# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/321 "2004-08-15T03:40:16Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Or maybe they just thought they were doing their jobs, and weren’t in Vietnam to collect medals. Hey, I got it! Kerry bribed his crew with medals so they would support him for president 35 years later. What a long range schemer that guy is! ---
**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 15, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/322 "2004-08-15T03:44:26Z")
> [@](#): > > A) O’Neill took over Kerry’s boat. Which means he did not serve with Kerry and is in no position to talk about his service. O’Neil was specifically sought out by Nixon to counter Kerry’s anti-war group. Want to see the transcript of Nixon’s taped conversation about it? The fact that they are heavily funded by Texas Repubicans and other “grassroots” Republican Bush supporters goes straight to their credibility. This is a political activist group and nothing more. They have, as yet, produced not a shred of evidence that anything in the Navy’s official record is incorrect. Very few of these guys knew him at all. Not one of them has proven that any of Kerry’s citations were not deserved, nor have they proven that Kerry “lied” to get his medals. The burden of proof is on them if they want to sling shit like that, not on Kerry to disprove it. The Navy backs up Kerry, not the Swiftees. No one is saying they don’t have a right to publish the book, and if yoiu wish to listen to them then listen to them. But then what? Where do you go after that? It’s pretty obvious that they aren’t going to produce any proof for their allegations which means the only reasonable default is to assume the Navy’s own record is correct. Let thes guys produce their own AAR’s which which differ from the official accounts. If they can’t or won’t do that then they deserve no attention at all. > [@](#): > > Or maybe they just thought they were doing their jobs, and weren’t in Vietnam to collect medals. Or maybe not. Or maybe Kerry was just doing his job. Whatever happened to the right respecting war heroes? ---
**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 15, 2004, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/323 "2004-08-15T03:47:20Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > For example, here’s the commonly accepted account of what happened the day Kerry got his Silver Star: Commonly accepted by whom, **Sam**? See, this is where I have an exceptional problem with your tactics. You make assertions such as these, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that your source for the “common acceptance” of this is the Shifters themselves. Got a cite that proves me wrong? I’ll just add it to the list, after the Kerry quote about accelerating out of the kill zone, the inaccessibility of the waterways, the Joe Wilson rampage… > [@Sam Stone](#): > > A convoy of PCF boats was travelling along the river. They had earlier agreed on a new tactic: if they were attacked from the river bank, rather than running they would turn into their attackers, beach their boats, go ashore and fight back. These boats were loaded with soldiers for precisely that purpose. There were something like 30 soldiers on those boats who were there precisely to go ashore and rout ambush positions. > > They came under attack, and the boats headed into heavy fire, beached, and engaged the enemy, killing a number of them and capturing weapons, etc. As far as I know, no medals were awarded to anyone for this action. > > Kerry and another boat then continued upriver eight hundred yards, when they saw a lone Vietcong in a loincloth stand up and aim his B-40 rocket at them. However, he didn’t fire. He turned and started to run away instead. One of Kerry’s gunners then shot him in the leg, wounding him. They beached their boat, and Kerry and two other men jumped ashore and chased the guy on foot. Kerry took aim, shot him in the back and killed him. There were no other enemy, and the engagement ended. > > This is what John Kerry’s own autobiography says happened. You can read Kerry’s own account of the action on pages 290 and 291 of “Tour of Duty”, his official biography. If you’re interested, you can even read it online at [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com). Just look up “Tour of Duty” and use the “Find in the Book” feature. Are you sure that is the account to be found in “Tour of Duty”? I have to imaging that you haven’t been clear here, because the account in the book is a bit different from the way you’ve described it above. For others, here’s an excerpted version of the account. **Sam** did get it right that it comes from pages 290-291. > [@Tour of Duty](#): > > Realizing just how plump a sitting duck PCF-94 had become, Kerry made the snap decision to beach his boat on the bank at the exact spot where the ambush was coming from. Kerry gave the order … The officers on the other two swifts followed suit… They beached the Swifts right there and began searching the dead man’s body… The PF troops fanned out … while PCF 94 headed farther up river …The Swift got only some 200 yards from where they had killed the VC lookout when a rocket was fired at them, which blew out the portside windows. > > Once again Kerry ordered helmsman Del Sandusky to drive PCF-94 right into the point of ambush… Standing in this particular hole…was a VC guerrilla holding a B-40 rocket launcher aimed right at them. … The enemy…was too close to PCF-94 to arm his weapon in time. Suddenly panicking, he started to run away from the river. Tommy Belodeau …managed to hit the fleeing foe in the leg. [discussion of Medeiros seeing him take a left hand turn and run down a little trail. Belodeau picks up his M-16 to try to shoot him, but had the safety on. Meanwhile:] Kerry had already jumped off the boat with an M-16 and lit off after him up the trail. … “As the VC guerilla got 20 or 30 meters down the path, just about in front of a lean-to, the [future] senator shot the guy,” Medeiros related. “He had been standing on both feet with a loaded rocket launcher, about to fire. He fell over dead.” Intriguingly, on page 292 is testimony regarding Medeiros that also calls into question **Sam’s** assertions on another matter. On a prior mission, Medeiros has been ordered to go to the shore to search for VC. “Wanting to be prepared in case he encountered VC, Medeiros put on every armament he could think of, **including forty-five grenades hanging from his belt, bandoliers and ammo rounds,** and an M-16.” So, apparently not only does Rambo wear a bandolier and grenades, but also do contemporaries of Kerry. I do recall **Sam** did once say something that was true. I haven’t seen it yet in this thread, though. ---
**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 15, 2004, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/324 "2004-08-15T03:52:53Z")
Two points of clarification to my post above - the first VC ambusher was killed when Kerry ordered the swifts to turn into the ambush. He was shot from one of the boats. Others from the other PCFs disembarked to search the dead body and search for more VC. Secondly, the quote should read that Medeiros, and not Belodeau picked up his M-16 to try to shoot the fleeing VC. ---
**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 15, 2004, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/325 "2004-08-15T03:53:35Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Hey, I got it! Kerry bribed his crew with medals so they would support him for president 35 years later. What a long range schemer that guy is! You joke, but I just heard Cal Thomas on Fox news say that Kerry brought camera with him in Nam just so he could show the footage at the DNC 35 years later when he was nominated for president. He wasn’t kidding. When other members of the panel expressed skepticism at this assertion, Thomas responded, “Why else would you do it?” It was pretty common for soldiers in the Nam to carry cameras with them in the field, btw. Kerry bought his own camera at a PX in-country. ---
**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 15, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/326 "2004-08-15T08:29:53Z")
**Sam** : Can I take it you’re just going to ignore my last couple of responses to you, **Sam** , and sidestep my comparison of your defense of Bush with your attack on Kerry? I must admit I’m getting a bit upset about some of the shit you are trying to pull in this thread. First off, under the guise of “objectivity” you’ve made numerous claims to support the Swift Boat vets, virtually all of which have proven to be baseless. When this was pointed out to you, you accused your debating opponents of lying. But then there’s shit like this: > [@](#): > > - And dragging up threads off of FreeRepublic was done by a Kerry’s attack machine, which then sent out copies to everyone as ‘talking points’.\* Right. The Kerry “attack machine.” What are we supposed to do, **Sam**? Corsi is clearly a right-wing partisan whack-job of the first order. Are we required to sit here, in silence, and debate in all seriousness the accusations found in a book he has co-authored, without at least commenting on his political persuasions? These Swift Boat vets, sponsored by prominent Texas Republicans, have launched a terrible attack at Kerry’s credibility, and when it is pointed out that Corsi has posted a number of questionable comments at Free Republic, _you_ start accusing _Kerry’s_ attack machine … preposterous, and pathetic, really. > [@](#): > > - There’s no doubt Corsi said those things. The problem is, it has absoutely nothing to with the charges in the book. And the reason they had to go after Corsi, who is a minor player in all this, is because John O’Neill has proven to have absolutely impeccable credentials and an unimpeachable character.\* First off, Corsi is _not_ a “minor player;” is the fucking co-author of the book. And the hateful, anti-semitic, off-color comments he posted at the Free Republic tell us a very great deal about him, and by association, about this group who have selected him to help write their history: > [@](#): > > \*\* “Islam is a peaceful religion — just as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered and the infidels are killed.” > > “So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the lawyers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that’s probably about it.” > > “After he married TerRAHsa, didn’t John Kerry begin practicing Judaism? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?”\*\* Secondly, who (aside from you and other supporters of the Swift Boat Vets) have decided that O’Neill has “absolutely impeccable credentials”? > [@](#): > > _And by the way, O’Neill voted for Al Gore in 2000, and Ross Perot in 1996. And he supported a Democrat for mayor of Houston. Some Republican attack dog._ You have apparently forgotten **minty green’s** post back on page 5. Let me refresh your memory. Over the last 14 years, O’Neill has donated 14, 650 dollars to various Republican candidates and causes. He has not donated a so much as a dime to Democratic candidates or causes. Good thing we for him can’t check his voting record, ain’t it? I guess we’ll just have to take his “impeccable” word for it, that he voted for Gore, despite his history of political donations. > [@](#): > > _Frankly, I’m getting sick of this tactic, that these guys don’t have a right to be heard because those evil Republicans financed them. If that’s the standard, then why aren’t you screaming about Vietnam Veterans for Kerry, or MoveOn, or any number of supposedly “non-aligned” 527 groups that are being heavily funded by big-time Democrats like George Soros? Or is the money only tainting and poisonous when it comes from Republicans?_ I did not realize that Vietnam Veterans for Kerry, or MoveOn, had produced a book that goes into great detail about Bush’s term of service, in which it is claimed that he really was AWOL, and that he has flatly lied about his service career. A book co-written by an anti-semitic nutball. Nor was I aware that these organizations had produced a TV commercial in which they accuse Bush of lying about his days in the National Guard. I seem to have missed it. What was the title of that book, again? You warned earlier that the Swiftees’ tactics might backfire on them. It might backfire on you as well. The backhanded, below-the-belt, clearly partisan tactics you’ve employed throughout this thread have been truly despicable. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/327 "2004-08-15T13:37:59Z")
> [@SAM STONE](#): > > Kerry, by the way, put in his entire crew for medals over that incident, and they all got them. None of the other crews who also beached their boats got medals for their action, as far as I know. I could be wrong, but I haven’t found anything to that effect. It is worth saying that a trait of any good platoon leader, company commander, battalion commander, brigade commander, division commander and I suppose of a good small boat commander is to try to make sure that your people get credit and recognition for what they do. I don’t see why it is a point against Senator Kerry that he recommended his crew for recognition – it is too his credit. Had he alone been recognized then I would think less of him. That his crew was recognized, that he did not luxuriate in his own recognition and leave his people with a miserable Vietnamese Service Ribbon (which was also earned by every quartermaster warehouse guy at Camron Bay) speaks volumes. Kerry took care of his people. Every one who has been there knows that taking care of your people is the first thing a small unit leader has to do. Quite frankly this topic is becoming tiresome and is starting to reflect the tendency of some of our friends to refuse to be deprived of the last word. Sometime we have to recognize the Swift Boat Guys for what they are – a political guerrilla band – and there purpose and character to be as Senator McCain has told us. Were I George Bush I don’t think I would have the nerve to send out my surrogates and running dogs to savage the reputation of men who when given the choice went out and did the honorable thing at no small cost to them selves. When you were never in harm’s way you don’t criticize people who were in harm’s way for the way they dealt with danger to your own selfish personal advantage. Bush’s service looks pretty cheap and tawdry when compared to Kerry’s. The way to overcome that is not to try to cheapen Kerry’s service. That course, as Senator McCain said, is dishonest and dishonorable. It is dishonest and dishonorable people who resort to those tactics. Some of our friends may say this is just guilt by association, but when you have the power to stop it and do nothing then it is not a matter of association, it makes you an accomplice. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/328 "2004-08-15T17:22:06Z")
Leave it to one of the most rabid of the President’s running dogs to put this whole thing in perspective. The state-wide paper, pallid rag that it is, reprints snips from op-ed columns. Here is the blurb from Miss Coulter with credit to the Universal Press Syndicate: > [@](#): > > With the media playing their roll as truth commissar, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth must buy airtime for the ads about John Kerry. No Tim Russert interviews, no “Today” show time, no New York Times editorials for those heretics against the liberal religion. The last person I expected to be able to bring insightful analysis to this bunch of “dishonorable and dishonest” gas bags was our girl Ann, but by God she did it. It not about facts, its about religion, that is to say political ideology. Not a surprising conclusion but nice to see the fair and impartial Miss Coulter concede that point. ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/329 "2004-08-15T19:40:10Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > A) O’Neill took over Kerry’s boat. He was in a position to talk to all of the other people that were there who DID serve with John Kerry. 17 of those people who knew Kerry well are part of SBVFT. Wouldn’t this make any information that he has on the subject rumour and hearsay. It would not be acceptable as evidence in a court of law. If you were in court, you’d be horrified if hearsay evidence from people who hate you was permitted - but you’re quite happy to apply a lower standard when it comes to John Kerry - and find him guilty in the court of public opinion based on nothing but rumour and hearsay. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/330 "2004-08-15T19:59:32Z")
Not entirely fair to **Sam**. He has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he is entirely open-minded about all this, merely concerned that the Swifties get thier fair hearing, beyond the smattering of attention they have gotten from every news outlet in the country, and the glancing notice they’ve received from such as Fox News. (well, really, a 24 hour shrill telethon is not nearly enough, these guys need a _fair_ hearing…) And keep in mind, the book isn’t actually out there yet, can’t judge yet, because there may be a bombshell of incontrovertible evidence. They just didn’t get around to mentioning it, what with all the other stuff on thier plate, busy, busy, busy. All they’ve shown us is innuendo supported by supposition and buttressed by hearsay from clearly prejudiced sources. But that doesn’t mean they haven’t got anything! Just means they’re holding back the big stuff, lulling the Kerry people into a false sense of security and then WHAM! they hit them with the big guns. What’s that you say? The book _is_ out! Well, then, any second now… (crickets chirping…) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/331 "2004-08-15T20:14:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Not entirely fair to **Sam**. He has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he is entirely open-minded about all this, merely concerned that the Swifties get thier fair hearing, beyond the smattering of attention they have gotten from every news outlet in the country, and the glancing notice they’ve received from such as Fox News. (well, really, a 24 hour shrill telethon is not nearly enough, these guys need a _fair_ hearing…) > > And keep in mind, the book isn’t actually out there yet, can’t judge yet, because there may be a bombshell of incontrovertible evidence. They just didn’t get around to mentioning it, what with all the other stuff on thier plate, busy, busy, busy. All they’ve shown us is innuendo supported by supposition and buttressed by hearsay from clearly prejudiced sources. But that doesn’t mean they haven’t got anything! Just means they’re holding back the big stuff, lulling the Kerry people into a false sense of security and then WHAM! they hit them with the big guns. > > What’s that you say? The book _is_ out! Well, then, any second now… > > (crickets chirping…) Is it anything like the September blockbuster on Iraq WMD that David Kaye delivered? You remember, the one that blew the skeptics out of their socks. ---
**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 17, 2004, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/332 "2004-08-17T22:04:01Z")
For anyone out there who might still be moderately interested in this topic, some interesting links: CSPAN has posted the entire 1971 Dick Cavett show debate between Kerry and O’Neill, as well as a recent short interview of O’Neill, [here](http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Kerry+O%27Neill&image1.x=17&image1.y=11). Both are worth watching. A fairly complex debate appears to be developing among wanna-be blogosphere military historians regarding Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia” story. For those who haven’t been following, Kerry admitted that he “got the dates wrong,” and that he was in fact _not_ in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968. His official [biographer](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/13/wus13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/13/ixworld.html), however, insists that while Kerry was merely “near” Cambodia during the Christmas holidays, he was nevertheless involved in clandestine incursions into that country during the first two months of the next year: > [@](#): > > \*\*…Mr Brinkley rejected accusations that the senator had never been to Cambodia, insisting he was telling the truth about running undisclosed “black” missions there at the height of the war. > > He said: “Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys.” The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty. > > “He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn’t use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off.”\*\* Kerry’s critics, on the other hand, dismiss even the possibility that Kerry could have been in Cambodia. They base this assertion on a number of factors, such as:[ul] [li]PBRs, rather than Swift Boats, would have been used for the sorts of operations Kerry claims to have been a part of.[/li][li]Kerry served most of his time in **Costal Division 11** , which supposedly patrolled the waterways stretching south (and slightly west) from [Sa Dec](http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/041052.php) (see map) to the mouth of the Mekong. The area north from Sa Dec to the Cambodian border was under the control of **River Division 531**. The fact that Kerry’s division was labeled “Coastal,” apparently, constitutes iron-clad proof that Kerry’s Swift Boat would never have traveled north of Sa Dec, since obviously, that area would be under the control of a “River” division.[/li][li]In addition, all the members of Kerry’s chain of command, who ostensibly should have known if Kerry had been tasked to travel into Cambodia, have categorically denied that he was ever sent there (at least according to _Unfit to Command_).[/ul][/li] In [Chapter 3](http://qando.net/archives/003741.htm) of _Unfit to Command_, O’Neill and Corsi write: > [@](#): > > \*\* Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. A large sign at the border prohibited entry. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared.\*\* The above claim, however, appears to be false. I refer interested parties to this [webpage](http://www.pcf45.com/sealords/yrbm16/yrbm16.html), replete with photos, dedicate to the wonder of so-called “YRBMs,” also known as Repair, Berthing, and Messing Barges." The author of the page writes: > [@](#): > > \*\* As SEALORDS gathered steam in late 1968 and 1969, _and with the Swifts joining the other river forces in the push to take the interdiction operations closer to the border of Cambodia_, the YRBMs also became “forward bases” for the PCFs operating out Cat Lo and eventually, in 1970, out of Sa Dec and Vinh Long. > > Some of the longest patrols conducted by the Swifts were from the YRBMs. _It was not unusual, as the interdiction effort moved right up to the borders on the Mekong, Bassac, and Vinh Te riverways, for a PCF to travel from the support barge to a position very close to Cambodia and then lay in wait in an ambush posture for five or more days before returning to the “mother barge” for a respite_.\*\* Further details regarding The Sealords Campaign can be found [here](http://pcf45.com/sealords/sealords.htm). None of the above, of course, proves that Kerry is telling the truth; it merely establishes the fact that he could very well be. In addition, the history of the Sealords campaign linked above appears to directly contradict the claims made in _Unfit to Command_ regarding the deployment of Swift Boats along the Cambodian border – quite the opposite. It would appear that the insertion of Swift Boats deep into the rivers north of Sa Dec was an integral element of Sealords. Although it is entirely possible, I guess, that Kerry’s particular boat was never involved in those sorts of operations. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/333 "2004-08-17T23:00:28Z")
I’ve seen this fellow Elliott several times lately, so this story hasn’t fallen completely off the edge, but seems to be puttering out. As this thread demonstrates, its a confusing story, with a wide cast of characters. This Cambodian sidebar is just another in a series of ever-weakening accusations. The Swifties seem to be convinced that if they can establish any embellishment or exaggeration on Kerry’s part, no matter how trivial, that will stand as entirely convincing evidence that _all_ their charges are solid. One notes, as well, the entire absence of the illustrious Mr. Corsi, Ph.D. Must be busy. That must be it. But the guy who does the Kerry counter-point is infuriatingly bad at it! He’s the head of some Vietnam Vets for Kerry org, but as a rhetorical technician he is a bust. One mention of John McCain’s criticism is quite enough, two is extraneous and implies you have nothing more of substance to offer, three times is _right out!_ McCain wasn’t on those boats either! Worse, he doesn’t have the facts at this fingertips when he should have, and didn’t even know enough to holler “cite!” when the situation cried out for it. One thing he said still troubles me, maybe I got it wrong, but he claimed that the Viet Nam vets pro-Kerry organzation he’s connected to numbers some 200,000. That strikes me as an amazing number, and invites pessimistic scrutiny. I know that many 'Nam vets admired Kerry for his anti-war stance and activities, and many did not (to say the least). But his figure of 200,000 such vets supporting Kerry…is too good to be true. Maybe I misheard, but if this is so…good Christ, why aren’t they all over this? ---
**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 18, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/334 "2004-08-18T00:09:27Z")
You’re talking about John Hurley, I believe. I also believe he is officially attached to the Kerry campaign, although this is never explicitly mentioned and no one seems to ask him about it. The SEALORDS reference is interesting, and it may in fact back Kerry up. I seem to recall reading somewhere that in Kerry’s official military records there is some entry from a superior officer thanking him for his ‘help’ with SEALORDS. Kerry can, of course, clear all this up by signing his form 180 and releasing all his records. In other news (and I’m not going to go digging up cites right now), there is some minor trouble with Kerry’s accounts of his time with David Alston, one of the ‘band of brothers’. Both Kerry and Alston have implied that they served together for a long time, and in fact, both have implied that they were together on missions that they weren’t. Okay, I’ll offer one cite because it gives the exact quotes, even though it’s from a [partisan op-ed](http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/jkelly.html): > [@](#): > > In an interview with ABC’s Nightline on June 22nd, and later in his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Rev. David Alston hailed John Kerry’s courage on Feb. 28th, 1969, in the action for which Kerry was awarded the silver star. > > “I know when John Kerry told Del (Sandusky) to beach that damn boat, this was a brand new ball game,” Alston told ABC’s Jake Tapper. “We wasn’t running. We took it to Charlie.” > > Two years before, at a Democratic dinner in Alston’s home state of South Carolina, Kerry paid tribute to Alston’s courage in a fire fight that took place on Jan. 29, 1969: > > “This gunman kept firing even though he was wounded — one bullet going through his helmet, grazing his head, and another hitting him in the arm,” said Kerry. “I had no idea there was a holy man on those guns.” > > The difficulty is that Alston wasn’t on hand to witness what Kerry did on Feb. 28th, and Kerry wasn’t on hand to witness what Alston did on Jan 29th. David Alston is the man who gave the fiery speech at the DNC convention. The problem is that Alston was a crewman on Boat 94 under Peck, the previous OinC. Kerry took over that boat when Peck was critically injured. _Alston was injured in the same incident_, and was gone for almost a month. Apparently, he and Kerry only served together for something like 7 to 11 days, and possibly only went on two combat missions together. This story is still developing, so the facts are still unclear. Frankly, this is small potatos and wouldn’t be worth even mentioning if it weren’t for the other charges. Unfortunately for Kerry, this, coupled with his ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ claim is helping to paint the picture of a prevaricator - someone who shades the truth when it suits his purpose. This Swiftboat thing isn’t going away. These guys are not shills for the Republicans - they are a bunch of veterans who are royally pissed off at Kerry, and they’re going to be around throughout the rest of the election. There are sixty of them in Washington today giving interviews and filming a second ad. They’ve raised half a million dollars this week from their web site, and they are going to use the money to follow John Kerry from state to state as he campaigns, running their ads in local markets. The book is #1, completely sold out, and a second printing is taking place from what I understand. And their spokesman, John O’Neill, is really good. He’s calm, unflappable, and comes across as very credible. He’s also a very good, very thorough lawyer. For instance, the reason the Democrat’s attempt to threaten TV stations with legal action flopped is because O’Neill anticipated their threat and provided the TV stations with 100 pages of supporting documents for their claims before they even got the Democratic letter. Here’s a debate between O’Neill and Hurley. You decide who won: [O’Neill debates John Hurley](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5733860/) ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/335 "2004-08-18T00:24:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > One notes, as well, the entire absence of the illustrious Mr. Corsi, Ph.D. Must be busy. That must be it. I think maybe he was just the ghost writer for the book - judging from what I’ve seen of his other writing I doubt if he’d have that many scruples about helping the swiftvets do a hatchet job on Kerry. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he, as the co-writer of this book, had any first hand knowledge of Kerry’s Vietnam experience either - just like quite a few of the other accusers. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/336 "2004-08-18T01:03:24Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > This Swiftboat thing isn’t going away. These guys are not shills for the Republicans - they are a bunch of veterans who are royally pissed off at Kerry, To go away, something must first arrive. You know, I’m thinking it is turning out to be a bit of a theme for this election: “Just how stupid do they think people are?” As **Mr S** pointed out, the reason they are pissed off at Kerry has to do with his views on the Vietnam war. But that’s an idea going nowhere. Hence the chorus of insubstantial quibbles. Instead, they are snookered because deep conviction doesn’t amount to a persuasive case. The best they could hope for is _“That’s it, that’s why you think Kerry shouldn’t be President? Tell us the real reason.”_ And of course they cannot give the honest answer. ---
**Author:** ![WoodCM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7bcc69/32.png) [@WoodCM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WoodCM)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/337 "2004-08-18T06:41:09Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > To go away, something must first arrive. You know, I’m thinking it is turning out to be a bit of a theme for this election: “Just how stupid do they think people are?” > > As **Mr S** pointed out, the reason they are pissed off at Kerry has to do with his views on the Vietnam war. But that’s an idea going nowhere. > > Hence the chorus of insubstantial quibbles. Instead, they are snookered because deep conviction doesn’t amount to a persuasive case. > > The best they could hope for is _“That’s it, that’s why you think Kerry shouldn’t be President? Tell us the real reason.”_ > > And of course they cannot give the honest answer. Kerry is a great big liar. Not all politicians tell equal lies. Not all lies are equal. Kerry was not a hard core fighting soldier. Then, on his acceptence speech he told a gigantic lie. All this froth about tiny details(oh, I know about how massive even tiny action is to an individual!)! The rest of the world despairs, as we are nothing. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/338 "2004-08-18T06:44:16Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > The best they could hope for is “That’s it, that’s why you think Kerry shouldn’t be President? Tell us the real reason.” > > And of course they cannot give the honest answer. Well, technically they _could,_ but an admission of “We got great big bags full o’ money from rich Republicans” wouldn’t bolster their credibility appreciably. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/339 "2004-08-18T06:52:30Z")
> [@WoodCM](#): > > Kerry was not a hard core fighting soldier. Then, on his acceptence speech he told a gigantic lie. Cite or argument for him not being a “fighting soldier”? What’s this gigantic lie you refer to? ---
**Author:** ![WoodCM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7bcc69/32.png) [@WoodCM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WoodCM)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/340 "2004-08-18T07:10:27Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > Cite or argument for him not being a “fighting soldier”? What’s this gigantic lie you refer to? I said ‘hard core’. There is a world of difference. As to the gigantic lie, I point to his own words, when he said he was a ‘defender of America’ when refering to his service in Vietnam. For a record of his since, to say this is, well, a ‘gigantic lie’. Yours, CM Wood. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=18)