# 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:** 35
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/681 "2004-08-24T22:08:10Z")
I’ll take your word for it. On a side note, just for perspective, you understand, the following historical snippet from the delightfully equine Ms. Coulter (“Anne of Green Goebbels”) "…During World War II, then-congressman Lyndon Johnson went on a single flight – as an observer – for which he was awarded the Silver Star by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Only recently has it been exposed that the medal was a complete fraud, probably awarded by MacArthur to curry favor with a congressman. At the time, no one in the press bothered to investigate why Johnson was the only member of the crew to receive any sort of decoration for the 13-minute flight that never came under enemy fire – and on which Johnson was merely an “observer.” For the rest of his life Johnson got away with wearing what historian David Halberstam called “the least deserved and most proudly displayed Silver Star in military history.” Johnson told harrowing tales of his uneventful 13-minute flight, boasting that the men had called him “Raider Johnson.” One time he harangued a congressman on foreign aid, saying: “I know foreign aid is unpopular, but I didn’t want to go to the Pacific in '41 after Pearl Harbor, but I did. I didn’t want to let those Japs shoot at me … but I did.” The sole surviving member of the crew, Ret. Staff Sgt. Bob Marshall, U.S. Army, a gunner on the plane, disputed Johnson’s story about being attacked by Japanese Zeros: “No way. No, that story was made up … we had never seen a Zero. It was never attacked. There was nothing.” (I ain’t providing a link…you want to link to Anne Coulter, you get no help from me. Nosir. Ain’t gonna do it.) ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/682 "2004-08-24T22:16:10Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > (And Rassmann _was_ being shot at, he didn’t “think” he was being shot at. He saw the bullets hitting the water) It’s so tempting to be snarky, but we got enough of that here already. One does not “see bullets hitting the water.” One sees splashes in the water that could be bullets or could be schrapnel, or could be something else. Then one assumes what these things are. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/683 "2004-08-24T22:20:21Z")
I’ve asked you several times to read posts before you reply, David Simmons. I have made no comments about swiftboats. I simply called into question one posters allegation that beheadings in VitNam were “doctrine.” Sheesh! Can’t you READ? > [@David Simmons](#): > > I think **elucidator** made a valid point. I would suggest that your year in Viet Nam makes you the world’s leading expert on your year’s experience in Viet Nam. Period. It doesn not make you an expert on swift boat tactics, the validity of military records in general or the reliability of memory of events of 35 years ago, including the reliability of your own memory. > > Since you seem to rely heavily on your experiences let me give you one of mine and the subsequent enlightening that has come to me. > > When I was in the bomb group in the ETO we second and first Lieutenants knew exactly what the Squadron and Group Commanders were doing wrong and how the outfit ought to be run. I also suspect that if 9[sup]th[/sup] Air Force commander General Vandenberg had stopped by we also could have given him considerable advice on his operations. > > I have long since realized that we didn’t really know anything except our take on one small unit in just one phase of a worldwide undertaking. We had no more understanding of the overall necessities of conducting such an operation than an angleworm stuck in the mud on the tire of an 18-wheeler has about designing it. > > In addition we only were aware of our experiences. We didn’t know anything about more about the life of an artilleryman, or infantryman or medic or engineer than a pig knows about Sunday. > > Your experiences are yours and you remember them, but that alone certainly doesn’t qualify you as an expert on those of a swift boat commander or crew man. And it certainly doesn’t qualify you to cast a shadow on the veracity of military records of that time or any other time. > > The plain fact is that the records of the time; the statements made by members of the chain of command at the time; and other documentation from the time support Kerry’s claims about the second of his two tours in Viet Nam and all this revisionism by a bunch of soreheads can’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/684 "2004-08-24T22:30:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, I don’t know much about military armament, > > I dimly recall reading that the AK 47 (“designed by a genius to be used by a simpleton”) was considered superior under the conditions of jungle guerilla war _precisely_ because it was a low-power weapon: bullets cheaper to make, require less powder, require less cartridge, that sort of thing. Well, it was certainly more powerful than the M-16, and because of the shape of the cartrige, it jammed a lot less. Many of us would gladly have traded, but the distinctive sound it made would have made us instant targets. The .30 caliber holes in the swiftboats were either made by the .30 cal AK-47 or by a US M-14 or M-60, unless there was some other anomolous .30 cal gun there… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/685 "2004-08-24T22:35:18Z")
The holes were .30 calibre? Which holes, the ones that didn’t exist, or the one’s that were there from the day before? I don’t recall anyone specifying the size of the holes. PS: not snarky question, just don’t recall hearing any such definition. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/686 "2004-08-24T22:39:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Legal Dopers question: is this sufficient grounds to file a Motion to Declare Lying Sack O’ Shit? In effect, if not quite in the precise name of the motion. It’s Evidence 101 that an affidavit not based on personal knowledge is inadmissible, as Mr. French almost certainly had to have known. It’s precisely because of those reasons that I’ve been waiting for O’Neill to produce his alleged Affidavits of Doom. I fully expected them to be filled with scurrillous shit that wasn’t based on personal knowledge, just like [Larry Thurlow’s affidavit](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/veterans_thurlowaffidavit.pdf) (which Sam Stone was kind enough to link to above). And hey, just for kicks, let’s make fun of the Thurlow affidavit and point out (in all seriousness) why it’s legally insufficient. Here’s the text, in its entirety (interspersed with my comments between the quotes): > [@](#): > > Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Larry Thurlow, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to this instrument, who, after being duly sworn by me, upon oath stated: > > 1. My name is Larry Thurlow. I am over the age of twenty-one years, and I am fully competent and able to make this affidavit. I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge. So far so good. He swears this stuff is within his personal knowledge. Okey dokey. > [@](#): > > 1. I served in Coastal Division II [?] with John F. Kerry as a Swift Boat Commander. I was present on March 13, 1969 for the incident in which Kerry claimed a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. Hold yer horses, Larry. You’re swearing that Kerry “claimed” those awards? That he affirmatively requested those awards? You heard him make that claim to the relevant authorities, right? Or perhaps not. See, an affidavit is supposed to reveal the basis of the affiant’s claimed knowledge, and yours doesn’t. Nope, doesn’t say anything about how you know “Kerry claimed a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star.” That sentence is completely inadmissible. > [@](#): > > He has totally lied about the incident. “Totally” lied? Every word that has ever left his mouth about that incident is a lie? You’re familiar with all of those words? You heard him make all of those statements? And they’re all lies? Sorry, this sentence is offered without factual basis and is therefore inadmissible. > [@](#): > > 1. Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny earlier on March 13, 1969, by throwing a grenade too close (destroying a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds. Again, the affidavit does not demonstrate any basis for the affiant’s claimed personal knowledge. Did he observe this incident? Hear about it second-hand at the time? See the fanny wounds between the time of the rice cache and the mine explosions later on? Hear about it 35 years later from another SBVFTT malcontent? I’m not claiming that he’s wrong on that point, of course–Kerry and Rassmann, who _were_ present–both say that’s the way it happened. Just pointing out that Thurlow’s affidavit is woefully insufficient and legally inadmissible on this point. > [@](#): > > When PFC 3 was mined (disabled and its crew in the water), Kerry fled while we stayed to fight. “Fled,” you say? Are you clairvoyant, Mr. Thurlow? How do you know Mr. Kerry “fled,” instead of (as Mr. Kerry contends) going downriver to attempt to put troops on shore to outflank the ambushers? Again, what is the basis of your personal knowledge of Mr. Kerry’s state of mind at the time of the mine blast? Also, for cheap cross-examination points: You stayed to fight, but there was no fighting involved? What the fuck? > [@](#): > > He did return to fish Jim Rassmann out of the water – not under fire – after no return fire occurred. Once again, did you personally observe Mr. Kerry pulling Mr. Rassmann out of the water? Did you personally observe at the time that there was no enemy fire directed towards Mr. Kerry and Mr. Rassman? Your affidavit does not state the basis of your claimed knowledge of these events. Thus, once again, this statement would be legally inadmissible. More cheap cross-exam points: You testified that you stayed to fight against enemies who never returned fire, correct? And at the time that you were firing at those enemies who never shot back, were you simultaneously watching Mr. Rassmann? So during those periods of time when you weren’t watching Mr. Rassmann, you would not have been able to observe whether he was taking any incoming fire, would you? And didn’t you just say that Mr. Kerry “totally lied” about the incident? But here you’re telling us that Kerry really did pull Rassmann out of the water, correct? > [@](#): > > I recently read Kerry’s after-action report on the incident and his Bronze Star citation. Allow me to cut to the chase, Mr. Thurlow. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Mr. Kerry personally wrote the after-action report to which you refer? No? Then would it surprise you to learn that your attribution of it to him is inadmissible? > [@](#): > > They are totally fabricated. Not one word in either report is true and correct? Every word of those documents is a lie? Are you personally familiar with every detail of every incident described in those reports? No? Then I’m sorry, but this ridiculously overbroad sentence is once again offered without factual basis and is therefore inadmissible. > [@](#): > > There was no “5,000” meters (i.e., two and one half miles) of intense fire. That’s nice, since the after-action report does not claim that there was 5000 meters (i.e., 3.1 miles, you twit) of “intense fire.” > [@](#): > > I never heard a shot. Despite all that firing you were doing after the mine exploded? > [@](#): > > When the chips were down on March 13, 1969 (and on other days), one could not depend on John Kerry. I would never depend on him. Inadmissible opinion testimony. An affidavit is supposed to testify to facts, not subjective, unverifiable opinions. The affidavit is further insufficient in that it fails to describe _how_ “one could not depend on John Kerry” and what about the “other days” supports that subjective, unverifiable opinion. > [@](#): > > Indeed, several of our fellow officers, such as Captain Tom Wright, USNR (Retired), would not operate with Kerry. Hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, lack of foundation. Seriously, this shit supposedly constitutes an affidavit? > [@](#): > > Further affiant sayeth not. That’s probably for the best, Mr. Thurlow. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/687 "2004-08-24T22:53:58Z")
Whereupon **Minty** , bearing a striking resemblance to Raymond Burr, strolls away from the witness stand, while a sobbing Mr. Thurlow blubbers confessions to the murders of James Hoffa and Fredo Corleone… ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/688 "2004-08-24T22:59:07Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > For one thing, if Kerry will become President, he certainly will not say that something “was seared in” him ever again. > > And this Respublic will be much better for it. Oh, the passion with which stooges believe in their beloved lies. > **[Demolishing the "Christmas Eve" attack on Kerry.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/08/demolishing-the-christmas-eve-attack-on-kerry.html)** > > It is a twisted state of affairs that George W. Bush's most avid surrogates are trying to make this election turn on the question of whether Lt. John... Here’s what the article shows was in Kerry’s Vietnam diary from the day in question: 1. Kerry was quite near the Cambodian border in Christmas 1968. 2. He had a book with him about what it was like dealing with Cambodians. 3. Since it was a secret mission it would make perfect sense that he wouldn’t have that information in his diary in case he got captured. Once again, a smear evaporates. In the meantime George Bush, by his own admission, ducked military service because he didn’t want to risk his neck _ **even though he supported the war** _. And, of course, it’s obvious he went AWOL since 1) only one witness claims to have seen him at the base in Alabama, 2) said witness got the dates wrong, 3) GWB was the son of a Representative of the United States which would have made him conspicuous, 4) the son of a millionaire which would have made him conspicuous, 5) a fighter pilot, which would have made him conspicuous, 6) a transfer from an out-of-state base, which would have made him conspicuous and 7) a well-known and compulsive schmoozer which would have made him extremely conspicuous. Yet only ONE PERSON supposedly remembers seeing him there! And what was Boy George supposed to be doing all this time? Reading flight manuals. That’s right, Operator. He was supposed to be leading a monk-like existence and reading flight manuels. Why, Jebus, folks, if there’s one thing we know about George Bush is that he doesn’t like reading. I can’t see him reading Henry Miller for that long without going nuts. But, here we have another man who volunteered for service when, like GWB he could have ducked and let others risk death for him, who vounteered for the most dangerous duty going, got three purple hearts plus a bronze and sliver star and here you are believing a bunch of obvious liars trying to rip him down because he 1) he isn’t a Republican and 2) did his best to tell the truth about atrocities based on his knowledge at the time. And that’s the man who’s integrity you see fit to question? Really, don’t you people have ANY shame? At all? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/689 "2004-08-24T23:01:38Z")
Of course, that’s precisely why the requirements for affidavits are so important: You can’t cross-examine a person testifying by affidavit, or subject him to voir dire to determine what is the basis of his testimony. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/690 "2004-08-24T23:05:37Z")
Whazza “voir” and why is it so “dire”? Is it like a really dangerous Peeping Tom? Do you guys just make up this Latin stuff so dummys like me will give you money? Have you gotten **Dewey** drunk and taken him to a titty bar, like you promised? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/691 "2004-08-24T23:06:25Z")
“My name is Larry Thurlow. I am over the age of twenty-one years…” “He has totally lied about the incident.” “They are totally fabricated.” I, like, \*\*\*totally \*\* \* don’t believe that Mr. Thurlow is, like, over the age of 21 years. Nah-ahhhh! ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/692 "2004-08-24T23:11:28Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > A swift boat was made from 1/4" aluminum alloy. Specifications [here](http://swiftboats.net/extras/boat_specifications.htm). Interesting is the note that crewmen would hang flak jackets on the sides to protect them from bullets coming through the hull. I may have missed it… but do we know the boats in question didn’t have their jackets hung on the side of these swiftboats to protect them from bullets coming through the hull? Not that it matters, since nobody is saying that the VietCong, possibly pinned down by fire from the boats, necessarily would hit any of the boats, but even if they did, we have yet another reason that they wouldn’t necessarily show battle damage. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/693 "2004-08-24T23:14:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Whazza “voir” and why is it so “dire”? **voir dire** : . . . 2. A preliminary examination to test the competence of a witness or evidence. Basically, it’s what you do when you don’t believe the witness has a proper foundation for his testimony. E.g.: Lawyer 1: Mr. Jones, will you please tell us who stabbed the victim? Lawyer 2: Objection, lack foundation. May I voir dire the witness, your honor? Judge: You may. Lawyer 2: Mr. Jones, did you see anybody stab the victim? Witness: No. Lawyer 2: May I have a ruling on my objection, your honor? Judge: Sustained. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/694 "2004-08-24T23:15:55Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > So says you, but the EVIDENCE shown via the media, is that Kerry gave his camera to someone and had them film him while strolling around a combat location while decked out in helmet, flak jacket and rifle in hand. Um, **Razorsharp**? There’s [this](http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerryother.htm#KERRYOTHER1). Kinda thought you woulda read it. Que sera, sera. . . > [@](#): > > No, like you, I don’t know. That’s right, You don’t know. You’ve no idea. You are clueless. Of course, being one in pursuit of truth, you flinch at not knowing. So, instead, you attribute motives. And since the motive attribution is for Kerry, you make him out to be a cad. If motive attribution were being made for, say, John Birch, I imagine that he would be far more likable. Cuddly, even. > [@](#): > > John Kerry was in possession of his personal films and was aware of their existance. So, which is more likely? Did Kerry’s campaign staff inquire of the possible existance of such film? Or, did John Kerry provide the campaign with the information of the existance of the film? Well, yeah. They were his **personal** films. Who in hell else _would_ have had them? And since approximately every carbon based life form on the entire planet is now in possession of the fact that Kerry was in Vietnam, I imagine that it’s possible that his staff may have asked if he had anything. I, personally, have watched home movies from Vietnam that were filmed by five separate people. As well as looked at more than seven different still photos. Of course, Kerry may have said something, too. What of it? You are aware, I hope, that he’s running for President? When one is doing so, one usually toots one’s own horn. One is, after all, a politician. Well, with the exception of H. Ross Perot. Then one is a creepy little nutbag with an annoying voice and an ego as big as all outdoors. > [@](#): > > Yeah, reputable, like a New York Times article penned by Jason Blair, or CNN with a fabricated documentary of America’s military using poison gas on desserters. You’re right, Drudge or National Review aren’t that “reputable”. Well, I don’t recall claiming that Blair was credible. You, no doubt, can point out to me where I did so. Nor did I make the same claim for CNN. Although I consider the NY Times to be more than a couple levels of above National Review. The number of levels keep increasing when you get to Drudge, and the NYT is positively celestial when compared to WorldNetDaily. Of course, you knew that. And I honestly don’t recall Clinton’s record (or lack thereof) being an issue in '96. Nor, for that matter, any liberals claiming that Dole’s service was inconsequential. Do you have any cites for this? > [@](#): > > When Kerry announced, “Reporting for duty”, it wasn’t Kerry that bugged me so much, it was a crowd that has a history of disparaging the military, suddenly fawning and doting over a “war hero”. As opposed to those who have a history of touting service to the country as a defining characteristic falling in line and hailing someone who joined the TANG to keep Texas safe from the menace that is Mexico. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > Liberals make my skin crawl. Well! Thank the fates that I’ve accomplished something today. Otherwise I was gonna be smitin’ myself all night long. > [@](#): > > Oh, and Elvis was a conservative. Well, **elucidator** and **MaleBox** have beat me to my witty rejoinders, so I’m just scratchin’ my head and thinking, “Huh? Did I claim otherwise? Did I inadvertently lead **Razorsharp** to think that **I** am Elvis?” In short, what the hell is the above about? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/695 "2004-08-24T23:16:46Z")
That makes no sense to me. If I had any reason to think someone was going to try to plug me, the flak jacket stays on _me_! I mean, maybe you might hang the jacket to bolster the armor if you plan on cringing behind the jacket _and_ the bulkhead, but why would that be an improvement on _wearing_ the flak jacket and cowering behind the bulkhead? Maybe the jackets are hung there to keep them close at hand? And are not worn unless necessary because its so goddam hot? ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/696 "2004-08-24T23:34:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Whazza “voir” and why is it so “dire”? Is it like a really dangerous Peeping Tom? Do you guys just make up this Latin stuff so dummys like me will give you money? Aww, this from the smartypants who came up with _egotist te absolvo_ a few posts upriver… ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/697 "2004-08-24T23:44:33Z")
Once again we have a story where a Swift Boat Veteran experiences a therapeutic moment and tells us the real reason he’s attacking John Kerry. [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040824/ap\_on\_el\_pr/kerry](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040824/ap_on_el_pr/kerry) > [@](#): > > Robert “Friar Tuck” Brant, a member of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said Kerry called him Sunday and asked him if he was aware of the group’s activities. > > “I said, `I am one, John,'" said Brant, who had appeared at a press conference announcing the group in May. "There was a moment of hesitation and he said, `I appreciate your honesty.’ He said, `Well, why are you?’” > > _ **Brant said he told Kerry that he was most upset about Kerry’s protests after returning from the war, when he accused soldiers of committing atrocities.** _ “I said, `You know that’s not true,’” Brant said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “That’s been simmering in me about 35 years.” And, of course, there were atrocities, Kerry was attacking not the soldiers but the military policies they were follwing. If Kerry exaggerated, it was only slightly and based on the best information he had at the time. Also some of the quotes he’s being held responsible for were actually cites from other sources. People may want to compare the reasonable accuracy of Kerry’s remarks to, say, Bush’s remarks. You know, the ones about WMDs and how Saddam wouldn’t let inspectors back in and that’s why we had to go to war when, in fact, we had to pull the inspectors out before we could start it. My suggestion to a lot of my conservative friends is to start a new organization and call it “Duped Citizens For Better Liars That We Can Believe In.” ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/698 "2004-08-24T23:53:09Z")
**Shayna** , I hope that you post more often! Well done! Thurlow admitted last week on **Hardball** in a phone interview with Chris Matthews that some of the information that he had been saying was true was simply passed on to him from another of the SBV. (Sorry that I can’t be more specific.) It was obvious that he was trying to be elusive about admitting that, but Matthews finally pinned him down. Question: > [@](#): > > : > How many people would have to be lying for your version of events to ring true? > [@](#): > > **Sam** : John Kerry. The others could have simply taken his word for it (See note on Thurlow above.) > [@](#): > > **Sam** : I’m not calling Rassmann a liar. I’m saying he’s not necessarily the best witness, given that A) he’s not a sailor and wouldn’t understand what was going on on the river… [quote] **Sam** : Nothing about being a Green Beret makes you a better witness while you’re floating in choppy water wearing heavy gear and boots, repeatedly diving to the river bottom because you think you’re being shot at. Pretty hard to figure out what’s happening 75 yards away. But being a sailor would have? (I’m just asking you to see how your comments are inconsistent.) > [@](#): > > **Sam** : It seems to me that YOU are the one who is automatically assuming that these other people are lying. I’m trying to reconcile two opposing sets of ‘facts’. **Sam** , how did you respond in your thinking about the “sides” when you found out that Elliott had been caught contradicting his own accounts in official naval records? What about the other two? Why do you still say that Kerry’s side is the side that keeps changing their stories? Is it possible that **both** sides have contradictions? > [@](#): > > \*\*Got that? Kerry’s last entry in his own journal has him expressing curiousity about what lay on the other side of the river in Cambodia. I’m not familiar with the contents of Kerry’s diary. Is it possible that since these missions were clandestine (and Kerry had high intelligence clearance) that if he _did_ go into Cambodia, he wouldn’t have written about it in his diary and that might explain why that was his last entry? Look at the op-ed that you cited. I saw something similar in another thread. The link there led to an article by Dave Kopel – not known as an unbiased source. In both of these commentaries, only vague references are made to the sources of information: > [@](#): > > “Two weeks ago Kerry’s spokesmen began to backtrack.” Which spokesmen? Where? What did they say exactly? How did it contradict what was previous said exactly? And notice that the quote from Buchanan about what Kerry said is not actually what Kerry said. It is Buchanan’s paraphrase of how _he_ interprets what Kerry said. If I am mistaken on this, I am certainly open to correction. As I have mentioned earlier, when I am truly trying to get at the truth of a matter, I very often look to see what people on the other side are saying – especially the ones I respect. Again I ask you why you are so willing to dismiss what John McCain has said about these ads? Also, why is Fox even backing off (not that I particularly respect them)? Why aren’t these red flags for you? I agree with **luci** in that I think a lot of the SBVT have become victims of some very unscrupulous and manipulating schemers. It is the only thing that makes real sense to me. Thanks for clarifying your quote from yesterday. I had misunderstood what you were saying about Rassmann. I thought that you were implying that he didn’t know whose boat had picked him up. I guess I will have to take back my blue ribbon prize. Pax ---
**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 24, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/699 "2004-08-24T23:57:19Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > … the EVIDENCE shown via the media, is that Kerry gave his camera to someone and had them film him while strolling around a combat location while decked out in helmet, flak jacket and rifle in hand. You mean that a sailor in a combat zone took some pictures? Maybe [something like this?](http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dwsimm2000/detail?.dir=/8cf7&.dnm=ead6.jpg) I know as a matter of personal, on-the-scene knowledge that the officer shown in the cited photo was never within miles of an ME-262 that could shoot back. I’m surprised he didn’t pose with his foot up on the thing, looking fierce and warlike, rifle in hand. Actually, when the picture was posed the officer had in mind running for president, and thought this would make a good cover for his book besides. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/700 "2004-08-24T23:57:56Z")
> [@Biffy the Elephant Shrew](#): > > Aww, this from the smartypants who came up with _egotist te absolvo_ a few posts upriver… That was before his craft ran over a mine and he was thrown overboard with other posters speeding away and toward him and heated invectives flying around… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=36)