# 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:** 18
**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, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/341 "2004-08-18T07:25:16Z")
Kerry has not claimed to be some kind of Rambo figure. He was a member of the armed forces on active duty in Vietnam. He saw some action and won some medals. He had an above-average tour of duty. The Democrats have certainly emphasized, but they’ve never claimed that he was a one-man killing machine. If you’ve got an example of something they’ve claimed that varies dramatically from the truth, I’d like to hear it. In other words, cite? In what way is Kerry’s statement that he is / was a “defender of America” a “giant lie”? What do you think this statement means? In what way has he failed to live up to it? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/342 "2004-08-18T13:45:38Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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) That isn’t a cite, it’s a simple repetition of the allegation you just \*asserted \* to be fact. A cite would have some factual basis behind it. As it is, what the “partisan op-ed” and your statement of “fact” have behind it is exactly nothing. > [@](#): > > This story is still developing, so the facts are still unclear. Then, considering all the other things you’ve asserted to be fact, on the basis of this group’s say-so only, which have already been \*proven \* false, you do see the need to be cautious about this one, too, don’t you? > [@](#): > > Frankly, this is small potatos and wouldn’t be worth even mentioning if it weren’t for the other charges. The potatoes have been big enough for you, prior to the systematic exposure of them before your eyes, that you’ve done the most “mentioning” of anyone here of them. When do we get to read that you were just joking all along? > [@](#): > > 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. It might, if anything substantive he had said had been proven wrong. The “picture” you see is a product of your own mind. You have no way to convince anyone else it’s real unless they already share your predilections. > [@](#): > > This Swiftboat thing isn’t going away. Its effectiveness as a voter-persuader, after the exposure of this group as paid serial liars, has already gone away and is ricocheting. > [@](#): > > These guys are not shills for the Republicans Oh, really? Where have they been all these years, then? > [@](#): > > - 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. All of which proves what, exactly? That there’s a mass market for smear campaigns? That’s hardly news. [qutoe]And their spokesman, John O’Neill, is really good. He’s calm, unflappable, and comes across as very credible. [/quote] Nope. Having the facts is what makes one credible. There are a number of smooth interviewees around who are still total loons. Or is it that you consider him credible because you badly \*want \* what he says to be true, for reasons that can’t withstand examination? > [@](#): > > For instance, the reason the Democrat’s attempt to threaten TV stations with legal action Cite? Still waiting for your “clarification” about how you concluded that Kerry’s own shipmates are liars. You may continue to hope that goes away, but it won’t. ---
**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 18, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/343 "2004-08-18T14:16:47Z")
> [@WoodCM](#): > > 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. Swift Boat duty was one of he most [dangerous](http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp) jobs in the Vietnam War. > [@](#): > > Under [Navy Admiral Elmo] Zumwalt’s command, swift boats would aggressively engage the enemy. Zumwalt, who died in 2000, calculated in his autobiography that these men under his command had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded during a typical year. If this doesn’t qualify as “hardcore” in your mind, what does? ---
**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, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/344 "2004-08-18T15:15:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That isn’t a cite, it’s a simple repetition of the allegation you just \*asserted \* to be fact. A cite would have some factual basis behind it. As it is, what the “partisan op-ed” and your statement of “fact” have behind it is exactly nothing. As I stated in my message, I used it because he gives direct quotes of what Kerry said, and gives the exact time and place for the quote. Jack Kelly is a respected journalist. I believe the quotes are correct. YMMV, which is why I put in the disclaimer. > [@](#): > > Then, considering all the other things you’ve asserted to be fact, on the basis of this group’s say-so only, which have already been \*proven \* false, you do see the need to be cautious about this one, too, don’t you? On their ‘say-so’? Why do you act like there are no facts behind their claims? There are plenty, including Kerry’s own journals which contradict his medal citations. And by the way, since when are sworn depositions from eyewitnesses not considered valid evidence? O’Neill has a mitt full of them. Including three eyewitnesses to the Bronze Star incident where Rassmann was pulled from the water, stating that the events never happened the way Kerry said they did. Again, if someone came forward with this kind of evidence against Bush, you guys would all be going bananas right now. If Bush’s entire chain of command from the Guard signed affidavits attesting to bad conduct and stated that he wasn’t fit for office, that would be an open-and-shut case as far as you’re concerned. > [@](#): > > The potatoes have been big enough for you, prior to the systematic exposure of them before your eyes, that you’ve done the most “mentioning” of anyone here of them. When do we get to read that you were just joking all along? Huh? It’s an interesting topic. Worthy of discussion. That’s very different than saying an issue will have big resonance with voters. > [@](#): > > It might, if anything substantive he had said had been proven wrong. The “picture” you see is a product of your own mind. You have no way to convince anyone else it’s real unless they already share your predilections. Let’s wait and see how many people are convinced that it’s real. > [@](#): > > Its effectiveness as a voter-persuader, after the exposure of this group as paid serial liars, has already gone away and is ricocheting. Really. [Anti-Kerry Ad a Hit](http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27075.htm) > [@](#): > > Vietnam veterans opposing John Kerry have scored a hit with a tough TV ad that claims he lied about his war record — it makes swing voters think twice about backing Kerry, an independent study has found. > > The ad planted doubts in the minds of 27 percent of independent voters who planned to vote for Kerry or leaned pro-Kerry. After seeing it, they were no longer sure they’d back him, the study found. Watching a single ad puts doubts about their voting decision in a whopping 27 people of independents who had already decided to vote for Kerry or who were thinking about voting for Kerry. That is a HUGE impact. Greater than any ad I’ve ever seen. > [@](#): > > Oh, really? Where have they been all these years, then? Gee, I dunno… Living their lives, maybe? Most of them had put the Kerry stuff behind them as bad memories from a long-ago war. But when he ran for President, they decided they had to speak up. None of them are making a nickel off of this (as opposed to the vets who are for Kerry, who are on the payroll and put up in five-star hotels). John O’Neill is donating the proceeds from his book to military charities. > [@](#): > > All of which proves what, exactly? That there’s a mass market for smear campaigns? That’s hardly news. There is a BIG difference between a smear campaign from MoveOn and one from these guys. MoveOn is a political organization trying to enact political change. The SwiftVets don’t care who is elected, so long as it isn’t Kerry. O’Neill has said that he would have voted for John Edwards had he been elected. Many are Bush supporters, but there are plenty of Democrats in their group as well. They aren’t ‘smearing’ Kerry. They are levelling charges at him that they feel strongly about, and they are personally involved in the events in question. They are veterans who feel that they must tell their story, because they believe it would be a disaster for Kerry to be elected. They are entitled to that opinion, and to bring it forward to the people. And of course, Kerry is free to refute what they have said, although to date he has remained silent and the surrogates he’s sent out against them have engaged in little more than character assassination rather than debunking the actual charges. > [@](#): > > _And their spokesman, John O’Neill, is really good. He’s calm, unflappable, and comes across as very credible._ > > Nope. Having the facts is what makes one credible. There are a number of smooth interviewees around who are still total loons. Or is it that you consider him credible because you badly \*want \* what he says to be true, for reasons that can’t withstand examination? No, I find him credible because he has not levelled a single charge that he can not back up with a ream of documentation. As I said, when Kerry’s legal team tried to threaten TV stations it didn’t work because O’Neill sent them 100 pages of supporting documentation. I haven’t got his book yet, but those who have are quite impressed with it. It’s heavily footnoted and annexed. A lot of the charges are backed up by Kerry’s own statements. For instance, his account of what happened when he won the Silver Star does not match his own citation, which speaks of ‘turning his boat into a numerically superior force’, and withstanding withering enemy fire. In fact, a single rocket was shot at them, and they saw a single VC in a loincloth jump up and start to run. Tommy Belodeau, Kerry’s Gunner, shot the guy in the legs. Kerry jumped ashore with two other men, and finished him off. That’s what happened, and even Kerry has said that’s what happened. There was no withering enemy fire, and no numerically superior force. That would make the Silver Star somewhat suspect, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > Still waiting for your “clarification” about how you concluded that Kerry’s own shipmates are liars. You may continue to hope that goes away, but it won’t. I never said they were liars. I’ve said that A) Most of them didn’t serve with Kerry very long, B) They are lacking in perspective that other officers might have, because they aren’t the ones who know exactly what the orders are, and C) In the fog of war people see things differently. Nonetheless, their accounts don’t match the facts in some cases, and the Swiftees’ do. For example, James Rassmann, the guy who was pulled out of the water by Kerry, says that he was knocked overboard by a mine blast. He says when he came up, all the other boats had left, except for Kerry, who had turned around when he realized a man was overboard and came back for him under intense fire and pulled him to safety. In fact, the 3 boat was blown completely out of the water by the mine blast, and was totally immobilized. It couldn’t go anywhere. And three men from it were floating in the water along with Rassmann. The other boats went to the 3 boat and commenced rescue operations. They all stopped right where the mine went off, and were there long enough to pull three men out of the water, to jump aboard the disabled boat which motored out of control into the river bank, injuring Larry Thurlow. By Kerry’s own account, they then hooked up the 3 boat to Kerry’s boat, and towed it back to base. During all of this, _where was the withering enemy fire_? These guys engaged in a long, stationary rescue operation. Not a single boat had so much as a bullet hole in it, and no one was wounded other than the people injured by the first mine. Kerry claims to have been wounded by shrapnel in the buttocks, and that he ‘smashed his arm’ in a mine explosion. Rassmann has said that Kerry’s arm was bleeding. But the medical report shows nothing more than a minor bruise. And as for the buttock wound, Kerry’s own journal shows that an hour or so earlier on the same mission he threw a grenade into a pile of rice and didn’t get far enough away from it, and the explosion lodged a couple of grains of rice into his butt. Amazing that the ‘shrapnel’ he took just happened to be in the same spot as an injury he suffered an hour or so earlier. Anyway, I keep trying to get out of this discussion until I can read the book, so why don’t we just wait until then and see what documentation O’Neill offers? ---
**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 18, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/345 "2004-08-18T16:26:55Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > As I stated in my message, I used it because he gives direct quotes of what Kerry said, and gives the exact time and place for the quote. Jack Kelly is a respected journalist. I believe the quotes are correct. YMMV, which is why I put in the disclaimer. Well, I only have the pleasure of reading Jack Kelly in the editorials section of the paper, but his writing there is consistently partisan drivel. His arguments are nearly always specious and his support is generally half-truth at best. He’s a hack, and I have a hard time believing that he is “respected” by anyone other than the pre-fooled. > [@](#): > > On their ‘say-so’? Why do you act like there are no facts behind their claims? There are plenty, including Kerry’s own journals which contradict his medal citations. And by the way, since when are sworn depositions from eyewitnesses not considered valid evidence? O’Neill has a mitt full of them. Including three eyewitnesses to the Bronze Star incident where Rassmann was pulled from the water, stating that the events never happened the way Kerry said they did. Why do you act like there are facts behind their claims and then NEARLY ALWAYS FAIL TO CITE THEM? Let us examine them, if they are so compelling. Let’s see the contradictions from Kerry’s own journals. That reminds me, have you found a source for your prior quote from Kerry yet? > [@](#): > > Again, if someone came forward with this kind of evidence against Bush, you guys would all be going bananas right now. If Bush’s entire chain of command from the Guard signed affidavits attesting to bad conduct and stated that he wasn’t fit for office, that would be an open-and-shut case as far as you’re concerned. If they had seen him, maybe they would be saying this. > [@](#): > > Huh? It’s an interesting topic. Worthy of discussion. That’s very different than saying an issue will have big resonance with voters. I love how this story continues to be both “worthy of discussion” and something that we should continue to “wait and see” what comes out. > [@](#): > > Let’s wait and see how many people are convinced that it’s real. Okay. > [@](#): > > The SwiftVets don’t care who is elected, so long as it isn’t Kerry. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > O’Neill has said that he would have voted for John Edwards had he been elected. He’s also claimed to have voted for a bunch of Democrats too, even though he’s given $15,000 to republicans. Too bad we can’t review his voting history. Too bad you are unable to see such raging contradictions when they go against your desired conclusions. For now, I’ll put O’Neill in the complete lying sack of shit category. Feel free to prove otherwise. > [@](#): > > And of course, Kerry is free to refute what they have said, although to date he has remained silent and the surrogates he’s sent out against them have engaged in little more than character assassination rather than debunking the actual charges. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > It’s heavily footnoted and annexed. And he had a big “David Kay” smile on his face when he talked about it. > [@](#): > > I never said they were liars. I’ve said that A) Most of them didn’t serve with Kerry very long, So now having not served with him does call one’s opinion into question? > [@](#): > > Anyway, I keep trying to get out of this discussion until I can read the book, so why don’t we just wait until then and see what documentation O’Neill offers? Yeah, you and Michael Corleone. I suggest that this is the one point we agree on: Let’s wait until there is evidence someone can cite before we call Kerry a liar and belittle his military service. ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/346 "2004-08-18T16:58:44Z")
A Vietnam veteran’s POV [http://www.truthout.org/docs\_04/081804C.shtml](http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081804C.shtml) > [@](#): > > By trashing these three combat veterans, two Democrats and one Republican, they have trashed all combat veterans of the Vietnam War. Is this what Americans want? These men and women have insulted the 58,000 Americans who died in that horrible war and also the parents, most of whom are now in their graves, who lost a son in Vietnam. > > This ugly Republican attack machine does not speak for the heartland of America; it is attacking the heart of America. Their war against Vietnam veterans is a war against America. They see what they believe is a soft spot in America, veterans of the Vietnam war, and they are attacking. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/347 "2004-08-18T17:06:52Z")
[http://www.notsoswiftvets.com/](http://www.notsoswiftvets.com/) Speaking of speaking out…submitted for your perusal. A Vet for Kerry website, it posts this rather striking quotation. Its hard to imagine in 7 pages this hasn’t been referred to, but I’m too lazy to plow through and be sure. Easier to say “If you’ve already seen this, sorry, but…” > [@](#): > > …“In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program. During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).” [U.S. Navy, Officer Fitness Report signed by LTCMDR George Elliott; 18, Dec 1969] Has the unflappable and credible Mr. Elliott answered any questions about this? ---
**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 18, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/348 "2004-08-18T17:20:27Z")
I’m glad that you drew attention to that quote, **elucidator** , although I have to point out that it was linked to already, as it is featured on the John Kerry website debunking these numbnuts. These type of “facts” and “evidence” roll right off the backs of supporters of the Shifties (or at least those dispassionate supporters of their right to be heard) like water off the bow of a Swiftboat. So he wrote that, so what? So the action report details heavy automatic weapons and small arms fire from both banks, and secondary explosions when the area was bombed shortly after the boats departed. In reality it was a sunny day and the birds were chirping in the trees while the Swift boats drifted lazily along. The men were drinking mint julips and talking about their sweethearts back home. However, in rereading the quote, I predict the next attack by the Shifties on Kerry (right after the “he and David Alston hardly saw each other” attack falls flat on its ass, right on top of the other charges) will be that he was a Viet Cong mole. See, it says right there that he learned the Vietnamese language. What more evidence do you need? Commie pinko VC rat bastard. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/349 "2004-08-18T17:38:08Z")
Coupla things, **Sam** > [@](#): > > …Watching a single ad puts doubts about their voting decision in a whopping 27 people of independents who had already decided to vote for Kerry or who were thinking about voting for Kerry. That is a HUGE impact. Greater than any ad I’ve ever seen… One cannot avoid the impression this meets with your approval. At least, you are at no pains to deplore this development. But shouldn’t you? You spare no effort to establish your impartiality, and non-partisan committment to truth. You’ve not entirely made up your mind, you assure us, still awaiting evidence. You insist that, at the very least, we must consider the question as open, undecided. By that self-same reasoning, mustn’t you consider the charges against Kerry equally unproven? In your mind, is it proper than such _unproven_ charges should have such a dramatic impact on the electorate? > [@](#): > > …Again, if someone came forward with this kind of evidence against Bush, you guys would all be going bananas right now. If Bush’s entire chain of command from the Guard signed affidavits attesting to bad conduct and stated that he wasn’t fit for office, that would be an open-and-shut case as far as you’re concerned… Wherein you deplore the high standards of evidence my ilk demands to cease besmirching the pristine reputation of GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!), and exploiting the political benefits thereof in a cynical and pernicious fashion. Mighty high standard you offer us, **Sam**. Care to adopt them? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/350 "2004-08-18T17:44:35Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Jack Kelly is a respected journalist. I believe the quotes are correct. Respected by whom? Why do you choose to believe him? Why should we choose to believe you? > [@](#): > > Why do you act like there are no facts behind their claims? There are plenty You’ve already been provided with the comprehensive eRiposte link. Have you read it yet? > [@](#): > > And by the way, since when are sworn depositions from eyewitnesses not considered valid evidence? O’Neill has a mitt full of them. Including three eyewitnesses to the Bronze Star incident where Rassmann was pulled from the water, stating that the events never happened the way Kerry said they did. You’re defining “eyewitness” pretty broadly, for one thing, and choosing to ignore the statements by, well, Rassman himself. > [@](#): > > Again, if someone came forward with this kind of evidence against Bush, you guys would all be going bananas right now. If Bush’s entire chain of command from the Guard signed affidavits attesting to bad conduct and stated that he wasn’t fit for office, that would be an open-and-shut case as far as you’re concerned. Bullshit, and insulting bullshit at that. Bush’s “entire chain of command” \*has \* said they didn’t even \*see \* him on duty during the period in question. But that doesn’t make an impression on you, does it? > [@](#): > > It’s an interesting topic. Worthy of discussion. That’s very different than saying an issue will have big resonance with voters. Please. You told us “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.” That’s saying the issue \*will \* have resonance. > [@](#): > > Let’s wait and see how many people are convinced that it’s real. Wait for what? When? What secret information is not yet out after 35 years? Time to face it, Bucko. > [@](#): > > Really. [Anti-Kerry Ad a Hit](http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27075.htm). Watching a single ad puts doubts about their voting decision in a whopping 27 people of independents who had already decided to vote for Kerry or who were thinking about voting for Kerry. That is a HUGE impact. Greater than any ad I’ve ever seen. Leaving aside the issue of what ads you have seen, and how you know what their impact is, that story is from the NY Post. You do recognize the name “Rupert Murdoch”, don’t you? > [@](#): > > Gee, I dunno… Living their lives, maybe? Most of them had put the Kerry stuff behind them as bad memories from a long-ago war. But when he ran for President, they decided they had to speak up. Not when he ran for Congress, when the war was still on, or Lt. Gov., or any of his Senate campaigns? Right. > [@](#): > > None of them are making a nickel off of this Cite? One with facts, that is? > [@](#): > > s a BIG difference between a smear campaign from MoveOn and one from these guys. MoveOn is a political organization trying to enact political change. The SwiftVets don’t care who is elected, so long as it isn’t Kerry. You really see a difference there? [quoteThey aren’t ‘smearing’ Kerry.[/quote] Oh, they’re just simply mistaken about almost everything they purport to be a fact, and any political effect is simply coincidental. Good God, you believe what you’re saying, don’t you? > [@](#): > > They are entitled to that opinion, and to bring it forward to the people. And doing so obligates them to have their charges scrutinized, does it not? How well have they held up? > [@](#): > > And of course, Kerry is free to refute what they have said, although to date he has remained silent and the surrogates he’s sent out against them have engaged in little more than character assassination rather than debunking the actual charges. You haven’t read a single thing you’ve been told. That’s the only conclusion one can draw from that statement. > [@](#): > > No, I find him credible because he has not levelled a single charge that he can not back up with a ream of documentation. Still waiting for it. > [@](#): > > As I said, when Kerry’s legal team tried to threaten TV stations it didn’t work because O’Neill sent them 100 pages of supporting documentation. I demanded a cite, not a repetition. Got one? > [@](#): > > I haven’t got his book yet, but those who have are quite impressed with it. It’s heavily footnoted and annexed. So are Ann Coulter’s books. So? > [@](#): > > That’s what happened, and even Kerry has said that’s what happened. There was no withering enemy fire, and no numerically superior force. That would make the Silver Star somewhat suspect, don’t you think? Possibly, if one takes the audacious step of taking what you say at face value. It also makes every other decoration in the war suspect, along with Thurlow’s Bronze Star for the same incident in which he says Kerry’s equivalent actions would not qualify. > [@](#): > > I never said they were liars. I’ve said that A) Most of them didn’t serve with Kerry very long, B) They are lacking in perspective that other officers might have, because they aren’t the ones who know exactly what the orders are, and C) In the fog of war people see things differently. More bullshit. They were there, as long as the “other officers” were, especially the ones who got there after Kerry already left Vietnam and still claim the right to assess his character on that basis. > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, their accounts don’t match the facts in some cases, and the Swiftees’ do. You have no independent means to know what the facts are except from the accounts themselves. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I keep trying to get out of this discussion until I can read the book, so why don’t we just wait until then and see what documentation O’Neill offers? You have shown no signs of trying to get out of this discussion, which would have been over long ago without you. Meanwhile, you might consider that any documentation would certainly have been available from sources other than O’Neill himself - that’s all that’s left for your partisan hopes rest on. If/when that hope is dashed, would you be willing to admit to us that you got fooled? On second thought, what **Hentor** and **elucidator** have said. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/351 "2004-08-18T18:01:14Z")
It’s amazing how much a little cognitive dissonance can drive a thread, eh Sam? Here’s the latest wrinkle, folks: Turns out that the publisher of O’Neil and Corsi’s book has started A WHITES ONLY DATING SERVICE. Here’s the link for the article: [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=479](http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=479) Of course the fact that the publisher of the book is a naked white supremacist (there’s an attractive image) says nothing about the credibility of the book. I mean if I was to do a book with Jason Blair and have it published by Lyndon LaRouche that should in no way affect anyone’s opinion as to the book’s value. By the by, can anyone explain to me why we’re quibbling about Kerry, who volunteered for the most dangerous duty going, when Bush used his Daddy’s influence to stay statewide, then went AWOL and has repeatedly lied about it? ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/352 "2004-08-18T18:14:18Z")
I’m curious why **Sam Stone** is trying to prop up the (dis)credibility of the Swift Bullshitters for Bsush again, especially after he got thumped with numerous cites against them at the end of [this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=270233&page=2) To recap: [ul] [li][_USA Today_ pokes holes in the Swift Vets’ stories](http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-08-kerry-vets_x.htm)[/li][li][FactCheck.org dissects the Swift Vets’ claims](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231)[/li][li][eRiposte shreds the Swift Vets with a truckload of counterreferences](http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm)[/li][li][Digby’s blog asks why the Swifties don’t support the troops](http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_08_08_digbysblog_archive.html#109216335161152752)[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/353 "2004-08-18T18:45:51Z")
I’ve kept out of this because I think the Swiftboat Assholes for Lies and their “supporters” are beneath contempt and since this isn’t the Pit, I can’t say what I really want to say, but I was struck by this. > [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](#): > > A Vietnam veteran’s POV > > [http://www.truthout.org/docs\_04/081804C.shtml](http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081804C.shtml) > > Quote: > By trashing these three combat veterans, two Democrats and one Republican, they have trashed all combat veterans of the Vietnam War. Is this what Americans want? These men and women have insulted the 58,000 Americans who died in that horrible war and also the parents, most of whom are now in their graves, who lost a son in Vietnam. > > This ugly Republican attack machine does not speak for the heartland of America; it is attacking the heart of America. Their war against Vietnam veterans is a war against America. They see what they believe is a soft spot in America, veterans of the Vietnam war, and they are attacking. That is so true. I dare Sam Stone to read that link. I’m sure this has been said before, but the right-wingers/conservatives who are doing this, and the ones defending them, remind me of the stories of those despicable people who spit on Vietnam vets when they returned home. Today, the vets are being spit on all over again and it’s just as despicable now as it was then. These people are incapable of feeling shame. “not a hard core fighting soldier”??? :mad: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/354 "2004-08-18T18:50:56Z")
Jebus H.!, **rjung** that is _eriposte_ site is a goddam avalanche! Looks like something **Big Svin and SimonX** might have cooked up if they had a staff of 10 eager interns! I don’t see how anybody who hasn’t at least perused it can pretend to be informed about the issue. ---
**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 18, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/355 "2004-08-18T19:14:55Z")
First off, a correction to my last post: as anyone who can read a map can see, the Mekong flows south and _east_ from Sa Dec, not south and west. My apologies. Secondly, I’d like to point out another rather disingenuous claim found in the third chapter of _Unfit to Command_, linked above, which just sort of leapt out at me. We read there that: > [@](#): > > **All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command—Joe Streuhli (Commander of CosDiv 13), George Elliott (Commander of CosDiv 11), Adrian Lonsdale (Captain, USCG and Commander, Coastal Surveillance Center at An Thoi), Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (Commander, Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam, CTF 115), and Rear Admiral Art Price (Commander of River Patrol Force, CTF 116)—deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s PCF 44 boat—Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner—deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia. The remaining two crewmen declined to be interviewed for this book.** Couple of points: To begin with, had Kerry been ordered to drop off a group of Navy Seals or a CIA agent in Cambodia, then in all probability only _one_ of the men mentioned above would have had first-hand knowledge about the mission, namely George Elliot, Kerry’s immediate supervisor. This fact is due to the way in which the navy chain of command functions, I have been given to believe, and perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge in this regard (like **Mr. Moto** ) can step in to correct me if I’m wrong. Essentially, however, what would happen is that someone higher up the command chain would turn to Elliot and say, “We need you to accomplish mission _X_,” say, transport a CIA agent into Cambodian territory. It would then be up to Elliot’s discretion to decide which of the boats under his command should be used to accomplish “mission X.” In all probability, then, he would be the only officer to know if Kerry, specifically, had been sent on mission X. If such is the case, this would imply that the testimony of the other commanders, above, is really meaningless. They are simply saying 1) I never heard of Kerry being ordered to go to Cambodia, and 2) if Kerry had gone into Cambodia without orders, he’d have been punished. However, with regard to 1), there is no reason for them to have ever have known about Kerry’s specific missions in the first place, and with regard to 2), it is simply a statement of abstract fact unconnected to Kerry’s activities in Vietnam (since, if Kerry did sneak into Cambodia, he would almost certainly have done so under orders). Note, however, that by phrasing the passage as they have O’Neill and Corsi create the illusion that Kerry’s word stands against that of several officers, rather than against Elliot’s alone – an illusion which is disingenuous at best, if not purposely misleading, assuming of course that the assertion above is correct. (I mention this point because I’ve seen the same claims used elsewhere on the net to argue _against_ Kerry ever having been in Cambodia, by the way.) In addition, it’s important to note that the crewmembers cited above only deny that Kerry was in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, which is not a point of contention. Since Gardner was no longer serving with Kerry in late January/early February, his denial cannot cover the period during which Kerry now claims he was in Cambodia. For what it’s worth. **elucidatory** : > [@](#): > > _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._ Yeah, it’s the “shotgun effect.” If you look at the list of accusations against Kerry, or read this Chapter of _Unfit_, you get the impression that Kerry did _nothing_ in Vietnam except flounder around incompetently, disobeying orders, getting lost, putting his crew in jeopardy, lying his ass off, and so forth. And for these actions, we are told, Kerry was falsely awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts! I know from my own period of service that the Army is pretty FUBAR, and I assume the Navy is as well. But this is exceptionally FUBAR even for the military. This approach also taints _Unfit_ with the appearance of a highly dishonorable smear campaign, as opposed to an objective, if critical, appraisal of Kerry’s military service. It appears to be a studied attempt to ignore the forest because of all of the trees. Insignificant details are granted exaggerated importance to create the overall sense that Kerry is a lying, dishonorable coward. At the same time, the simple fact that Kerry volunteered for _two_ tours of duty in Vietnam, and that, by O’Neill’s own admission on _Hardball_, Kerry displayed courage on the battlefield, is ignored or glossed over. Think about it: even if we accept the worst-case scenario regarding Kerry – that he was an incompetent officer, that he lied or “gamed the system” in order to get his medals, and so forth – his military record is _still_ far superior to Bush’s own. And speaking of the “shotgun effect….” **Sam** : > [@](#): > > _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._ Yet _another_ accusation. The idea here, it would seem, is to simply spit out as many demeaning accusations about Kerry’s service record as possible. This technique is effective because 1) one small misstatement by Kerry can be blown out of proportion as a means of smearing him, 2) it’s difficult to sort out which soldiers can actually vouch for which accusations, and 3) who the hell wants to go through all this tedious mess, debunking every tiny claim? Let’s list just a few of them thus far:[ul] [li]Kerry lied about his first Purple Heart, and did not deserve it;[/li][li] Kerry lied about his second Purple Heart, and did not deserve it;[/li][li]Kerry lied about his Bronze Star, and didn’t deserve it;[/li][li]Kerry lied about his Silver Star, and didn’t deserve it;[/li][li]Kerry was, in reality, a lousy officer;[/li][li]Kerry’s “Band of Brothers” are either lying, or at the very least, completely mistaken;[/li][li]Kerry was never in Cambodia;[/li][li]Kerry’s first Purple Heart was the result of fragment from his own M-79;[/li][li]Kerry’s second Purple Heart was _also_ the result a fragment from his own M-79;[/li][li]Kerry lied about having dinner with the skipper of an LST, and invented the conversation he recorded in his journal with that skipper;[/li][li]Kerry was reassigned from An Thoi because nobody could stand his “belly-aching;”[/li][li]Rather than spending Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry got lost on the river between Dong Tam and a Bob Hope USO show, and “blundered” into an ambush;[/li][li]Kerry has, by virtue of his 1971 testimony before Congress, besmirched the honor of every single soldier who ever fought in Vietnam;[/li][li]Kerry’s testimony before the Congress was a lie;[/li][li]and the veterans who testified before Congress during the [Vietnam War Crimes Hearings](http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1.htm) were all lying, and were somehow dragged in their by Kerry himself.[/ul][/li] And this is but the tip of the iceberg. Anyway, I was following a thread about Alston over at the Swift Vets Message Board. By the end of it the various participants had come to the conclusion that Alston and Kerry had _never_ served together, although they were still struggling to explain a photograph of Kerry’s crew in which Alston features quite prominently. For some inexplicable reason a moderator suddenly ruled the discussion “off limits,” and the thread was locked. The entire discussion appears to have been deleted afterwards; at least, when I went back shortly afterwards I couldn’t find it. However it does appear to be the case, at least according to those guys, that Alston and Peck were wounded on PC 94 prior to Kerry’s arrival. In fact, Kerry took command of Peck’s boat after Peck was wounded, and Alston was replaced by Short, apparently. Again, I guess it’s possible that Alston is exaggerating, or even lying, about his relationship with Kerry. But to my mind this exposes yet another weakness of the claims put forward by the Swiftee’s, namely that they must also debunk the testimony of many other servicemen who support Kerry. They would have us believe, for example, that Alston – who works as a minister in his hometown in South Carolina – is _also_ lying about Kerry’s service, as are the other soldier’s in his (admittedly smarmy) “band of brothers.” This is really the gist of what you’re trying to say, **Sam** , as well as the Swifties. Consider this [example](http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=FAQ), taken directly from their webpage: > [@](#): > > \*\* 1. If most of Kerry’s fellow Swift veterans don’t support him, then who were all those guys with him at the Democratic Convention? They made it appear that Kerry has the complete support of his “Band of Brothers” from Vietnam. > > _John Kerry has been able to convince about 13 men_ who served on Swift boats in the Mekong Delta to support him, 7 or 8 of whom were at various times crew members on his own 6-man boat…. > > The Kerry game plan is to ignore all this and pretend that the 13 veterans his campaign jets around the country and puts up in 5-star hotels really represent the truth about his short, controversial combat tour.\*\* I honestly don’t understand (once again) how you can accuse your debating opponents of promoting a “conspiracy theory” just because they point out the very obvious ties between the Swift Boat vets and certain prominent Republicans, on the one hand, while simultaneously buying into the rather obvious conspiracy theory required to explain the action of these 13 men. More shortly. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/356 "2004-08-18T19:42:27Z")
As to the effectiveness of the ad in swaying voters, this inconclusive but insightful evidence: [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=8&u=/ap/20040818/ap\_on\_el\_pr/pennsylvania\_poll](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=8&u=/ap/20040818/ap_on_el_pr/pennsylvania_poll) > [@](#): > > …Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry is maintaining a slight lead over President Bush in the battleground state of Pennsylvania with crucial support from veterans and military families, according to a poll released Wednesday… > > …Pennsylvania veterans and those in military families say they disapprove of the war in Iraq by a 13-point margin. While this group is traditionally more conservative than voters at large, Kerry has the support of 46 percent among this group to 42 percent for Bush… (The reader is invited to understand that the phrase “traditionally more conservative” is a thunderous understatement.) ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/357 "2004-08-19T02:11:48Z")
_First off, a correction to my last post: as anyone who can read a map can see, the Mekong flows south and east from Sa Dec, not south and west. My apologies._ Actually **Mr S** your instinct was sound. The Mekong flows both east and west, both into the South China Sea and feeding the Cambodian Great Lake. ---
**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 19, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/358 "2004-08-19T03:03:54Z")
As I said, I’m going to bow out of this until I can read the book. I’ve tried to present both sides here. I provide evidence that I say supports Kerry, and I get accused of ‘tricks’. I provide evidence against him, and I’m a big, bad partisan. Whatever. I’ll leave you with two links: First, the left signs in: [Counterpunch: What Kerry Did in Vietnam](http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html) Second, [Judicial Watch](http://www.judicialwatch.org/3794.shtml) has filed a request with the Navy to official investigate Kerry’s Vietnam service. Official filing can be read [here.](http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/kerryawards.htm) Both offered without comment. Mr S: It may interest you to know that a few days ago I was on the blog that was trying to ‘break’ the Alston story, and I accused them of cherry-picking data and trying to wave away crucial evidence that didn’t support their case. They started off into a goofball discussion of how the shadows in the Alston/Kerry photo were ‘all wrong’. I told them they were veering into tinfoil hat territory, and that the evidence of the photo could not be simply explained away, and if they couldn’t explain it in a rational way with documentation, their theory was dead. Despite the fact that you guys think I’m an uncritical partisan who won’t look at the evidence, when I debate people on the other side of the issue I’m the skeptic. You may not believe it, but I’m really just trying to figure out what’s going on here. Because on the one hand, I find it hard to believe that the guys on Kerry’s boat would lie for him, but on the other I find it hard to believe that the other 17 officers in Kerry’s division would also be liars. But I don’t think the guys on Kerry’s boat are lying. Every time I’ve heard them speak they’ve told the truth. For instance, two members of Kerry’s boat have recently come out and said that they don’t believe they were in Cambodia. Certainly not deep into Cambodia. One man said maybe it was possible that they inadvertently strayed in, but he wasn’t sure. The other said he doesn’t think it happened. So they’re not blindly supporting everything Kerry says, but they still support him personally. Maybe it’s as simple as Kerry being a Lieutenent who was good to his own crew, but lousy to his fellow officers and superiors. It’s been known to happen. I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2004, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/359 "2004-08-19T03:09:38Z")
About Mr. Thurlow, and his claims that Kerry was not “under fire”… [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html) “Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry - Fellow Skipper’s Citation Refers To Enemy Fire” > [@](#): > > Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry’s most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events. > > In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry’s claim that the Massachusetts Democrat’s boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day. > > But Thurlow’s military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to “enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire” directed at “all units” of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat “despite enemy bullets flying about him.” … ---
**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 19, 2004, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/360 "2004-08-19T03:17:22Z")
I suppose I should provide a cite for that last claim: > [@](#): > > James Wasser, who accompanied Kerry on that mission aboard patrol boat No. 44 and who supports Kerry’s candidacy, said that while he believes they were “very, very close” to Cambodia, he did not think they entered Cambodia on that mission. Yet he added: “It is very hard to tell. There are no signs.” > > Another crewmate who said he was with Kerry on Christmas Eve, Steven Gardner – who is a member of the veterans group opposing Kerry’s candidacy – said Kerry was 50 miles from Cambodia at the time. He accused Kerry of lying about being in Cambodia or by the border. “Never happened,” Gardner said. > > … > > Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry. Source: [Boston Globe](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/18/kerry_disputes_allegations_on_cambodia/) To remind everyone, Kerry’s claims about Cambodia include: 1. Claiming he spent Christmas Eve five miles across the border (now retracted). 2. Claiming he got a lucky hat from a CIA agent he ferried into Cambodia. 3. Claiming he has taken Special Forces and CIA guys into Cambodia repeatedly. 4. Claiming he has gone on ‘gun running’ missions to Cambodia. Funny that not a single crewmember will back any of those stories, even though they are travelling with him and working for his campaign. And now three of his crew have flat-out denied ever being on a mission to Cambodia. Oh, and **Mr. S** , you missed another charge: That Kerry negotiated on his own with the North Vietnamese government while still an officer in the United States Military (Naval Reserve) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=19)