OT: The Swiftees

[Inuyasha]

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 The "downhome country spun centrist Bush" that many people voted for has been replaced by the idealogue military hammer Bush.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".

Or, you can go back farther to Regan in the early 80s, who gave funds to Osama Bin Laden to battle the russians in Afghanistan, thus indirectly creating Al Queda. I guess those were the 'amnesia years' for most republicans who will blame 911 on clinton.

[FatPitcher]

Doug,

You simply don't understand who SBVT are.

Their leader, O'Neill, voted Perot in 92 and 96 and Gore in 2000. He called Bush "an empty suit who's not fit to be president."

Republican attack machine?

[Teal]

From www.swiftvets.com:
"On June 6, 1971, John Kerry described the work of the Swift boats to the Washington Star as follows:

"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

What John Kerry told the Washington Star was a lie.

Contrary to Kerry's claim, our consistent policy was to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians. On many occasions we did this at the cost of suffering additional casualties ourselves. We have interviewed hundreds of veterans who served on the Swift Boats or supported them, and there is simply no justification for Kerry's statement. Several members of our organization addressed the issue of atrocities during our May 4 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

John Kerry also completely misrepresented our meeting with General Abrams and Admiral Zumwalt. Far from being a pep talk for officers distressed by their butchery of civilians, the purpose of this conference with the two highest-ranking American officers in Vietnam was to announce a new Swift boat mission: to drive the Vietcong out of the Ca Mau Peninsula. The goal of Operation SeaLords was to dominate the rivers in this area, and to eventually establish a permanent presence in the Cua Lon River, an effort later named Operation SeaFloat. This was to be done publicly, with the full participation of the media, to negate the claim of North Vietnamese negotiator Lee Duc Tho that Henry Kissinger could not legitimately represent South Vietnam because the U.S. did not control these areas.

We succeeded in that mission. We returned to Anthoi and drove the Vietcong out of the region, and soon the North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives in Paris returned to the negotiating tables.


----------
As its dominant tactic in their battle against the war, the antiwar movement successfully demonized Vietnam veterans by calling a series of "tribunals" or hearings into war crimes. But... they were packed with pretenders and liars -- historian Guenter Lewy, writing in "America in Vietnam"

John Kerry's lies about the activities of the Swift boats were part of a larger pattern of deception. As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Kerry's charges were based on a VVAW conference called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" -- a leftist propaganda event funded primarily by Jane Fonda. None of the Winter Soldier "witnesses" Kerry cited were willing to sign affadavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates and places that would allow their claims to be tested. Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators. The Naval Investigative Service found that several of the veterans said to have given statements at Winter Soldier were in fact imposters using the name of real veterans.

False testimony and exaggerations were primary characteristics of the war crimes disinformation campaign, and also of the VVAW itself. Executive Secretary Al Hubbard, for example, claimed to have been an Air Force Captain wounded in Vietnam piloting a transport plane. In fact, Hubbard had been a staff sergeant who was not a pilot and who was never assigned to Vietnam.

John Kerry and the VVAW worked closely with America's wartime enemies, arranged multiple meetings with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong leadership, and consistently supported their positions. Kerry and his radical comrades also played a key role in defining the false, damaging image of Vietnam veterans as psychologically disabled alcoholics and addicts, haunted by the crimes they had been forced to commit in a "racist" war.

Detailed information about the anti-war activities of John Kerry and the VVAW can be found at WinterSoldier.com."

[Brando70]

The Daily Howler has been chewing up the Swifties contradictions (and the press's kid gloves toward them) all week. Today there are some especially bad contradictions/fallacies brought to light:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082504.shtml

Worst part is about Al French, the first guy in the first ad who said about his affadavit, "...this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief..."

Yet, according to a report by the Associate Press, French didn't personally witness the events and used the accounts of others to make his statements.

Furthermore, John O'Neill (who will likely be played by John Lovitz's liar character in the movie), gets grilled for saying Kerry's repeated his Cambodia story "50 times" when there is no proof of that, and is even contradicted by the Washington Post Op-Ed FatPitcher posted. Granted, that is splitting hairs, but since O'Neill seems to want to treat every Kerry pronouncement as if it was sworn on a Bible, I'm holding him to the same standard.

This whole thing reeks of political hijinks. Really, the Cambodia thing is the only story left here, unless someone can produce actual proof disproving the official Navy reports. So many Swifties have contradicted themselves that they are frankly unreliable, especially the three main players of John "Thank you Mr. Nixon, may I have another" O'Neill, Flip Floppin' George Elliot, and Larry "Don't believe the Navy, there was no enemy fire" Thurlow.

Furthermore, from the August 24 Howler, here's Bob Dole discussing his first Purple Heart, from his 1988 autobiography:

"DOLE (1988): As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg—the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart. "

Gee, sound familiar? Perhaps we should alert the Failed Presidential Nominees for Truth? And amazingly, despite being the worst politician ever in the history of the universe, a man who drank the blood of infants so he could maintain his erections while being serviced by his succubi, Bill Clinton or his camapign never insinuated Dole wounded himself.

[Teal]

Ok, the howler?! Taken from The American Thinker, December 2003:

"Thomas Wright was one of John F. Kerry's fellow Swift boat officers in Vietnam. Since Wright outranked Kerry, he was Kerry's sometime boat group Officer-in-Charge, so Wright had occasion to observe Kerry’s behavior and attitudes, and the circumstances surrounding his early departure from the war zone. The intervening years have not dimmed his memories.

When the Swift boats of Coastal Division 11 sailed into harm’s way from their Phu Quoc Island base of An Thoi, for missions along the rivers of Vietnam’s southwesternmost Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces, they communicated by radio. When they did, boat captains adopted distinctive, often humorous call signs for identification purposes. Eldon Thompson was “Mary Poppins,” William Schachte was “Baccardi Charlie,” James T. Grace was “Twiggy,” and Tom Wright was “Dudley Do-Right.” When John Kerry radioed another Swift boat, he used the call sign, “Boston Strangler.”

Lieutenant Thomas W. Wright heard that call sign frequently. As OIC (Officer-in-Charge) of PCF-44, he operated with LT (j.g.) Kerry’s 94 Boat on a fairly regular basis. A 1966 graduate of the University of North Carolina’s NROTC program, Wright had served as communications officer aboard the destroyer USS Robert A. Owens before beginning Swift boat training in November 1967. He had already served for eight months with Qui Nhon’s Coastal Division 15 when the monsoon season forced its boats to be shifted to the more protected, and more challenging waters off An Thoi. He decided to extend his tour and follow his disciplined, veteran crew to the new base. As the relatively senior lieutenant there, he was the OTC, or Officer-in-Tactical Command for the majority of the 3-to-6-boat missions. On most of them he commanded 44 Boat.

The rivers and canals of Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces were the targets of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Rear Adm. Elmo Zumwalt’s aggressive SEALORDS operations. Looking back after all these years, Tom Wright, now a retired Commander, recalls: “We planned missions locally to try to dominate the area and disrupt the enemy’s movements. We faced significant challenges every day, every night. We would respond to intelligence reports as appropriate. It took great imagination and determination to work effectively in the rivers, and we remained deployed until material damage and casualties reduced our effectiveness. We would then rotate back to An Thoi for repair and re-arming.”

For Tom Wright and most other Swift boat officers, there were two commandments: 1. Protect the crews. 2. Win. As for Tom Wright’s 44 Boat; “we won every engagement, start to finish. I got the crew home; a few nicks, but we made it.”

Working with call sign “Boston Strangler” became problematical. “I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders,” recalls Wright. “He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives. I believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC in a free-fire zone. You had to be right (before opening fire). Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didn’t see it that way.”

In Wright’s view, it was important that the enemy understood that Swift boats were a competent, effective force that could dominate his location. To do that, you also had to control the people and their actions; to have them accept Swift boat crews and their authority. You couldn’t achieve that by indiscriminate use of weapons in free fire zones.

It got to a point where Wright told his divisional commander he no longer wanted Kerry in his boat group, so he was re-assigned to another one. “I had an idea of his actions but didn’t have to be responsible for him.” Then Wright and like-minded boat officers took matters into their own hands. “When he got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave. We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11. Kerry didn’t manipulate the system, we did.”

As for medals, Commander Wright holds strong views: “No one was recognized for completely overwhelming the enemy with skill, courage and bravery. No one wanted a Purple Heart because it meant we had made a mistake. We made sure our crews were recognized, but no one took pride in a Purple Heart. Everyone who served is equally important, regardless of rank or awards.

John B. Dwyer is a military historian, and Vietnam veteran, who served in the Fourth Infantry Division"

[Jared]

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.

Both which show that Kerry exaggerated his claims? For the Cambodia incident, there's no evidence either way. Some of Kerry's crewmembers have said they weren't there, Kerry has. I have no idea who's telling the truth here. The point is that this one can swing either way.

As for the Silver Star incident, how did he exaggerate his claims? It seems that your main point on this is tht Kerry has said that he formed a "brilliant plan on the spur of the moment". I then wrote this: "Is there somewhere that Kerry specifically says that it was a spur of the moment plan?" No response.

A lot of the other testimony from the Swift Vets on this account has been countered by Rood's comments or from the official records. I wrote about this in a previous post (with quotes from an article on factcheck.org and Rood's commentary on what happened). But instead of responding directly to this, you just say that this shows that Kerry has exaggerated his claims. Sorry. You need to back up your claims before you throw them out.

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.)

When did I ever claim that "one person's account with no backup from written or living sources must be true"? The point is that on this, there's no primary evidence from the time so it's difficult to say who's right on this one. Kerry might have never been in Cambodia, he may have been in Cambodia. These are 35 year old memories that can be mistaken on both sides. But since this is a situation where there's no documentary evidence, a lot of people on the right are jumping on it as "proof" that Kerry is lying. But when faced with the flip-flops by Swift Boat Vets, or with the fact that so far nearly all of the historical documents have supported Kerry's side of the story, or that it's really bizarre that these people that are all coming out against Kerry never said anything like this when he was leading Vietnam Vets against the War, or when he ran for Senate; people don't want to address this. Though if someone would like to, I'd be more than happy to listen.

[Jared]

Teal,

The Daily Howler articles point out inconsistencies between the Swift Vet stories and either their past statements and actual documents. You could actually respond to that. Instead, you bring up something that doesn't contradict the point at all. But anyways, it seems the crux of this long passage is this:

Working with call sign “Boston Strangler” became problematical. “I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders,” recalls Wright. “He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives. I believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC in a free-fire zone. You had to be right (before opening fire). Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didn’t see it that way.”
....

It got to a point where Wright told his divisional commander he no longer wanted Kerry in his boat group, so he was re-assigned to another one. “I had an idea of his actions but didn’t have to be responsible for him.” Then Wright and like-minded boat officers took matters into their own hands. “When he got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave. We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11. Kerry didn’t manipulate the system, we did.”

First off, have you seen Kerry's ratings on his evaluations? Maybe not...so I'll show you:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservi ... eports.pdf

Look at all of the times that Kerry got rated "1 out of 100, Outstanding" or "One of the Top Few". Look and see if any of these Fitness Reports (again, evidence from the time) fit in with this story about Kerry. Look at his ratings for things like Teamwork and Cooperation. It doesn't fit with his story. A story that (to my knowledge) he waited 35 years to tell, even though Kerry's been a public figure for a long time. Come on. The primary historical evidence doesn't fit with what the Swift Boat Vets are claiming.

[Teal]

"We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- in fact, we will find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese. We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim."

-- John Kerry, in "The New Soldier"


Yet he trumpets his 3 purple hearts and his Vietnam service from the rooftops now. In the new Batman movie, Kerry should get the part of Two Face...

[FatPitcher]

Again, I'll get more in depth tonight about that stuff, Jared.

On the last point, nobody knew what Kerry had claimed happened until Tour of Duty came out. That is why the guys who defended him in '96 of war crimes changed their minds - they had taken Kerry's word for what happened, and when presented with new evidence, they decided that even though he was still not guilty of war crimes, he had misled people about what really happened.

Kerry's Cambodia story is contradicted by his own journal (wondering what is was like on the other side of the border), although he wouldn't be the first Democrat to lie to his diary.

One thing that is muddling this for you guys and the media is the fact that you have to be in the military to have a good understanding of how certain things work. For example, Navy doctors don't sign much stuff. They have corpsmen there to handle paperwork. FITREPS are always positive except in extreme cases, and reading them is an art that only someone has deal with stacks of them regularly can understand. The initials on the after-action reports aren't Kerry's because they probably belong to a communications officer who filed them. And so on.

I wasn't a particularly remarkable sailor, but if you read my FITREP, you'd think I was the second coming of ADM Stockbridge.

[dougb]

Doug,

You simply don't understand who SBVT are.

Their leader, O'Neill, voted Perot in 92 and 96 and Gore in 2000. He called Bush "an empty suit who's not fit to be president."

Republican attack machine?

Ever heard of the enemy of my enemy is my friend? I think we can safely say that at the very least that sort of relationship is at work between the Republicans and O'Neill. But the links get somewhat closer when we recall that SBVT are being funded by a key Texas contributor for Bush's campaign, and that Bush's campaign lawyer was also working for SBVT. Of course, O'Neill has links to the Republicans going back to the Nixon era and his personal vendetta against Kerry back then.

SBVT hate Kerry because of his opposition to the war when he returned, and because he went public about attrocities committed by U.S. forces in Vietnam. They are, like anyone else, free to disagree with his actions upon his return home. However, those actions have nothing to do with his actions during his tour in Vietnam.

Best wishes,

Doug

[Teal]

OK, here's Kerry's famous atrocities quote:

"As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.""


And here's what he had to say, debating John O'neill on the Dick Cavett show in 1971:


" I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that."


That's called blind accusation...

[Jared]

Teal...man.

I'm going to assume that you've never read the full testimony and that you're not being incredibly dishonest and deceptive by not quoting the few sentences prior in his testimony to the Senate committee:

I would like to talk, <b>representing all those veterans</b>, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. <b>They</b> relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

<b>They told stories that, at times, they had</b> personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Why didn't you (or wherever you got the quote) include that beginning part? Where Kerry specifically says that he's telling people what he was told by other vets in the meeting in Detroit. He never said he saw those kinds of atrocities....he's saying others have. And it's not like things like this didn't happen in Vietnam...they did.

Come on. This is why a lot of people don't believe what the Swift Boat Vets are saying. And this is why a lot of moderate Republicans think this is bull. They (and others on their side) take things completely out of context and use it to twist things to support their viewpoint. This is a disgusting example of taking his words out of context, and I really hope Teal that you didn't know about the context of this quote before putting it up. I'm assuming that this is the case.

OK, here's Kerry's famous atrocities quote:

"As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.""


And here's what he had to say, debating John O'neill on the Dick Cavett show in 1971:


" I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that."


That's called blind accusation...

[FatPitcher]

Jared,

But Bush lied for repeating the CIA's info?

The effect of John Kerry's testimony was the same as if he had witnessed atrocities himself, and he knew that when he gave it.

Never mind that more than half of those 150 "veterans" were never in Vietnam.

I'm surprised you have trouble comprehending how devastating his testimony was to the morale of our military, and how much it helped the enemy's cause.

North Vietnamese generals have stated outright that they were on the brink of defeat after Tet, but that they held on in the hope that a divided America would falter.

Then when it did, 3.1 million south Vietnamese were slaughtered. How many lives does Kerry claim he saved, again?

[Brando70]

Again, I'll get more in depth tonight about that stuff, Jared.

On the last point, nobody knew what Kerry had claimed happened until Tour of Duty came out. That is why the guys who defended him in '96 of war crimes changed their minds - they had taken Kerry's word for what happened, and when presented with new evidence, they decided that even though he was still not guilty of war crimes, he had misled people about what really happened.

Kerry's Cambodia story is contradicted by his own journal (wondering what is was like on the other side of the border), although he wouldn't be the first Democrat to lie to his diary.

One thing that is muddling this for you guys and the media is the fact that you have to be in the military to have a good understanding of how certain things work. For example, Navy doctors don't sign much stuff. They have corpsmen there to handle paperwork. FITREPS are always positive except in extreme cases, and reading them is an art that only someone has deal with stacks of them regularly can understand. The initials on the after-action reports aren't Kerry's because they probably belong to a communications officer who filed them. And so on.

I wasn't a particularly remarkable sailor, but if you read my FITREP, you'd think I was the second coming of ADM Stockbridge.

FatPitcher, my Dad was in the Navy for nearly 25 years, so I know what you mean about the evaluations. That's what makes it hard to figure out who's telling the truth. A few points:

--Your Tour of Duty point seems flawed to me. That book didn't change anything about Kerry having medals. They all still knew he had 3 purple hearts, a Bronze Star, and Silver Star, and if their memories are as good as they claim they are, they should have remembered how he got them. Therefore, if they thought his wounds were self-inflicted, or that his Bronze medal was undeserved because there was no enemy fire, it wouldn't take the book to alter that. Yet a number of these guys made flattering remarks about Kerry's service that would seem to contradict their own memories.

--Second, I keep reading stuff suggesting that the official records are wrong, that the testimony of these guys is correct. Yet, when that argument was made about Bush and discrepancies in his service history, we were told that he was right because he received an honorable discharge. I just think there's a double standard here, unless the vets can produce some real proof beyond memories from three and a half decades ago.

--While there may be more vets that are coming out against Kerry, there are still a number saying his version of events is more or less true. Most importantly he is supported by those he immediately served with on the boats, except Steven Gardner. And Gardner can't disprove anything about the medals.

--It is possible, by your own suggestion, that Kerry deliberately lied about not having been in Cambodia, as a way to cover up being there. We have to remember how serious those incursions were, and how much the White House tried to cover them up as well. But I agree, Kerry's explanations have not resolved this issue. I wish the DoD or CIA could at least verify if Kerry's group was there or at least comment on whether such Swift Boat incursions happened at the time.

I guess where I'm going at is that the burden of proof is on the accusers, not the defense. Kerry has eyewitnesses and government documentation to back him up. The Swift Boat vets also have eyewitnesses, but some of their testimonials contradict earlier statements and some seem to have been given under dubious circumstances (Al French). So, while I wait to see what you've got about the medals, I believe Kerry received them honorably. As for Cambodia, I'm taking a wait-and-see approach since there's a lot of info that needs to be sorted out.

[Teal]

"Instead, you bring up something that doesn't contradict the point at all."

Jared:
You misunderstood. I didn't intend to contradict the point, I was poking fun at the name, Howler. Just sounds funny.


"Where Kerry specifically says that he's telling people what he was told by other vets in the meeting in Detroit. He never said he saw those kinds of atrocities....he's saying others have."


Then it's hearsay. I'm not saying some of this stuff didn't happen. I'm just saying that he didn't witness it, but he's reporting it. Isn't that the same as what you're claiming the SBV's are doing? Just because he said it, doesn't mean it happened. It may have, but verification could not have come by Kerry. His testimony was, in my opinion, was for notoriety's sake, because it's not worth much else as a he said, she said...




"This is a disgusting example of taking his words out of context, and I really hope Teal that you didn't know about the context of this quote before putting it up."


I didn't. I saw the body of the text, and thought I'd gotten the whole thing. oops.

[Jared]

"Instead, you bring up something that doesn't contradict the point at all."

Jared:
You misunderstood. I didn't intend to contradict the point, I was poking fun at the name, Howler. Just sounds funny.

Sorry about that. My bad.

"Where Kerry specifically says that he's telling people what he was told by other vets in the meeting in Detroit. He never said he saw those kinds of atrocities....he's saying others have."

Then it's hearsay. I'm not saying some of this stuff didn't happen. I'm just saying that he didn't witness it, but he's reporting it. Isn't that the same as what you're claiming the SBV's are doing? Just because he said it, doesn't mean it happened. It may have, but verification could not have come by Kerry. His testimony was, in my opinion, was for notoriety's sake, because it's not worth much else as a he said, she said...

There's a difference here. Kerry was speaking on behalf of the other members of Vietnam Vets Against the War. As their spokesman, he's telling Senate what they've told him. The Senate wasn't going to listen to every vets allegations, so Kerry represented them and brought their claims forward.

My beef with the Swift Boat Vets isn't publicizing the claims of others. Groups will have spokesman and they'll tell everyone's story. My problem is that their claims don't fit with the primary evidence, and that they haven't told these stories at all until now.

"This is a disgusting example of taking his words out of context, and I really hope Teal that you didn't know about the context of this quote before putting it up."

I didn't. I saw the body of the text, and thought I'd gotten the whole thing. oops.

No problem. I didn't think you knew the context of it. Things like that (when people take stuff out of context for partisan gain) just piss me off, on either side.

[Jared]

Jared,

But Bush lied for repeating the CIA's info?

I'm not getting into the "Bush lied" stuff. I don't think we can know if he deliberately lied or was just misled. Although it's very possible that he lied, I think it's an oversimplification of what happened.

The effect of John Kerry's testimony was the same as if he had witnessed atrocities himself, and he knew that when he gave it.

The effect was as if he had witnessed them himself, even though he specifically said this is what others told him? I think the effect of the testimony would have been powerful, regardless of who told it (as long as it was by a Vet who was in Vietnam).

Never mind that more than half of those 150 "veterans" were never in Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Sol ... estigation

According to the investigative work of Burkett, Lewy and others, there were many imposters, liars, and plain nutjobs who infiltrated the ranks of the anti-war movement, and, in some cases, testified to war crimes and atrocities that never occurred in order to get attention, sympathy, and, in one documented case, medals and honors. It is also true, as noted by author Gerald Nicosia in his authoritative history of the Vietnam Veterans Movement “Home to War”, that those discredited voices were never key witnesses in either the Winter Soldier Investigation or in subsequent war crimes investigations such as the congressional Dellums Hearings of 1971.

I'm surprised you have trouble comprehending how devastating his testimony was to the morale of our military, and how much it helped the enemy's cause.

So if we're committing war crimes and atrocities, the witnesses to these things should just shut up?

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S ... v=5D7lNDfv

North Vietnamese generals have stated outright that they were on the brink of defeat after Tet, but that they held on in the hope that a divided America would falter.

Then when it did, 3.1 million south Vietnamese were slaughtered. How many lives does Kerry claim he saved, again?

So you're blaming our loss in Vietnam on Kerry? Because he was the spokesman for a group of vets that said atrocities were happening? (And they were happening...I can provide lots of links with evidence of this.)

[Teal]

The Night Before Christmas
Cambodian Version)

Twas the night before Christmas and we were afloat
Somewhere in Cambodia in our little boat.
While the river was lightened by rockets red glare
No one but the President knew we were there.

The crew was all nestled deep down in their bunks,
While the Spook and I watched the sampans and junks.
Our mission was secret, so secret in fact,
No one else would remember it when we got back.

When out on the water there arose such a clatter
I leaped down from the bridge to see what was the matter.
The incoming friendly was starting to flash
And I knew that the ARVN's were having a bash.

The snap of friendly fire on the warm tropic air
Convinced me for sure no one knew we were there,
On a clandestine mission so secret it's true
That I'm still convinced only Tricky Dick knew.

While I huddled for safety in the tub on the bow,
I thought of a title, "Apocalypse Now."
To give to the films I was I making each day
To show all the voters when I made my big play.

As I sat there sweating in my lucky flight jacket,
Spook said, "Merry Christmas!" and tossed me a packet.
And what to my wondering eyes did appear,
But a new lucky cap, which I still have right here.

I keep it tucked here, in this leather brief case,
Just sharing with the press its secretive place
As I regale them again with my senate refrain,
That Christmas in Cambodia is seared into my brain.

Don't bother to quibble with history my friend,
By pointing out Johnson was President then.
Don't listen to Swiftees who try to explain,
For I tell you that night is seared into my brain.

Down Hibbard, down Lonsdale, and you too O'Neill,
So you don't remember? Well it's something I feel.
I don't need all you Swiftvets to support my campaign,
Cause Christmas in Cambodia is seared into my brain,

Into my brain, into my brain, into my brain...


----------
Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

[Teal]

http://www.swiftvets.com/images/Vets_after.jpg

[FatPitcher]

Jared,

But Bush lied for repeating the CIA's info?

I'm not getting into the "Bush lied" stuff. I don't think we can know if he deliberately lied or was just misled. Although it's very possible that he lied, I think it's an oversimplification of what happened.

The effect of John Kerry's testimony was the same as if he had witnessed atrocities himself, and he knew that when he gave it.

The effect was as if he had witnessed them himself, even though he specifically said this is what others told him? I think the effect of the testimony would have been powerful, regardless of who told it (as long as it was by a Vet who was in Vietnam).

Never mind that more than half of those 150 "veterans" were never in Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Sol ... estigation

According to the investigative work of Burkett, Lewy and others, there were many imposters, liars, and plain nutjobs who infiltrated the ranks of the anti-war movement, and, in some cases, testified to war crimes and atrocities that never occurred in order to get attention, sympathy, and, in one documented case, medals and honors. It is also true, as noted by author Gerald Nicosia in his authoritative history of the Vietnam Veterans Movement “Home to War”, that those discredited voices were never key witnesses in either the Winter Soldier Investigation or in subsequent war crimes investigations such as the congressional Dellums Hearings of 1971.

I'm surprised you have trouble comprehending how devastating his testimony was to the morale of our military, and how much it helped the enemy's cause.

So if we're committing war crimes and atrocities, the witnesses to these things should just shut up?

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S ... v=5D7lNDfv

North Vietnamese generals have stated outright that they were on the brink of defeat after Tet, but that they held on in the hope that a divided America would falter.

Then when it did, 3.1 million south Vietnamese were slaughtered. How many lives does Kerry claim he saved, again?

So you're blaming our loss in Vietnam on Kerry? Because he was the spokesman for a group of vets that said atrocities were happening? (And they were happening...I can provide lots of links with evidence of this.)

Check out the book Stolen Valor for more on the VVAW folks. Hurley, Kerry's buddy and veterans advisor, said he witnessed various things that everyone else in his brigade said never happened.

War atrocities did happen. Abu Gharib did happen. What did not happen is what Kerry claimed - that atrocities were the "rule rather than the exception", that commanders all the way up the chain of command knew about and approved of these crimes, etc. By claiming that, Kerry branded all Vietnam veterans criminals, monsters, and "babykillers." He was the "war hero" that had credibility because of his distinguished service--and he used that credibility to repeate false information as if it were bulletproof, knowing that the distinction he made, that they were not *his* stories, would be ignored by most people, including the press.

How can you have a "Road to Damascus" moment that never happened? How can you provide testimony on war crimes that you never saw? What kind of a person would conduct himself the way Kerry did, knowing the disasterous consequences that would result? (He estimated 3,000 killings would take place if the US withdrew, off by a factor of 1000). What kind of person would bail out of his tour, then tesify against his fellow sailors with no proof?

[Teal]

"On Memorial Day, May 31, 2004, Vietnam Vets for the Truth broke an extraordinary story about a photograph hanging in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon). The photograph, displayed in a room dedicated to foreign activists who contributed to the Communist victory over America in the Vietnam War, shows Senator John Kerry being greeted by Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Jeffrey M. Epstein of Vietnam Vets for the Truth acquired the photograph during the Memorial Day weekend in response to a general request for photographs and records detailing Kerry's activities on behalf of the enemy."

[FatPitcher]

Tealboy, since UfC was published, it's been established that this photo is part of a subsection on people who helped normalize US-Vietnam relations.

[Teal]

"it's been established that this photo is part of a subsection on people who helped normalize US-Vietnam relations"



WHOOPS!...de-leted... This didn't come from Swiftvets.com, BTW, but some other thread I saw in a search engine...just so anyone knows...

[Jared]

Check out the book Stolen Valor for more on the VVAW folks. Hurley, Kerry's buddy and veterans advisor, said he witnessed various things that everyone else in his brigade said never happened.

War atrocities did happen. Abu Gharib did happen. What did not happen is what Kerry claimed - that atrocities were the "rule rather than the exception", that commanders all the way up the chain of command knew about and approved of these crimes, etc.

Umm, Kerry never said these were the "rule rather than the exception", unless this quote didn't show up on my Google search of this phrase, Kerry, and Vietnam. In his testimony he did say this:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

So you're telling me that officers weren't aware of atrocities committed? That no officers approved of any of these atrocities? If so, then things like My Lai couldn't have happened. What has Kerry said here that is wrong? From a quick search on My Lai:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_repo ... /65065.stm

The report concluded that both Col Henderson, the brigade commander, and Lt Col Frank Barker, the commanding officer of the task force, had substantial knowledge of the war crime, but did nothing about it.

And if you want, I can dig up more stuff on things where people high up in the command knew of atrocities and remained silent. This is stuff that I'm not proud to dig up. But Kerry was reporting it.

By claiming that, Kerry branded all Vietnam veterans criminals, monsters, and "babykillers." He was the "war hero" that had credibility because of his distinguished service--and he used that credibility to repeate false information as if it were bulletproof, knowing that the distinction he made, that they were not *his* stories, would be ignored by most people, including the press.

From my last post, most of the false testimony about war crimes was not part of the Winter Soldier Investigation. And there were quite a few war crimes that went on in Vietnam. Look at the people that came out about Abu Ghraib. Are they branding everyone in Iraq as sadists? No. Neither was Kerry. It's an bold exaggeration to say that Kerry branded all Vietnam vets as monsters and babykillers. Do you really believe he said ALL Vietnam vets are babykillers? Monsters?

How can you have a "Road to Damascus" moment that never happened? How can you provide testimony on war crimes that you never saw? What kind of a person would conduct himself the way Kerry did, knowing the disasterous consequences that would result? (He estimated 3,000 killings would take place if the US withdrew, off by a factor of 1000). What kind of person would bail out of his tour, then tesify against his fellow sailors with no proof?

You're assuming that the Cambodia incident never happened...but you have no idea if it's true. As for his testimony, he specifically said IN HIS TESTIMONY that he was reporting what other Vets were telling him. He was their spokesman...that's what spokesmen do.

As for Kerry, he's supposed to shut up when as spokesmen for Vietnam Vets Against the War, other vets tell him that atrocities were occuring. Just shut up and it'll go away. No. He spoke about it. And lots of these vets were telling the truth. Are you saying that he should have just shut up while we committed atrocities over there?

And bailing out of his tour? He got three Purple Hearts and left, like I'm sure most did in Vietnam. And saying "testify against his fellow sailor with no proof"....so you're telling me that all of the vets that spoke to him were lying? Of course not.


By the way, I'm still waiting for the explanation on why the Swift Boat Vets stories don't fit with the official Naval documents. Or why they have flip-flopped from stories about Kerry as recent as a year ago. Or why these veterans have kept these stories to themselves over the past 35 years where Kerry has been a very public figure (leader of Vietnam Vets Against the War, running for Congress and Senate, working to normalize relations w/Vietnam in Senate) and only now come forward.

[FatPitcher]

I'll pull a Jared on you. Show me this flip-flops instead of just saying they happened.

I'm busy tonight, but rest assured I'll be back for more

In the meantime, check out www.wintersoldier.com and www.stolenhonor.com (1st and 3rd sample clips).

If I were Max Cleland, I'd just dispense with this whole logic thing and claim you're attacking my patriotism. Of course, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if that were the case (hyuk, hyuk).