these assignments) deny it. It never happened, period. (Kerry never said he want multiple times, but his biographer who possesses his journals said he did at the urging of the Kerry campign, after the SBVT first cast doubt on his claims.)

These were covert operations. Things that we weren't supposed to be doing. You expect a paper trail on this? I'm sure Kerry's going to go into Cambodia and then fill out forms in triplicate on what happened. Please.

This is the one where it's most murky because there won't be official accounts. Because of it, it's the one that Swift Boat backers jump on. But when it comes to the fact that their (the Swift Boat Vets) accounts of the medals incidents do not agree with the historical documents, that they've flip-flopped from what they've said earlier, and that they haven't said anything about this until now, NO ONE seems to want to respond to this. People may still be preparing responses...but it's really telling to me that people take great aims to avoid discussing this stuff (and this isn't directly specifically to you FatPitcher, but I'm talking about lots of the right wing sites I've been reading that support the Swift Vet claims). On something where there won't be much evidence (Cambodia), everyone chants liar. But on something where nearly all of the primary evidence is backing up Kerry's account and directly contradicts the Swift Boat Vets accounts, people shut up.

The SBVT are willing to take lie detector tests. Kerry won't even release his complete records (in fact, he's removed several records from his site that contradicted Tour of Duty).

First off, lie detector tests can easily be faked. As for Kerry, I agree that he should release all his records. Though let me ask you a question. Bush hasn't released all his records from his service. Does that mean I should automatically be suspicious of his service?

[Blublub]

Give 'em hell Max!!!

[Blublub]

Guts and fortitude?

He wanted this war and he sent others.

Yeah, WCO has you there...

[Brando70]

The bottom line is this:

--John Kerry has contradicted himself a few times on his Cambodia story. There are also some details about his performance during the Silver Star incident that may make him more lucky than heroic.

--The Swift Boat veterans have contradicted themselves at least as much as Kerry. O'Neill said he wasn't in Cambodia, then said he was (it's right there in black and white, FatPitcher, "I was in Cambodia, sir"). Some of the vets supported Kerry and said he served honorably, now he didn't. They are flip-flopping all over the place.

--They have accused Kerry of a) self-inflicted wounds to earn purple hearts and b) staging an incident to get medals, when they have no evidence of either thing occuring. The doctor who said he treated Kerry for wound one is not the doctor listed on the report. Again, I'm talking about proof here.

--They have accused Kerry of writing the after action reports, again with no proof and with official documents contradicting their accusations.

--O'Neill and Corsi, the co-authors, are politically active conservatives with a long history of Republican ties. O'Neill has given $14,000 to Republican causes in the last 10 years, and none to Democratic causes. O'Neill was hand-picked by Richard Nixon to debate Kerry all those years ago and has been a foe of him ever since.

--Scott Thurlow's account that their was no fire during the Bronze Star incident a) contradicts his own Bronze Star citation, which he received during the same incident and b) contradicts the testimony of others in Kerry's boat.

--According to the New York Times article, at least one person contacted by the Swift Vote Veterans private investigator says the statement he made was altered to remove anything he mentioned about combat.

--Steven Gardner, the ONLY person in the SVBFT who was in the same boat with Kerry, did not witness any of the medal-related incidents. Others in the boat have corroborated Kerry's versions, which are also reflected in the official government reports.

--Elliot, Kerry's commander, rated him highly at the time, supported him in 1996, came out against him with the SVBFT, said he shouldn't have, then said wait, yes he should. Can you say unreliable?

So, as it stands, by my reckoning, Kerry's Cambodia story looks fishy, but his medals and service record have not been disproven. And the Cambodia thing is not enough to change my mind about who to vote for, as I think, at the very worst, he's used the story to make a point about America's illegal foreign policy in Cambodia, a policy that is true whether his testimony is or is not.

[Teal]

"Yeah, WCO has you there..."







"Give 'em hell Max!!!"


Blublub:
You one-liner troll, you...

[FatPitcher]

The bottom line is this:

--John Kerry has contradicted himself a few times on his Cambodia story. There are also some details about his performance during the Silver Star incident that may make him more lucky than heroic.

--The Swift Boat veterans have contradicted themselves at least as much as Kerry. O'Neill said he wasn't in Cambodia, then said he was (it's right there in black and white, FatPitcher, "I was in Cambodia, sir"). Some of the vets supported Kerry and said he served honorably, now he didn't. They are flip-flopping all over the place.

--They have accused Kerry of a) self-inflicted wounds to earn purple hearts and b) staging an incident to get medals, when they have no evidence of either thing occuring. The doctor who said he treated Kerry for wound one is not the doctor listed on the report. Again, I'm talking about proof here.

--They have accused Kerry of writing the after action reports, again with no proof and with official documents contradicting their accusations.

--O'Neill and Corsi, the co-authors, are politically active conservatives with a long history of Republican ties. O'Neill has given $14,000 to Republican causes in the last 10 years, and none to Democratic causes. O'Neill was hand-picked by Richard Nixon to debate Kerry all those years ago and has been a foe of him ever since.

--Scott Thurlow's account that their was no fire during the Bronze Star incident a) contradicts his own Bronze Star citation, which he received during the same incident and b) contradicts the testimony of others in Kerry's boat.

--According to the New York Times article, at least one person contacted by the Swift Vote Veterans private investigator says the statement he made was altered to remove anything he mentioned about combat.

--Steven Gardner, the ONLY person in the SVBFT who was in the same boat with Kerry, did not witness any of the medal-related incidents. Others in the boat have corroborated Kerry's versions, which are also reflected in the official government reports.

--Elliot, Kerry's commander, rated him highly at the time, supported him in 1996, came out against him with the SVBFT, said he shouldn't have, then said wait, yes he should. Can you say unreliable?

So, as it stands, by my reckoning, Kerry's Cambodia story looks fishy, but his medals and service record have not been disproven. And the Cambodia thing is not enough to change my mind about who to vote for, as I think, at the very worst, he's used the story to make a point about America's illegal foreign policy in Cambodia, a policy that is true whether his testimony is or is not.

Right. I've gone over the Cambodia incident and the Silver Star incident, both of which show that Kerry exaggerated his claims (there's also an excellent article that raises a lot of questions about why Kerry has 3 citations for his silver star, with the last 2 giving a different account than the first. I'll dig it up in a bit.). I'll address some of the things you brought up, as well as go over the purple heart and bronze star incidents later.

I'm glad at least some people are able to look at the Cambodia incident rationally, instead of insisting that it was this black-op thing that was seared in one person's memory and absent from the rest of the world's memory. (Some of the disputed issues later on will involve Jared claiming that 7 eyewitnesses with signed affidavits don't matter, keep that in mind while he claims that one person's account with no backup from written or living sources must be true.)

[Teal]

Max Cleland has just tried to deliver a letter to President Bush, urging him to call the SBV and get them to "stop these ads"(boy, that's an original line). Now I tremendously respect Max's sacrifice for his country, but I have a couple of problems with what he's doing here.
One, he knows full well that it would be illegal under current campaign finance laws for the president to contact the SBV's. That's a no-no...can't do it. Never mind that Kerry contacted some of them personally over the phone, which is also illegal, though I doubt you'll see the press cover that fact.
Two, Max said in his comments that an attack on one Vietnam Vet is an attack on all Vietnam vets. Max, you're supporting the man who made attacking Vietnam vets a national pastime! Who coined the term "babykillers". John Kerry. Who accused his own of war atrocities with a broad brush? John Kerry. Kerry tried to tell one of the SBVAK over the phone (illegally) that when he talked about atrocities, he wasn't referring to SBV's. Oh, really? Then who did you mean, John? You were only there 4 months. You were on the swift boats. Are you talking about people that you DIDN'T serve with or near? How could you possibly personally witness these things you say, if you weren't talking about Swiftees and didn't serve in another branch? Could it be that you heard the stories, and just repeated them as if you DID see them?

These things are troubling...and it appears that the Waffle House is still open for business...

[Badgun]

That'w why I said what I said. Kerry is a classic Northern intellectual liberal. And I've got nothing against that at all. But this country doesn't put classic Northern intellectual liberal in the White House. Since 1950, seven northern liberal democrats have run in the general election. They all lost but for JFK, and he just squeaked by in 1960, and a big part of that was that Nixon forgot to get makeup for the TV debate.

Only winning one out of seven tells me that this country isn't predisposed to northern liberal democrats.

Well, and Nixon didn't have Mayor Daley in his pocket either!

I saw Kerry on The Daily Show last night. While he did the usual politician thing in parts, reciting his usual points about jobs, health care, and Iraq, he actually seemed relaxed and more human, for lack of a better word. Maybe John Stewart just has that effect on people. But Kerry also said one very interesting thing:

George W. Bush has never lost a debate.

Hard to believe considering the President will never be mistaken for a master debater or a cunning linguist. But I think that works to his advantage. A lot of people can see themselves in George W. Bush.

Maybe that's my problem. I can see myself in Bush, and I think, "what the !@#$ am I doing running the country!"

I saw that too. But I think Gore lost those debates more than Bush won them, and the debates this year are under very different circumstances. Bush cannot say many of the things he said in 2000. Stuff like, "It's not America's job to police the world" isn't gonna work. The "downhome country spun centrist Bush" that many people voted for has been replaced by the idealogue military hammer Bush. That may very well play to his base and to some indies. We don't know. But this debate will be very very different than the set of debates Gore bungled in 2000. And don't forget, Kerry is a fantastic 1-1 debater in his own right. I want to see the VP debates too. I wonder if Dick will morph into the Predator and eat Edwards live on National TV? Actually, the VP debate is going to be fascinating. The trial lawyer against the Halliburton front man. Ali vs. Frazier.

As for debating the issues being a Bush advantage. What issue does Bush talk about? Honestly, this is something I'd love for a staunch Bush fan to explain to me because I feel like an idiot when this comes up.

Does he talk about the net loss of jobs (the first Pres to have this happen since Hoover I believe), the economic gutting in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania? Increasing health care costs? The fact that he refuses to aid legislation to raise the minimum wage? The fact that wages aren't keeping up with inflation even though inflation remains low? The lack of funding for No Child Left Behind? His track record on the environment (ha!) The quagmire in Iraq?

Again, history tells us that these elections are more of a critique of the current Pres more than it is about the challenger, so while the flip-flop thing plays very well in August, come November, people who are deciding (that doesn't include many of us posting here) aren't going to stand in the polling booth wondering about Kerry's flip flop on education reform .

They're thinking about Bush.

Bush can talk about homeland security, and do it with a straight face because aside from the fact that 9/11 happened on his watch, there hasn't been another attack, thankfully, since, and that will certainly play to his favor (and it should). But IMO the only reason Bush is even in this race is because of fear, and the fact that he has rallied the far right like no other Repub in history. On the actual issues...I don't see this being a Bush advantage at all, but again, there are two sides to this so I'd love to hear the other side's take.

Bill.
9/11 might have happened on Bush's watch, but the table was set on Clinton's. No telling how many terrorists, al qada, et al entered the country during the "blowjob years".

[dougb]

Yeah,

It must have been Clinton's fault because he was the one that was on vacation at his ranch in Texas and did next to nothing when warned about an impending terrorist attack against the United States involving airliners.

Ah the blow job years. And here we come to realize the extent to which the Republican sleeze machine has lowered political discourse into the cesspool. Let's see. If Bill Clinton hadn't gotten a blow job then he obviously would have been paying more attention to terrorism. But let's look at it another way. If the Republicans hadn't been willing to forego pretty much everything else in their absolute determination to nail Clinton on anything they could lay their hands on, (Travelgate, Whitewater, White House sleepovers, Blow jobs etc. etc.) perhaps the attention of politicians would have been centered on more important issues. Perhaps terrorism?

On the other hand, if we look at the record we can see that Clinton clearly took the terrorism issue more seriously than Bush & co. From the testimony of Richard Clarke through the evidence of the measures Clinton took when warned about a potential millenium threat, we see a continued pattern of someone who was engaged on the issues. If we look at the example of George Bush we see someone who clearly wasn't terribly interested or personally involved in the issue. Did he even have meetings with the person responsible for counter-terrorism? No, he delegated that an many other responsibilities.

You know, it wouldn't really matter if John Kerry had won a congressional medal of honor and left half his limbs in Vietnam. The right wing Republican attack machine would have smeared him anyway, trumping up allegations in the knowledge that the media would oblige them by repeating the substanceless allegations ad infinitum. Prove the allegations untrue they say. So the burden of truth, which should really rest with the accusers, is now placed on the accused. And lets not kid ourselves that any of the evidence - navy documents, eyewitness testimony (then and now) - will be enough to obliterate the allegations. The group (and fatpitcher) will just move onto other allegations. They make them up as needed in order to present a moving target.

The only way to deal with this pathetic group of liars is to cut off them off from the one thing that keeps them going - media publicity. Since no evidence has been presented that would in any way constitute solid refutation of the documentary evidence (which substantially supports Kerry) the media should refuse to run any ads from this group. In addition, no interviews should be granted to any of them. In short, they should be shunned.


Best wishes,

Doug