Nyuk.
I don’t believe that AAR’s are part an official jacket but leaving that argument aside, we DO have the official Navy account as well as the citation. So why would Kerry’s AAR be helpful to you if it your contention that Kerry lied to get his medals. If the Navy accounts were based on AAR’s then why would you expect to see any discrepencies and why would the Navy embellish Kerry’s actions? If Kerry’s accounts match the official record then where are you? What have you proven?
It’s the Swifties who need to produce AAR’s if they wasnt to say that they saw anything at variance with the official account. Why are you bugging Kerry about it? they’re the ones making the allegations that the Navy’s account is wrong, let them prove it.
I’d have to call bullshit on that. Kerry’s medals have been public record for over thirty years and it’s not like he hasn’t talked about them. You’ll forgive me if I have to get out my :dubious: smilie on that one.
There is no record that this doctor ever examined Kerry and his story is at odds with the Navy’s account.
He doesn’t need to. The Navy itself backs him up. These guys have the burden of proof, not Kerry.
Yes there is a procedure and yes they can still do that. I wonder why they don’t request their own AAR’s to prove they saw something different than the official accounts.
None of this matters in the slightest. Nothing you’ve offered is proof he wasn’t there. All this amounts to is a shouting match that will break down exactly along the already polarized lines. At the very worst, Kerry exaggereated a war story. If only Shrub could say that’s the worst thing he ever lied about.
Not eyewitness accounts of his medal incidents. It contains numerous affadavits from guys who say they don’t like him. All the news in the book is already out there. It didn’t work, the Swifties have not been able to prove that the Navy is lying about Kerry’s medals and nobody cares who isn’t just looking for an excuse to trash Kerry’s war record and make him equal to Shrub.
He was a proud vet then who loved the guys he served with. He also deeply opposed the war and deplored the attrocities that occurred ther. There is no contradiction and there is no chance that the US is going to fight Vietnam all over again. You either give a crap that Kerry was an activist or you don’t. There is nothing new in any of it.
It’s nothing. It’s a war story either misremebered or exaggerated. Doesnt change the fact that he was in the Mekong Delta that night while Bush was getting drunk in the states.
He didn’t get a medal he didn’t deserve he (mistakenly) wore two Valor devices that he had never been awarded. There is no dispute about whether Kerry was actually awarded his medals. The Boorda incident is in no way analogous.
Hardly. It was done routinely…and no one has proven that Kerry did so.
You seem to have the impression that medals like the Silver Star are awarded purely on the say so of the person receiving it. They are not. It would not have been possible for Kerry to “exaggerate” his way into a medal of that level. He got it because every witness confirmed the same story. It’s the same with the Bronze. Not one of these guys has produced any evidence which is contrary to the official Navy account, even though they presumably wrote their own AAR’s and the Navy read them all before approving the medals.
This avenue is pure filth, btw. The man is a war hero. The Navy says so.
They didn’t serve with Kerry on his boat. Many of them, including the two authors of the book, never even met the guy in Vietnam. The guys on his boat (who apparently you think are all liars) all support him. Enough said.
I do. It’s over already. There is nothing new which can come out. The Swifties have made no falsifiable allegations, it’s all just different recollections and general malice about Kerry’s anti-war activities. It’s preaching to the choir.
Don’t get your hopes up. Hate sells. All the anti-Clinton books sold well too. It’s easy to find a million Bush zombies willing to shell out for a hate book. That does not make the book egitimate and it does not mean that it will convert anybody but the converted. The mainstream media will lose interest when it is discovered that none of these dicks can pony up any evidence to back up their stories.
They didn’t cover all the 30 year old allegations about GWB either. They didn’t talk about his ANG dodge or his substance abuse or his shady oil dealings. The Swift Boat allegatopns acually have been mentioned on the networks (Nightline did a show about them) and they’ve been all over the cable nets but really, there isn’t any news here. They mostly aren’t making any falsifiable allegations and they’ve been incredibly weak under any real questioning. There simply isn’t any reason to give them any more attention.
TRhe Swifties have gotten way too much attention. Mr. Flynt is at the extreme disadvantage of being an already despised public figure in a sea of Bush friendly media. I guarantee he will get nothing but derisive dismissals and so will his book. The allegations in the book will not even be examined.
Fortunately, Kerry does not have this problem. The official records back him up completely.
Despite the attempts by the Bush apologists to muddy the issue and throw out more bullshit than a cattle stockyard, let’s remember one simple thing:
Kerry was a hell of a lot closer to Vietnam and Cambodia than George W. Bush was.
Damn, Sam, what a post! I’d like to rebut the major points, but there’s like 118 of them, it would be like writing the Cliff Notes for War and Peace.
A few things stand out.
They didn’t? O’Neill didn’t know? Been dogging Kerry in one form or another, and never heard about it? They were just going along, minding their own business, when Kerry goaded them into action by lavish claims on the campaign trail.
Insinuation supported by suggestion and butressed by innuendo. “The doctor who says” has been contradicted by documentary lack of evidence, i.e., his signature. Which proves only that nothing has been proved. Now “he says that Kerry was denied his Purple Heart…” How would he know? Are physicians required to sign off on such applications? And would he be advised as to the outcomes of such applications? Why?
“They suspect that Kerry put himself in for one, and no one was around to contradict his claim”. Is that how it works? An absence of contradiction is sufficient? Doesn’t somebody have to state a positive assertion of some kind, other than the prospective recipient?
“But that’s one of the documents Kerry refuses to release…” He does? Did I miss your cite on this?
“…So why doesn’t Kerry do that?..” Because he’s pretty sure you got nothing, and sees no good reason to call attention to it?
“…He has been caught in one great big lie…” Well, clearly to you this is pretty heavy stuff, you seem to see the Krakatoa eruption, I’m just reminded of pulling Uncle Frank’s finger at Thanksgiving.
“…I’m reserving final judgement on that until I can get the book and read it…”
Still keeping an open mind about Kerry’s great big lies and earth-shattering mendacity? Well, good. Relieved to hear it.
“If these guys manage to play Winter Soldier … amongst undecided voters in the swing states.”
You mean the three undecided voters residing on Mars, who are as yet unaware that Kerry was a major anti-war activist? Those undecided voters?
“…Lying about secret illegal missions is despicable behaviour. It’s a big deal…”
Should we throw him into the same cell as Oliver Noth, Admiral Poindexter, and Ronald Reagan?
“…And one of the Swiftvets WAS a crewmember on Kerry’s boat…” And the rest are not. The rest, which is to say the great majority, are Kerry supporters. If his credibility =1, theirs must equal 13, must it not?
“…So far, the mainstream media (big three networks, NY Times, LA times, etc) haven’t mentioned the Swiftvets. Not once that I know of. Which is pretty amazing given that Kerry’s campaign has already had to admit to mistakes over this issue…”
Whaaaa? I’ve seen stories about this all over the place, nightline was on it just the other night. And the Tighty Righty press is throwing mid-air conniption fits over it, Hannity threw his back out twisting himself around it.
And if this were not so, then what forced Kerry’s campaign to admit something? Rush Limbaugh? I mean, its got to be one or the other, right? Either it got attention, and he’s forced to answer, or the liberal tedia ignored it, and he’s not. But not both, Sam. Can’t have both.
Does anybody ask him about his Senate record? And are you watching the same speeches? Seems to me that the bulk of the verbiage is devoted to issues. Not saying he doesn’t mention it, he does. Not saying he doesn’t kiss the baby, either. But your wording suggests he talks primarily about his war experiences, which is clearly not the case.
“…He drank and partied and screwed up, and then straightened out and made something of himself…”
Sure got off to a mighty slow start, though. Bout 40, wasn’t he? Was he still drunk when Kerry got elected to the Senate?
The man knew how to party. You’ve gotta give him that.
At the end of the day, we have two candidates for the office of president.
Kerry fought in Vietnam. He has his medals, he has his record. He has people claiming he was a genuine hero, and he has people claiming he embelished his record. Bush went into the Guard, showed himself to be an able pilot and yet clearly used his family’s influence to skirt some of his duties. That war was a nightmare for this country, and just about the only thing I can say about it is that I’m damn glad I was just young enough to miss the whole thing.
Yes, Kerry is trumpeting his service record and he will have to suffer the consequences on the campaign trail of people questioning his record. Yes, he will have to respond to his critics, just as Bush has to respond to his.
But this is all so entirely beside the point of what this election should be about. Two men are running for president. What vision does each of these men present for us? What policies do each of these men advocate? In what direction do they want to lead this country for the next four years? That’s what I want to know, and that’s what I want to base my decision on.
The partisans can slog thru the mud of the Vietnam era, and try to cloud the issues in front of us today. But this country has real problems to face and a real future to confront. That’s what I’m concerned with. That’s what I’ll be weighing when I decide who will get my vote.
Wouldn’t this make them “The Swift Boat Veterans for Political Convenience”?
Just to add a little confusion here :
Were there enough Vietnamese christians to make this a likely scenario ? Is it possible Kerry was confusing Christmas Eve with Tet, a few weeks later ?
That border is several hundred miles long, and the river crossing(s) seem to be pretty wide and swampy. I believe it was also the miltary’s contention that large numbers of VC went back and forth across that border unchecked on a daily basis - hence the need to follow them into Cambodia…
Here’s some more info on the “tight as a drum” clamp on the Cambodian border and river crossings:
The enemy travelled in sampans, small boats that only drafted a couple of feet and could move through tiny tributaries and swampy, marshy areas. There are lots of those.
Go have a look at how many river entries there are that can handle a 50 foot long ocean-going vessel driven by propellers that would foul up in any reedy, marshy water.
There’s an editorial in today’s Washington Post on the Swift Boat claims.
Summary: It is evident there are contradictions with reliable evidence and partisan motives which, taken together, taint the claims beyond reasonable consideration.
As predicted, the In/Not In Cambodia question doesn’t rate a mention.
Water isn’t like that in Cambodia and Vietnam. Clear and deep on the Mekong and its tributaries.
I haven’t been there myself, but a quick look at a map shows that there are dozens of navigable rivers and canals in the border area, some of them form the border and a couple are more than a mile wide.
None of which proves anything one way or the other of course. My WAG would be that the “embellishment” (if any) was Christmas Eve, trying to pluck at the heartstrings.
My initial impression was that Kerry had fashioned a fluid narrative from a number of elements of his experience in Indochina.
There power in a fluid narrative.
Your own specs give a full load hull draft of the PCF of 3 feet, 10 inches, and full load navigation draft of 5 feet, 10 inches. It specifies that the fully loaded weight of the craft was 47,047 pounds. Are you claiming that the waterways of the region would not be navigable to such a craft? Do you have a cite for this?
Part of me realizes that it is a bit foolish to even engage this Cambodia bullshit, but a larger part of me hates to see unsupported and dubious assertions stand unchallenged.
At least we are talking about navigability now and not concrete pilons and standing guards.
No, no you don’t understand! The waterways coming out of Cambodia were wide, deep and fully navigable. The waterways going in to Cambodia were narrow, shallow, and clogged by plant life.
Clocking 400 posts for this.
Sam:
The Swiftboats website has collapsed at the moment, due to the excessive amount of traffic, so you will have to excuse the fact that my cites come from alternative sources (such as NewsMax).
The Swiftboats site has one page devoted to short testimonials from a number of its most prominent members. (The page can also be viewed here.) There are 18 statements, of which only 4 (arguably 5) are actually from people who can reasonably be said to have served with Kerry. Those 5 testimonials are provided by Captain Charles Plumly, Commander Grant Hibbard, Richard O’Meara, Captain George Elliot, and Steven Gardner.
Plumly states that Kerry served under his command for “two or three specific operations.” He makes no direct complaint about Kerry’s actions as an officer, but describes him as “devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive,” as well as in need of ”constant supervision,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. In order to achieve some credibility regarding this judgment, he (and the other Swiftboat vets) need to explain the discrepancy between their view of Kerry now – especially after his congressional testimony – and their view of him then, during his tour of duty, when he was officially described in glowing terms.
Hibbard didn’t exactly serve with Kerry, but claims to have seen a wound for which Kerry allegedly received a Purple Heart. He describes it as a scratch, and says further that Kerry showed him a piece of shrapnel that “appeared to be from one of our own M-79s.” I wonder how Hibbard was able to identify a piece of shrapnel so small as to barely cause a scratch as being from an M-79, while in the field. Of course, the shrapnel might have been from a M-79, but we only have Dr. Hibbard’s speculation that this was the case. Is he a ballistics expert? If so, this would lend weight to his speculation. Otherwise, I am probably as qualified as Hibbard to make such a determination.
Hibbard goes on to state, ”He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom,” insinuating that there was something suspicious about Kerry’s Purple Heart. But I’m quite sure that Kerry did not give himself that medal, so if there was something wrong about it, the fault probably doesn’t lie with Kerry.
O’Meara makes no comments related to Kerry’s military service, nor does Elliot.
Finally, we come to Gardner, who is arguably the most credibly character witness of the lot. He actually did serve with Kerry, and states ”I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy… if a man like that can’t handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?" There’s not really much more to say about that: in Gardner’s opinion, Kerry was a lousy commander. This assessment appears to contradict Kerry’s officer assessment ratings, but in point of fact, these two assessments of Kerry’s qualities as a commander aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive: Kerry appears to have been rather gung-ho during his tour of duty, and the same actions that put his crew “in jeopardy” might well have led to commendations from his superiors.
I would guess that there’s more detailed information regarding Kerry’s actions, and his receipt of the medals, in the book. But really, at this point, we don’t have much more than the above regarding Kerry’s actions while serving in Vietnam – other than his official service records, of course.
What is perhaps more striking about the testimonials, however, is the sense of outrage expressed regarding Kerry’s accusations after he returned from Vietnam. Of the 18 testimonials, 17 make specific reference to things Kerry said in his Congressional testimony and other public statements after his tour of duty, in particular his accusations of war crimes on the part of soldiers serving in Vietnam. It’s clear that many of those who have come out against Kerry are personally insulted by these claims; this resentment is a constantly recurring theme in virtually all of their statements. For example:
Some of these complaints seem a bit over the top. For example:
I’ve not read Kerry’s book, but I seriously doubt he depicts all of his fellow servicemen as “murderous war criminals.”
Or this one:
…who appears to be a hair’s breath away from Kerry of single-handedly causing the defeat of the US in Vietnam. And so on.
It seems to me that there is probably a good deal of truth in the accusations of hypocrisy and opportunism that these vets level against Kerry, even if Kerry has himself recanted some of his earlier accusations regarding war crimes. The problem is that Kerry’s hypocrisy and opportunism have no real bearing on his actions as a soldier. In claiming that Kerry failed to deport himself admirably during his service, didn’t deserve his medals and awards, and so on, the Swift Boat Vets have crossed the line from a legitimate criticism of his character to an illegitimate employment of lies, muckraking, and character assassination.
Of the approximately 250 veterans who are members of this organization, only a handful served directly with Kerry and are thus in a position to judge his actions while serving. The mere fact that over and above the, say, 15 men who actually knew Kerry during his tour in Vietnam, there exists a group of 235 men who still despise him for his actions after his return home, does not in fact have a bearing on the accuracy of the claims of those 15 men.
In other words, what you have here is a core group of about 15 men who knew Kerry during his service, and who uniformly praised his courage, daring, and resourcefulness as a commander during his tour. However, when Kerry returned to the US and began to protest the war, these men, apparently, changed their minds about him and suddenly decided he wasn’t such a great soldier after all. The remaining members of the Swift Boat vets despise Kerry for various reasons, some of which are perhaps well-founded, but are in no position to pass judgment on Kerry’s actions during his tour of service one way or the other. Thus, your constant harping about Kerry’s “entire chain of command,” “250 decorated veterans,” and so forth, is rather misplaced, Sam.
For example, one of Kerry’s commanding officers, Lt. Commander George Elliot, recommended Kerry for both his Bronze and Silver Stars. Elliot praised Kerry as “calm, professional and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire.” In a 1969 evaluation of Kerry’s performance, Elliot wrote: “In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed.” How can this possibly jive with fellow Swiftvet Plumly’s claim that Kerry was in need of “constant supervision”?
Regarding the question of Kerry being in Cambodia, in addition to all that’s been said thus far, consider as well the testimony of Swift Boat veteran William Shumadine:
Obviously, the Swift Boats traveled extensively, and thus I submit that it is entirely within reason that Kerry made it into Cambodia at some point or another.
Of course, I concede that Kerry might well be lying about this particular excursion. He certainly appears to have lied when he claimed to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. His clumsy leak about his “lucky hat” is pretty smarmy as well. Elliot and the Swift Boat vets are probably right to point out the hypocrisy of Kerry’s current attempts to promote himself as war hero, given his previous criticisms of the conduct of the Vietnam War. He seems to want to have it both ways.
But here’s what gets me, Sam. You’ve made a very big deal about this particular lie. Kerry stood on the Senate floor, you write, and lied outright to Congress. And I agree with you, that’s a pretty atrocious thing to do. But by any reasonable standard, if Kerry’s statement is a “great big lie,” then the following:
…is an even greater, bigger lie.
Yet, while you’ve posted message after message after message tracking down the first lie – under the pretense of giving Kerry’s detractors a fair shake – you’ve also posted message after message after message defending, denying, disavowing, and otherwise rationalizing the second, bigger, even more despicable lie.
You know, Sam, truth isn’t something to exploit only when it’s politically expedient. The truth is the truth, even when sometimes that truth isn’t particularly useful as a prop for specific your political view.
Would that you were as earnest and interested in getting to the bottom of the lies surrounding the Bush administration as you are in getting to the bottom of Kerry’s service record.
What took you so long to get here, Svin?
That was one outstanding post.
Sorry to nitpick on such a thoughtful, well-reasoned post, but:
There’s no contradiction there. It is entirely possible for a soldier to serve honorably, even heroically, in a war that the soldier himself considers to be unjust or to be conducted unjustly. The great majority of Vietnam vets served honorably. That doesn’t mean the war itself was a good war, or always conducted properly.