Johm Kerry: Evil sez Drudge

The BBQ Pit
181

Even if we were to accept Lt. Cmdr. Elliott’s statements as gospel, and the hearsay transmitted to him as gospel, what this boils down to is a procedural issue. Did John Kerry rush to Adm. Hoffmans office, begin banging his fist on the table and demanding his decoration? Did same Admiral cringingly profer it, for fear of his rear-echelon ass? As the esteemed representative of That Flat Place has pointed out, there is a procedure. The procedure was primed, the gears cranked round and round, and Lt. Kerry was a nice thing to hang on his chest.

Now we have some dispute as to whether or not Lt. Kerry’s actions merited such recognition. Not that Lt. Kerry demanded such recognition. Not that Lt. Kerry falsified anything in order to get his hands on it. Boil it down, it comes to whether or not the Navy bureaucracy functioned to perfection.

Did Lt. Kerry have his eye on a future political career? I’d bet on it. Did that knowledge augment his craving for shiny ribbons? Very likely. Would accepting such a medal constitute some grave moral failing, earning him the contempt and shunning of all just men, everywhere? I hardly think so.

What else you got?

[Blog gossip hijack: Your correspondent from the conservative wing of the extreme left makes no, repeat, no guarantees of the accuracy or validity of same. It is, however, a statement from a man who claims to be the very same Doug Reese claimed as Elliott’s informant…]

http://www.madkane.com/wwwboard/messages/1752.html

182

John Kerry is a politician!? Ohmigod! You mean, like, running for office, and stuff! No! Gosh, thanks for opening my eyes on that, Sid Wow, that’s a real bombshell!

And to think that, at one time, I considered him a viable candidate in comparison to that paragon of virtue and palladin of truth, GeeDubya.

183

It appears that most conservatives are treating this with the disgust and disdain it deserves. A few, of course, are not – which speaks volumes about their character and willingness to do anything to keep Bush in the WH.

Unfortunately for them, this pathetic attempt at mud-slinging (in the guise of “finding the truth”) is already backfiring. :stuck_out_tongue:

184

Agreed.

I submit it merely as a plausible motive. You asked what could possibly cause the dude to change his story other than “new evidence,” (the nature of which you have failed to even hypothesize about or explain how it would be physically possible). I submit the ever possible motive of an influx of fresh chinga chinga. My hypothesis is infinitely more plausible than yours given that your hypothesis (the presentation of “new evidence” 35 years after the fact by non-eyewitnesses) is fucking nigh impossible. Even if it IS possible, we have not been told what that evidence consists of.

And no offense, but your evaluation of Mr. Elliot’s character, as informed as it may be from reading a couple of quotations on the internet, is really of no value to me and adds nothing probative to the debate.

I don’t blame you for avoiding my actual qustion, btw (what new evidence could have possibly surfaced?). There isn’t an answer.

He knew the testimony of every eyewitness. Testimony which has not been challenged or contradicted by any other eyewitness. He had no reason to doubt it. Then something happened in 2004. Something which motivated him to change his story, then retract it, then change it again. Hmmm…I wonder what it could be.[sup]1[/sup]

Is this supposed to confuse me and put me off guard?

Elliot recommended Kerry for his Silver Star based on the testimony of his shipmates. For 35 years he had no reason to doubt Kerry’s shipmates. Then something caused him to sign an “affadavit” in 2004. Since it is not possible that any new evidence could have been presented to him, I wonder what his motivation could have been.[sup]2[/sup]

It has to be more than one. They all tell the same story. It has to be all of them or none of them. Which is it?

Well, they’re not really his “peers” in the sense that his crewmates were but that’s a nitpick. More significantly, I’m aware of only one of them who is actually representing himself as an eyewitness to any of Kerry’s medal winning exploits. He was on a different boat some distance away from Kerry. He does not dispute the fact that Kerry saved another man’s life but he claims that Kerry was not under fire when it hapened. This guy’s story is, of course, contradicted by the men on Kerry’s boat as well as by the testimony of the man whose life was saved.

The guy’s testimony is clearly and demonstrably wrong on the facts but I’m willing to give him the benefit of possibly misremembering something 35 years after the fact which he had only a distant look at under the fog of war and while under fire. I find that the most likely reason that his testimony would be so dramatically at odds with every other witness. There is one other possibility as well.[sup]3[/sup]

So the answer to your question depends on which of the “peers’” statements I am being asked to evaluate for truth. Most of their statements are simply personal opinions, not claims to first hand knowledge of Kerry’s exploits. Some of the statements are suspect (A doctor who claims to have examined one of Kerry’s wounds is not the doctor of record and there is no documentation that he ever saw Kerry. I also wonder why he would remember one mildly wounded Naval officer out of the hundreds or thousands of people he would have examined during the war. What stuck in his mind about John Kerry? And why isn’t there any documentation of this alleged examination. I’m not saying he’s lying, I’m just saying…) but very few of them make any falsifiable claims.

  1. chinga chinga
  2. chinga chinga
  3. chinga chinga
185

It’s still not clear how close the other boat was to Kerry’s boat at the time. I would also like to see exactly what is being disputed and who is disputing it. As 'lucy has so astutely pointed out this doesn’t even seem to be a dispute about the facts as much as it is a dispute about whether the Navy was right to give him a Star. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

For fuck’s sake. All this fucking bullshit has already been debunked by Snopes.

As you can see, I bolded the portions which debunk the bullshit in your post. Particularly your assertion that Krerry’s crewmates ever said there was only one VC.

186

Holy Cow, Jack Kerry is tough enough to wear Tussy. According to the New Yorker he’s a regular Do The Dew kind of risk-taker:

Just one of the guys. A real “that’s quite a shrine you got there, Rodriguez”, man’s man.

Keep readin’, it gets better.

Now how is this fellow any less reckless than President Bush? Seems to me Mr Kerry’s got a battle-proven record of being too gung ho to do right. Pray tell, is this man a step up?
On preview: good heavens, Diogenes, that post’s got more branches than the B of A.

187

I remembered this figure about Vietnam from a movie and thought I’d look for a cite

http://www.lzxray.com/prolog.htm

So I don’t think it’s fair to sneer at those ‘four months’ - given that Kerry was wounded 3 times in that short space of time.

188

Well if the “cowardly, weasely liar” shit doesn’t stick, start throwing the “too gung ho, too cavalier shit.” Maybe that will stick. God damn.

Perhaps slinging all this ridiculous shit that only the “pre-fooled” want to believe (or solemnly proclaim that these men deserve to be heard) is having its share of success. I notice that we aren’t talking very much about the largest deficit in history, the weakening of the jobs numbers, the loss of 300 points on the stock market, the loss of wages…

It’s the Economy, Stupid.

These defenders of the last bastion of the neo-right would prefer it to be “The Meconium, Stupid.” Fuck 'em.

189

So he’s a flip-flopper, eh? Unreliable bastard.

190

Sam Stone, thank you for posting the citation. The citation is the rational place for this discussion to start. Next question is who says the recitations in the citation are false, in what respect are they claimed to be false and on what basis are they claimed to be false and what are the facts of the case as proposed by the person / persons who say the citation’s recitations are false. We can belly ache all we want about mud throwing and dishonest and dishonorable propaganda and Commander Elliot changing his story, or not changing his story, as the case might be, but until we figure out who is saying what, as opposed to who is throwing around unsubstantiated conclusions, all this is all just so much smoke and mirrors. It is just a titillating as it could be but it is not substance. We have the *official Navy version *, now what is the Swift Boat Guys version?

Let me speculate that the impetus for the citation was after action reports by Kerry and the other boat commanders, and the next commander up the chain, which may or may not have been Commander Elliot. If it was Elliot, if he is changing his story (which by necessity is based on what he was told happened in reports and informally, not on his personal observation of the engagement) it is incumbent on him now that he has gone public to plainly and directly tell us what he now understands the facts to be. Until that happens we are just engaging in so much conjecture and speculation.

As far as the “shoot ‘em in the back” theory is concerned, I’ll tell you that an armed enemy on the battlefield is a legitimate and proper target no matter what way he is facing or moving. Until the enemy is disarmed and clearly surrendered he is a target, and a dangerous one at that. Spare me the shoot in the back stuff. Firefights are not conducted by Marquis of Queensberry rules, not by people who hope to survive the fight, anyway.

191

So Kerry liked to rock out on his boat and have fun with his crew? Clearly he’s unfit for command.

It sounds like he had great taste in music, btw.

(Am I the only one who thinks that this makes Kerry sound more appealling raher than less?)

Of course, the “right thing” to do in this case would have been to allow a VC to kill him and his crew but hey, rules are rules.

192

Only you can explain why you’ve chosen to call the men who were there and have never changed their stories liars, while trying to believe those who weren’t there and have changed theirs. Perhaps you could help us out and enlighten us as to how your sense of honor guides you to do that?

As for the Globe’s saying it stands by its story, that’s journalese boilerplate for “We have you on tape, fool. You really want to press this, or would you rather back down quietly?”

193

Oh, well, it’s good to know that it’s only the attacks from the left that have made you a staunch defender of these goobs. Y’know, as opposed to the unsubstantiated attacks from the goobs in question, I mean. They’re just fellers tryin’ to get their story heard, right?

I’m not sure if you noticed the irony dripping from the above. Take another look.

194

Thank you. All I’ve been trying to do is get all the facts on the table to understand this. I’m already on record as saying that Kerry deserves the benefit of the doubt, and these guys need to substantiate their allegations, and I’ve offered my suspicion that they are letting their hatred of Kerry over the ‘Winter Soldier’ stuff cloud their judgement and lead them to making charges that they maybe shouldn’t be making. But I don’t have all the info, and I’ve been trying to understand the situation.

So far, for my effort I’ve been called names and had my honor questioned. Nice to see someone else here who is trying to be level-headed and fair.

I agree. He is implying now that ‘had he known then’ what he knows now, he would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star. That implies that the story that is out there now is not the story that is in the after-action report. If that’s the case, he needs to tell us what he read in that report, and be prepared to stand by that claim if the Kerry camp decides to release it publically. Unfortunately, the after action report for Kerry’s Silver Star is one of the documents he is apparently refusing to release. That confuses me. I can’t understand a motive for witholding that document - unless it makes exaggerated claims. But perhaps there are other reasons. Another that comes to mind is that he could have made critical statements of fellow crewmen/officers in it, and doesn’t want to drag their names through the mud.

Well, there are other facts we can check up on. For instance, Kerry has claimed repeatedly in the past that he was in Cambodia on Christmas eve in 1968. He has described that mission in great detail, and he apparently used it in 1986 Congressional testimony in support of the claim that officers ordered their men to partake of war crimes. That speech should be in the congressional record, and should be easily checked (anyone feel like doing that? It’s not available online prior to 1994, and being in Canada it won’t be in my library).

Every officer in his chain of command disputes that story, and it would appear that Kerry’s own journal does as well. And in his later book “Tour of Duty”, he omits the story.

All of this should be verifiable. If it turns out that Kerry was not in Cambodia at all while in Vietnam, but he gave testimony to that effect to a session of congress while being a Senator himself, that’s a pretty big deal. This is something the media could find out in about ten minutes with a little legwork.

I agree completely. I’ll even go further and say that Kerry’s actions would be heroic even if it turned out the guy was unarmed, because A) when he jumped ashore he had no way of knowing if this was another ambush and he was going to be hit by 30 enemy VC, and B) he has no way of knowing if the guy is armed or not.

After having read all this over again, it appears to me that what these men might be mad about is, A) they all made the agreement to use the strategy of beaching and counter-attacking if they were attacked, B) The first engagement (which Kerry wasn’t a part of) involved other men doing exactly what Kerry did - taking fire, beaching their boat, jumping off and killing a bunch of VC. In the first action, it looks like there was quite a bit of fighting, and a number of VC were killed. And yet, no one got a medal. C) Kerry goes downriver, attacks a single guy and kills him, and walks away with a Silver Star, while claiming or implying that it was a spur-of-the-minute decision of his alone.

This would fall under the category of ‘sour grapes’. My speculation is that they’re pissed because they think he wrote himself an after-action report that downplayed the actions of the other men and inflated his own, and he got a Silver Star out of it. At least, that’s their story. They see that as dishonorable. And if their story is true, you could make that case. But it wouldn’t diminish the fact that it took courage for Kerry to jump out of that boat, and that the Silver Star is legitimate. Unless Kerry flat-out lied in the report, but we have no way of knowing unless he authorizes the release of that document.

195

But I don’t think that’s a fair summation of my post, or my theme in this thread. You would honor me by preserving the context of that quote. :slight_smile:

196

Sam Stone, unless I’m missing something the after action reports and the paperwork on the citation are not Senator Kerry’s to release or not to release. They are the Navy’s. If the Navy wants to release them Senator Kerry seems to have no say in it.

If Senator Kerry was in command of the operation, as the citation expressly recites, he was responsible for the operations, its success or its failure. If the three boat operation went well then praise to LT(JG) Kerry. If it went badly then blame to him, no matter whose fault it was. Somebody has quoted ADM Z as saying he wasn’t sure whether to reward Kerry or have him court martialed. While speculative I can’t help but wonder if the Swift Boat Guys would want in on the action if ADM Z had decided the other way. Success, they say, has many fathers; failure is an orphan.

I’v got to entertain my grey haired old mother in the morning. I’m off.

197

Why should he. Every witness in his boat says it happened the way he said it did. Even if he does release the document they will have some other story about why it isn’t true. I think this has everything to do with the Winter soldier and not a damn thing to do with what Kerry did in Vietnam.

These guys had to lead men into battle, some of whom died. In order to justify their own actions they had to believe what they were doing was absolutely right. When Kerry was in country he walked the walk, and so they signed papers for his medals. Then Kerry went home. He believed the government was betraying the men they were sending to Vietnam and the American public and he decided to speak out. Because he was freshly out of hell, and because he was not very old, he was not so good at pulling punches. Those guys who were fellow officers saw it as a huge slap in the face and a betrayal.

So, they convinced themselves that clearly he couldn’t have done all those things. He must have been a coward, because he was betraying them. Sour Grapes? Not quite. Lying, maybe, mostly to themselves. This doesn’t perhaps explain some of the things like the Dr. who says he saw him but isn’t on any of the records but it maybe explains some of it. I suspect though that the betrayal is felt by most of those guys too.

198

To be fair, he says he was joking and that he said to impress on Kerry his general disapproval of leaving the boat unmanned. He did not want that shit to become a habit but the the testimony of Kerry’s shipmates was such that the action taken was necessary to protect the boat and its crew.

he wasn’t seriously considering a court martial.

199

This is an excellent point. As the officer in charge, Kerry is going to take the brunt of the criticism - and therefore should be deserving of more of the credit if things go well.

We also have to remember that during the time when Kerry got his medals, there was well-known medal inflation going on in Vietnam for political reasons. Commanders were trying to crank up morale and get some positive spin at home, so they were handing out medals for actions that wouldn’t have warranted them previously. Kerry may have been the beneficiary of this policy, but that can hardly be held against him. But it could cause some of his men to be annoyed by it. Then this guy goes home and start trashing them, and they become furious. The motivation here is easy to understand, even if Kerry did everything he said he did.

200

Not so fast my Canadian friend. I will admit that in 69, 70 and 71 the Bronze Star was given to all sorts of people and maybe some smart asses thought it was witty to say it was a sort of the company grade officers good conduct metal, BUT Bronze Stars and the BS with device for valor and Silver Stars of any sort were hardly given away. If you saw a guy with a plain BS you could pretty well think you were looking at a staff officer who had done a bang up good job of planning operation, taking care of personnel matters, gotten people the right pay at the right time, made sure that the troops had water, food, ammo, boots and all the other stuff at the right time, in the right place and in the right amount, tried his cases efficiently and cleanly, provided medical services in a professional manner all under very trying circumstances, or a company officer or NCO or an EM who had behaved very professionally in the highest traditions of the service. If you saw a guy with a BS /w V device or a SS you knew that you were dealing with somebody who had done something pretty spectacular, maybe not the right thing but still something above and beyond the average and routine performance of duty. Those awards were hardly given away and, to my knowledge, every damned one of them was earned. Any implication to the contrary is just self-serving balderdash, especially in the context of this discussion. Remember things were no damn fun in SE Asia and remember also Napoleon’s injunction that with such baubles are men lead.

This is off point, let’s get back to it – in what way is the official Navy version as stated on Senator Kerry’s citation incorrect?

And now I’ll go to bed.