# John Kerry and Vietnam **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2004, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262 "2004-08-04T11:19:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/241 "2004-08-12T06:04:50Z")
Nyuk. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/242 "2004-08-12T06:06:58Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I don’t believe that’s true. The AARs are available upon FOI request, as long as the people in the report consent to its release. That’s what the form 180 is about, as far as I know. It’s a release that says the government can release documents upon request that relate to the individual in question. Without it, the documents can only be released with specific approval. Kerry has approved the release of some documents, but not all. And he won’t sign the form 180. Bush signed his. I don’t believe that AAR’s are part an official jacket but leaving that argument aside, we DO have the official Navy account as well as the citation. So why would Kerry’s AAR be helpful to you if it your contention that Kerry lied to get his medals. If the Navy accounts were based on AAR’s then why would you expect to see any discrepencies and why would the Navy embellish Kerry’s actions? If Kerry’s accounts match the official record then where are you? What have you proven? It’s the Swifties who need to produce AAR’s if they wasnt to say that they saw anything at variance with the official account. Why are you bugging Kerry about it? they’re the ones making the allegations that the Navy’s account is wrong, let _them_ prove it. > [@](#): > > The Swiftees claim they didn’t even know he got a Bronze Star for the Rassmann incident, until they heard him talking about it on the campaign trail. I’d have to call bullshit on that. Kerry’s medals have been public record for over thirty years and it’s not like he hasn’t talked about them. You’ll forgive me if I have to get out my :dubious: smilie on that one. > [@](#): > > The doctor who says that he examined Kerry’s wound for one of his purple hearts says that Kerry was denied his purple heart application the first time he went for one, and then three months later, after all the eyewitnesses to the action had left Vietnam and Kerry had moved to a new unit, new paperwork was submitted by someone and Kerry got the Purple Heart. They suspect Kerry put himself in for one, and no one was around to contradict his claim. But that’s one of the documents Kerry refuses to release. There is no record that this doctor ever examined Kerry and his story is at odds with the Navy’s account. > [@](#): > > In this case, wouldn’t that be a slam dunk for Kerry? All he has to do is release that Purple Heart application and show that it was signed by Elliott at the time of the action, and these guys have a major claim shot down (and if that’s the case, I promise to drop the issue of all the medals unless they can show up with documentary proof, because this will damage their credibility greatly). So why doesn’t Kerry do that? He doesn’t need to. The Navy itself backs him up. These guys have the burden of proof, not Kerry. > [@](#): > > This is a very good question. I have no idea. There may be procedural reasons. If they only learned about the medals recently, can they still do that? I don’t know what the regs are. Hopefully, if this gets play in the media someone will ask them that question. I’d like to know the answer. Yes there is a procedure and yes they can still do that. I wonder why they don’t request their own AAR’s to prove they saw something different than the official accounts. > [@](#): > > I think the burden of proof is now on Kerry…[et cetra] None of this matters in the slightest. Nothing you’ve offered is proof he wasn’t there. All this amounts to is a shouting match that will break down exactly along the already polarized lines. At the very worst, Kerry exaggereated a war story. If only Shrub could say that’s the worst thing he ever lied about. > [@](#): > > Hey, the book isn’t even out yet. I have no idea if the medal thing is going anywhere. Apparently, the book itself is heavily footnoted and contains numerous signed eyewitness accounts. I’m reserving final judgement on that until I can get the book and read it. Not eyewitness accounts of his medal incidents. It contains numerous affadavits from guys who say they don’t like him. All the news in the book is already out there. It didn’t work, the Swifties have not been able to prove that the Navy is lying about Kerry’s medals and nobody cares who isn’t just looking for an excuse to trash Kerry’s war record and make him equal to Shrub. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure about that. The last time ‘Winter Soldier’ was in the media was back before 9/11 when no one cared about military matters and there was a deep distrust of the military. Plus, back then Kerry was still proudly against that war. > > Now Kerry is running as a proud vet who loved the guys he served with, and the public is protective of the military (which is why there is so much squeamishness about this Swift Vet thing in the first place). The narrative has changed. If these guys manage to play Winter Soldier out in the media again, and get some publicity on what Kerry actually said back then, it may be more trouble for him, especially amongst undecided voters in the swing states. He was a proud vet _then_ who loved the guys he served with. He also deeply opposed the war and deplored the attrocities that occurred ther. There is no contradiction and there is no chance that the US is going to fight Vietnam all over again. You either give a crap that Kerry was an activist or you don’t. There is nothing new in any of it. > [@](#): > > And if that’s all they had, it’d be enough. As I said before, if a candidate for a cabinet post had to admit in hearings that he had invented a story about his military service and lied about it to Congress, there is NO WAY he would be confirmed. Kerry is running for a much more important position than that. It’s nothing. It’s a war story either misremebered or exaggerated. Doesnt change the fact that he was in the Mekong Delta that night while Bush was getting drunk in the states. > [@](#): > > Let’s remember back to the episode of Admiral Boorda. Do you remember that? A highly decorated veteran, but someone in the media noticed that two of his medals had a combat V for valor above them. Someone checked, and found that he shouldn’t have gotten those V’s. So the media raked him mercilessly over that. Faking his record! He got medals he didn’t deserve! > > Dishonored and humiliated, Boorda committed suicide. He didn’t get a medal he didn’t deserve he (mistakenly) wore two Valor devices that he had never been awarded. There is no dispute about whether Kerry was actually _awarded_ his medals. The Boorda incident is in no way analogous. > [@](#): > > Military people take this stuff very seriously. Lying about secret illegal missions is despicable behaviour. It’s a big deal. Hardly. It was done routinely…and no one has proven that Kerry did so. > [@](#): > > If it can be shown that he exxagerated combat reports to get medals he didn’t deserve, then that’s even worse. You seem to have the impression that medals like the Silver Star are awarded purely on the say so of the person receiving it. They are not. It would not have been possible for Kerry to “exaggerate” his way into a medal of that level. He got it because every witness confirmed the same story. It’s the same with the Bronze. Not one of these guys has produced any evidence which is contrary to the official Navy account, even though they presumably wrote their own AAR’s and the Navy read them all before approving the medals. This avenue is pure filth, btw. The man is a war hero. The Navy says so. > [@](#): > > You really have to stop saying this. These guys served with Kerry…[etc] They didn’t serve with Kerry on his boat. Many of them, including the two authors of the book, never even met the guy in Vietnam. The guys on his boat (who apparently you think are all liars) all support him. Enough said. > [@](#): > > That may turn out to be true, but we don’t know yet because the story is still building. It’s getting more coverage every day. You know how stories like this go - they bubble under the surface for a while, and then they either fade away or they break through into the mainstream media and take on a life of their own. I honestly don’t know which way this will go yet. I do. It’s over already. There is nothing new which can come out. The Swifties have made no falsifiable allegations, it’s all just different recollections and general malice about Kerry’s anti-war activities. It’s preaching to the choir. > [@](#): > > But consider this: The book is #1 on Amazon right now, and it’s not available yet. When it’s released, it could sell a million copies. If it does, it’s going to be the subject of a lot of watercooler conversation. Just the fact that it’s a bestseller will force the media to cover it. And, it’ll give the Swiftvets a couple of million bucks they can use to buy airtime for their ad. So this story is FAR from over. It may just be starting. Don’t get your hopes up. Hate sells. All the anti-Clinton books sold well too. It’s easy to find a million Bush zombies willing to shell out for a hate book. That does not make the book egitimate and it does not mean that it will convert anybody but the converted. The mainstream media will lose interest when it is discovered that none of these dicks can pony up any evidence to back up their stories. > [@](#): > > Speaking of this issue - this will be a good test of media bias. So far, the mainstream media (big three networks, NY Times, LA times, etc) haven’t mentioned the Swiftvets. Not once that I know of. Which is pretty amazing given that Kerry’s campaign has already had to admit to mistakes over this issue. They didn’t cover all the 30 year old allegations about GWB either. They didn’t talk about his ANG dodge or his substance abuse or his shady oil dealings. The Swift Boat allegatopns acually have been mentioned on the networks (Nightline did a show about them) and they’ve been all over the cable nets but really, there isn’t any news here. They mostly aren’t making any falsifiable allegations and they’ve been incredibly weak under any real questioning. There simply isn’t any reason to give them any more attention. > [@](#): > > So if 250 decorated veterans can’t get a mention in the MSM in spite of having the #1 best seller and forcing a retraction from Kerry, what are the odds that a porn publisher and a single witness will get coverage? You’d think it’d be not likely at all, right? Let’s wait and see. TRhe Swifties have gotten way too _much_ attention. Mr. Flynt is at the extreme disadvantage of being an already despised public figure in a sea of Bush friendly media. I guarantee he will get nothing but derisive dismissals and so will his book. The allegations in the book will not even be examined. > [@](#): > > But do you know what would really bug me? It would really bug me if it turned out that Bush was not actually a pilot in the guard, but a bookkeeper or something, and all the pilot stories were fake. Fortunately, Kerry does not have this problem. The official records back him up completely. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/243 "2004-08-12T06:13:12Z")
Despite the attempts by the Bush apologists to muddy the issue and throw out more bullshit than a cattle stockyard, let’s remember one simple thing: _Kerry was a hell of a lot closer to Vietnam and Cambodia than George W. Bush was._ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/244 "2004-08-12T06:47:31Z")
Damn, **Sam** , what a post! I’d like to rebut the major points, but there’s like 118 of them, it would be like writing the Cliff Notes for _War and Peace_. A few things stand out. > [@](#): > > …The Swiftees claim they didn’t even know he got a Bronze Star for the Rassmann incident, until they heard him talking about it on the campaign trail… They didn’t? O’Neill didn’t know? Been dogging Kerry in one form or another, and never heard about it? They were just going along, minding their own business, when Kerry goaded them into action by lavish claims on the campaign trail. > [@](#): > > …The doctor who says that he examined Kerry’s wound for one of his purple hearts says that Kerry was denied his purple heart application the first time he went for one, and then three months later, after all the eyewitnesses to the action had left Vietnam and Kerry had moved to a new unit, new paperwork was submitted by someone and Kerry got the Purple Heart. They suspect Kerry put himself in for one, and no one was around to contradict his claim. But that’s one of the documents Kerry refuses to release… Insinuation supported by suggestion and butressed by innuendo. “The doctor who says” has been contradicted by documentary lack of evidence, i.e., his signature. Which proves only that nothing has been proved. Now “he says that Kerry was denied his Purple Heart…” How would he know? Are physicians required to sign off on such applications? And would he be advised as to the outcomes of such applications? Why? “They suspect that Kerry put himself in for one, and no one was around to contradict his claim”. Is that how it works? An absence of contradiction is sufficient? Doesn’t somebody have to state a _positive_ assertion of some kind, other than the prospective recipient? “But that’s one of the documents Kerry refuses to release…” He does? Did I miss your cite on this? “…So why doesn’t Kerry do that?..” Because he’s pretty sure you got nothing, and sees no good reason to call attention to it? “…He has been caught in one great big lie…” Well, clearly to you this is pretty heavy stuff, you seem to see the Krakatoa eruption, I’m just reminded of pulling Uncle Frank’s finger at Thanksgiving. “…I’m reserving final judgement on that until I can get the book and read it…” Still keeping an open mind about Kerry’s great big lies and earth-shattering mendacity? Well, good. Relieved to hear it. “If these guys manage to play Winter Soldier … amongst undecided voters in the swing states.” You mean the three undecided voters residing on Mars, who are as yet unaware that Kerry was a major anti-war activist? Those undecided voters? “…Lying about secret illegal missions is despicable behaviour. It’s a big deal…” Should we throw him into the same cell as Oliver Noth, Admiral Poindexter, and Ronald Reagan? “…And one of the Swiftvets WAS a crewmember on Kerry’s boat…” And the rest are not. The rest, which is to say the great majority, are Kerry supporters. If his credibility =1, theirs must equal 13, must it not? “…So far, the mainstream media (big three networks, NY Times, LA times, etc) haven’t mentioned the Swiftvets. Not once that I know of. Which is pretty amazing given that Kerry’s campaign has already had to admit to mistakes over this issue…” Whaaaa? I’ve seen stories about this all over the place, _nightline_ was on it just the other night. And the Tighty Righty press is throwing mid-air conniption fits over it, Hannity threw his back out twisting himself around it. And if this were not so, then what forced Kerry’s campaign to admit something? Rush Limbaugh? I mean, its got to be one or the other, right? Either it got attention, and he’s forced to answer, or the liberal tedia ignored it, and he’s not. But not both, **Sam**. Can’t have both. > [@](#): > > …Frankly, I think the debate should be on his Senate record. But Kerry won’t talk about that. He keeps talking about Vietnam instead… Does anybody _ask_ him about his Senate record? And are you watching the same speeches? Seems to me that the bulk of the verbiage is devoted to issues. Not saying he doesn’t mention it, he does. Not saying he doesn’t kiss the baby, either. But your wording suggests he talks _primarily_ about his war experiences, which is clearly not the case. “…He drank and partied and screwed up, and then straightened out and made something of himself…” Sure got off to a mighty slow start, though. Bout 40, wasn’t he? Was he still drunk when Kerry got elected to the Senate? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/245 "2004-08-12T07:00:00Z")
The man knew how to party. You’ve gotta give him that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/246 "2004-08-12T07:41:22Z")
At the end of the day, we have two candidates for the office of president. Kerry fought in Vietnam. He has his medals, he has his record. He has people claiming he was a genuine hero, and he has people claiming he embelished his record. Bush went into the Guard, showed himself to be an able pilot and yet clearly used his family’s influence to skirt some of his duties. That war was a nightmare for this country, and just about the only thing I can say about it is that I’m damn glad I was just young enough to miss the whole thing. Yes, Kerry is trumpeting his service record and he will have to suffer the consequences on the campaign trail of people questioning his record. Yes, he will have to respond to his critics, just as Bush has to respond to his. But this is all so entirely beside the point of what this election should be about. Two men are running for president. What vision does each of these men present for us? What policies do each of these men advocate? In what direction do they want to lead this country for the next four years? That’s what I want to know, and that’s what I want to base my decision on. The partisans can slog thru the mud of the Vietnam era, and try to cloud the issues in front of us today. But this country has real problems to face and a real future to confront. That’s what I’m concerned with. That’s what I’ll be weighing when I decide who will get my vote. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/247 "2004-08-12T11:46:08Z")
> [@](#): > > …The Swiftees claim they didn’t even know he got a Bronze Star for the Rassmann incident, until they heard him talking about it on the campaign trail… Wouldn’t this make them “The Swift Boat Veterans for Political Convenience”? ---
**Author:** ![Asteroide](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@Asteroide](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asteroide)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/248 "2004-08-12T13:33:11Z")
Just to add a little confusion here : > [@Magiver](#): > > His statements regarding Cambodia were made many years ago in a 1979 Boston Herald article and are specific to a date: > > “I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon [sic] claimed there were no American troops was very real.” Were there enough Vietnamese christians to make this a likely scenario ? Is it possible Kerry was confusing Christmas Eve with Tet, a few weeks later ? > [@Sam Stone](#): > > The thing is, Tony Blankley was on there, and he says he has an article coming out on Friday where he interviews someone who was responsible for border security, and he has the details on how it’s impossible to get confused on that point. The border was guarded by troops, blocked with wire and concrete pilings, and the approach to the border was festooned with warning signs. NO ONE ‘accidentally’ went into Cambodia, and no one gets confused over whether or not they might have been there. That border is several hundred miles long, and the river crossing(s) seem to be pretty wide and swampy. I believe it was also the miltary’s contention that large numbers of VC went back and forth across that border unchecked on a daily basis - hence the need to follow them into Cambodia… ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/249 "2004-08-12T14:14:41Z")
> [@Asteroide](#): > > That border is several hundred miles long, and the river crossing(s) seem to be pretty wide and swampy. I believe it was also the miltary’s contention that large numbers of VC went back and forth across that border unchecked on a daily basis - hence the need to follow them into Cambodia… Here’s some more info on the “tight as a drum” clamp on the Cambodian border and river crossings: [http://www.bcres.com/benewah/tet1968.htm](http://www.bcres.com/benewah/tet1968.htm) > [@](#): > > COMNAVFORV knew that communist forces used the waterways in the Third Riverine Area (the south and southwestern portions of III Corps), including the Nha Be/Saigon, Dong Nai, Vam Co Tai and Vam Co Dong rivers, for transportation and supply. Allied security in this area, including the control of river crossing points, varied enormously. In some places, it was virtually non-existent. For example, the Bo Bo Canal in Long An Province was particularly well situated for the transport of supplies from communist base areas in Cambodia. An intelligence advisor remarked that unless allied forces gained control of these waterways, “they will continue to be used at will by the VC/NVA…they will remain basic routes for infiltration, supply and crossing points for the VC/NVA.” The Senior Intelligence Advisor in the Third Riverine Area during Tet claimed that Vietnamese naval forces were too slow and that, “The VC use our rivers at will. To effectively stop them the Third Riverine needs [US Navy] PBRs, SEALS, and Seawolves [helicopters]. Without the above the VC will continue to run supplies, and troops whenever they desire.” > > … > > The Fourth Coastal Zone, located along the Cambodian border in the far west of the Mekong Delta, was an area through which significant amounts of enemy supplies moved from Cambodia into the RVN. Working together, the NILO at Ha Tien, American advisors, and the Vietnamese Sub-Sector Chief had developed an agent network capable of providing early warning of large scale overland movement of supplies, but they could not obtain rapid aerial photographic reconnaissance to confirm reports of infiltration. Moreover, communication with the outside remained uncertain due to an inadequately performing generator. The nearest aircraft were located along the coast at Rach Gia, about 50 miles from the border and even farther from the RVN island of Phu Quoc, located half-way between mainland RVN and the Cambodian port of Sihanoukville, through which a great deal of communist supplies were arriving. Aircraft were only available in the vicinity of Phu Quoc when not needed on the mainland, and ready reaction to surveillance needs was considered marginal. > > Coastal surveillance resulted in relatively few interceptions of enemy personnel and material. Although this was ascribed at the time to the effectiveness of patrols which discouraged the enemy, it was more likely due to patrolling inefficiencies. Vietnamese Navy assets similarly were subject to poor utilization, often being used for base defense rather than aggressive patrolling. Referring to Coastal Group 12, a Vietnamese Navy unit in I Corps with responsibility for patrolling lagoons, an American advisor remarked, “Unfortunately, they perform routine patrols unsatisfactorily in that the junks are prone to anchor and the crew go to sleep, day or night.” A fellow advisor commented “The attitude [of] `let the Americans do it’ prevailed.” In all fairness, some units conducted creditable patrols, but others were judged barely satisfactory and some were considered totally unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/250 "2004-08-12T14:54:45Z")
The enemy travelled in sampans, small boats that only drafted a couple of feet and could move through tiny tributaries and swampy, marshy areas. There are lots of those. Go have a look at how many river entries there are that can handle a 50 foot long ocean-going vessel driven by propellers that would foul up in any reedy, marshy water. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/251 "2004-08-12T14:56:35Z")
There’s an editorial in today’s Washington Post on the Swift Boat claims. Summary: It is evident there are contradictions with reliable evidence and partisan motives which, taken together, taint the claims beyond reasonable consideration. As predicted, the In/Not In Cambodia question doesn’t rate a mention. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/252 "2004-08-12T15:09:29Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The enemy travelled in sampans, small boats that only drafted a couple of feet and could move through tiny tributaries and swampy, marshy areas. There are lots of those. > > Go have a look at how many river entries there are that can handle a 50 foot long ocean-going vessel driven by propellers that would foul up in any reedy, marshy water. Water isn’t like that in Cambodia and Vietnam. Clear and deep on the Mekong and its tributaries. ---
**Author:** ![Asteroide](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@Asteroide](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asteroide)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/253 "2004-08-12T15:27:42Z")
I haven’t been there myself, but a quick look at a map shows that there are dozens of navigable rivers and canals in the border area, some of them form the border and a couple are more than a mile wide. None of which proves anything one way or the other of course. My WAG would be that the “embellishment” (if any) was Christmas Eve, trying to pluck at the heartstrings. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/254 "2004-08-12T15:35:36Z")
My initial impression was that Kerry had fashioned a fluid narrative from a number of elements of his experience in Indochina. There power in a fluid narrative. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/255 "2004-08-12T15:42:37Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Go have a look at how many river entries there are that can handle a 50 foot long ocean-going vessel driven by propellers that would foul up in any reedy, marshy water. Your own specs give a full load hull draft of the PCF of 3 feet, 10 inches, and full load navigation draft of 5 feet, 10 inches. It specifies that the fully loaded weight of the craft was 47,047 pounds. Are you claiming that the waterways of the region would not be navigable to such a craft? Do you have a cite for this? Part of me realizes that it is a bit foolish to even engage this Cambodia bullshit, but a larger part of me hates to see unsupported and dubious assertions stand unchallenged. At least we are talking about navigability now and not concrete pilons and standing guards. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/256 "2004-08-12T15:50:06Z")
No, no you don’t understand! The waterways _coming out_ of Cambodia were wide, deep and fully navigable. The waterways _going in_ to Cambodia were narrow, shallow, and clogged by plant life. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/257 "2004-08-12T16:07:08Z")
Clocking 400 posts for _this_. > [@](#): > > MEKONG DELTA > > The far south of Vietnam is one of the two main rice bowls of the country. Dominated by the Mekong Delta, the surrounding lands are comprised of low lying rice paddies and the rivers are bordered by dense mangroves and palms. The tributaries of the hectic Mekong River highway provide a comprehensive network of canals and channels. The rivers are the best methods to explore the region at a leisurely pace and offer the opportunity to experience the truly unique Mekong River lifestyle. What follows is an exploration of the Delta in a clockwise direction, beginning south of Ho… The Link: [http://www.viethandart.net/Htmls/mekong.htm](http://www.viethandart.net/Htmls/mekong.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/258 "2004-08-12T19:40:54Z")
**Sam** : The Swiftboats website has collapsed at the moment, due to the excessive amount of traffic, so you will have to excuse the fact that my cites come from alternative sources (such as NewsMax). The Swiftboats site has one page devoted to short testimonials from a number of its most prominent members. (The page can also be viewed [here](http://65.54.244.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=21119762a57729110348e446ef633ebf&lat=1092326102&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enewsmax%2ecom%2farchives%2farticles%2f2004%2f7%2f2%2f212352%2eshtml).) There are 18 statements, of which only 4 (arguably 5) are actually from people who can reasonably be said to have served with Kerry. Those 5 testimonials are provided by Captain Charles Plumly, Commander Grant Hibbard, Richard O’Meara, Captain George Elliot, and Steven Gardner. Plumly states that Kerry served under his command for “two or three specific operations.” He makes no direct complaint about Kerry’s actions as an officer, but describes him as _“devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive,”_ as well as in need of _”constant supervision,”_ whatever that’s supposed to mean. In order to achieve some credibility regarding this judgment, he (and the other Swiftboat vets) need to explain the discrepancy between their view of Kerry now – especially after his congressional testimony – and their view of him then, during his tour of duty, when he was officially described in glowing terms. Hibbard didn’t exactly serve with Kerry, but claims to have seen a wound for which Kerry allegedly received a Purple Heart. He describes it as a scratch, and says further that Kerry showed him a piece of shrapnel that _“appeared to be from one of our own M-79s.”_ I wonder how Hibbard was able to identify a piece of shrapnel so small as to barely cause a scratch as being from an M-79, while in the field. Of course, the shrapnel _might_ have been from a M-79, but we only have Dr. Hibbard’s speculation that this was the case. Is he a ballistics expert? If so, this would lend weight to his speculation. Otherwise, I am probably as qualified as Hibbard to make such a determination. Hibbard goes on to state, _”He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom,”_ insinuating that there was something suspicious about Kerry’s Purple Heart. But I’m quite sure that Kerry did not give himself that medal, so if there was something wrong about it, the fault probably doesn’t lie with Kerry. O’Meara makes no comments related to Kerry’s military service, nor does Elliot. Finally, we come to Gardner, who is arguably the most credibly character witness of the lot. He actually did serve with Kerry, and states _”I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy… if a man like that can’t handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"_ There’s not really much more to say about that: in Gardner’s opinion, Kerry was a lousy commander. This assessment appears to contradict Kerry’s officer assessment ratings, but in point of fact, these two assessments of Kerry’s qualities as a commander aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive: Kerry appears to have been rather gung-ho during his tour of duty, and the same actions that put his crew “in jeopardy” might well have led to commendations from his superiors. I would guess that there’s more detailed information regarding Kerry’s actions, and his receipt of the medals, in the book. But really, at this point, we don’t have much more than the above regarding Kerry’s actions while serving in Vietnam – other than his official service records, of course. What is perhaps more striking about the testimonials, however, is the sense of outrage expressed regarding Kerry’s accusations _after_ he returned from Vietnam. Of the 18 testimonials, 17 make specific reference to things Kerry said in his Congressional testimony and other public statements after his tour of duty, in particular his accusations of war crimes on the part of soldiers serving in Vietnam. It’s clear that many of those who have come out against Kerry are personally insulted by these claims; this resentment is a constantly recurring theme in virtually all of their statements. For example: > [@](#): > > \*\* "We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book “Tour of Duty.” We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they’re unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.” > > – John O’Neill > In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command." > > – Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman\*\* Some of these complaints seem a bit over the top. For example: > [@](#): > > \*\*“His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.” > > – Captain Charles Plumly\*\* I’ve not read Kerry’s book, but I seriously doubt he depicts all of his fellow servicemen as “murderous war criminals.” Or this one: > [@](#): > > \*\* It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home… and at home, John Kerry was the Field General." > > – Robert Elder\*\* …who appears to be a hair’s breath away from Kerry of single-handedly causing the defeat of the US in Vietnam. And so on. It seems to me that there is probably a good deal of truth in the accusations of hypocrisy and opportunism that these vets level against Kerry, even if Kerry has himself recanted some of his earlier accusations regarding war crimes. The problem is that Kerry’s hypocrisy and opportunism have no real bearing on his actions as a soldier. In claiming that Kerry failed to deport himself admirably during his service, didn’t deserve his medals and awards, and so on, the Swift Boat Vets have crossed the line from a legitimate criticism of his character to an illegitimate employment of lies, muckraking, and character assassination. Of the approximately 250 veterans who are members of this organization, only a handful served directly with Kerry and are thus in a position to judge his actions while serving. The mere fact that over and above the, say, 15 men who actually knew Kerry during his tour in Vietnam, there exists a group of 235 men who still despise him for his actions after his return home, does not in fact have a bearing on the accuracy of the claims of those 15 men. In other words, what you have here is a core group of about 15 men who knew Kerry during his service, and who uniformly praised his courage, daring, and resourcefulness as a commander during his tour. However, when Kerry returned to the US and began to protest the war, these men, apparently, changed their minds about him and suddenly decided he wasn’t such a great soldier after all. The remaining members of the Swift Boat vets despise Kerry for various reasons, some of which are perhaps well-founded, but are in no position to pass judgment on Kerry’s actions during his tour of service one way or the other. Thus, your constant harping about Kerry’s “entire chain of command,” “250 decorated veterans,” and so forth, is rather misplaced, **Sam**. For example, one of Kerry’s commanding officers, Lt. Commander George Elliot, recommended Kerry for both his Bronze and Silver Stars. Elliot [praised](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58315-2004Aug11.html) Kerry as _“calm, professional and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire.”_ In a 1969 evaluation of Kerry’s performance, Elliot wrote: _“In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed.”_ How can this possibly jive with fellow Swiftvet Plumly’s claim that Kerry was in need of “constant supervision”? Regarding the question of Kerry being in Cambodia, in addition to all that’s been said thus far, consider as well the testimony of Swift Boat veteran William Shumadine: > [@](#): > > - "I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, **from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River**. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done.\* Obviously, the Swift Boats traveled extensively, and thus I submit that it is entirely within reason that Kerry made it into Cambodia at some point or another. Of course, I concede that Kerry might well be lying about this particular excursion. He certainly appears to have lied when he claimed to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. His clumsy leak about his “lucky hat” is pretty smarmy as well. Elliot and the Swift Boat vets are probably right to point out the hypocrisy of Kerry’s current attempts to promote himself as war hero, given his previous criticisms of the conduct of the Vietnam War. He seems to want to have it both ways. But here’s what gets me, **Sam**. You’ve made a very big deal about this particular lie. Kerry stood on the Senate floor, you write, and lied outright to Congress. And I agree with you, that’s a pretty atrocious thing to do. But by any reasonable standard, if Kerry’s statement is a “great big lie,” then the following: > [@](#): > > **Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.** …is an even greater, bigger lie. Yet, while you’ve posted message after message after message tracking down the first lie – under the pretense of giving Kerry’s detractors a fair shake – you’ve also posted message after message after message defending, denying, disavowing, and otherwise rationalizing the second, bigger, even more despicable lie. You know, **Sam** , truth isn’t something to exploit only when it’s politically expedient. The truth is the truth, even when sometimes that truth isn’t particularly useful as a prop for specific your political view. Would that you were as earnest and interested in getting to the bottom of the lies surrounding the Bush administration as you are in getting to the bottom of Kerry’s service record. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/259 "2004-08-12T21:35:42Z")
What took you so long to get here, **Svin**? That was one outstanding post. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/260 "2004-08-13T02:17:52Z")
Sorry to nitpick on such a thoughtful, well-reasoned post, but: > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Elliot and the Swift Boat vets are probably right to point out the hypocrisy of Kerry’s current attempts to promote himself as war hero, given his previous criticisms of the conduct of the Vietnam War. He seems to want to have it both ways. There’s no contradiction there. It is entirely possible for a soldier to serve honorably, even heroically, in a war that the soldier himself considers to be unjust or to be conducted unjustly. The great majority of Vietnam vets served honorably. That doesn’t mean the war itself was a good war, or always conducted properly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=14)