Mr. Svinlesha: That was a very good, very fair post. You raise some of the same questions I have myself. So let’s take the opposite tack here, and talk about the weakest part of the Swift Vets claims (bearing in mind that none of us have read the actual book yet).
A couple of things stand out that bug me most. First is the doctor’s claim that he treated Kerry and remembers it as nothing more than a scratch. Now, some people have made much out of the fact that he didn’t sign the paperwork. In fact, the paperwork was signed by a Hospitalman, which doesn’t seem out of the ordinary or contradictory. But here’s what bugs me - Who in the hell would remember treating such a superficial wound after 35 years? This guy was the base doctor for a unit that got Purple Hearts like crazy. He must have treated hundreds and hundreds of wounds large and small. Yet, his memory of that seems amazingly clear. This is a wound that, by his own testimony required no treatment othe than a quick swab and a bandaid. And he didn’t even fill out the paperwork. Seems strange.
The other thing that bothers me are the glowing fitness reports that Kerry got then. The explanation I’ve heard is that you had to ‘read between the lines’. The claim is that back then, everyone got ‘glowing’ fitness reports, but the real story could be discerned by things like the number of 'did not observe’s, meaning the officer in question didn’t want to commit himself to saying something nice. I don’t know, but that seems strange to me. What I think would clear this up is if we could compare Kerry’s fitness reports to, say, the fitness reports of the other Swiftees who oppose them. How about they all turn over theirs, and we can put them all together with Kerry’s and compare and contrast?
But I think any officer who claims today that Kerry was, “devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive,” and yet still gave him a good fitness report has some explaining to do. Did he shirk his duty then? If I were a soldier, I’d expect my superiors to keep ‘devious’ officers off the line. So either this guy has changed his opinion, or he wasn’t doing his job in Vietnam, or I don’t understand something about the way the U.S. military works.
On the other side of the subject, Kerry has not released all his fitness reports. Perhaps there ARE some bad ones in there, and he has cherry-picked the best ones for public view. Would you agree with me that Kerry should sign his form 180 authorizing the release of all his missing documents? After all the heat Bush took for not releasing his (and which he ultimately gave in to and signed his own form 180)?
Finally, in regard to the Bronze Star episode of March 13, I believe Kerry was the officer in charge of the whole mission. Now, this was near the end of his stay, when apparently his superiors felt he was so dangerous they were trying to get rid of him (according to the Swiftees). If that’s the case, why was he put in charge of the mission? That doesn’t make much sense to me.
These are the things that bother me. For those reasons, I think the we need to let the arguments against the medals play out. Too many unknowns right now to figure out what’s going on.
I will say this: I think the Swiftvets are sincere. I don’t for a second believe that they are Republican shills. They may be a bunch of hotheads who, after 35 years of telling Kerry stories to each other, may have lost their perspective. They may have mixed some real, valid criticisms which some over-the-top charges that won’t stand up. But they believe in what they are doing.
I also agree with you that I think the prime driving factor here is the Swiftee’s hatred of Kerry for calling them war criminals. And justly so. And I think Kerry should bear some responsibility for his actions in this regard. When he came back from Vietnam he made a lot of very harsh, controversial accusations that today even he admits went to far.
Kerry still has to own up to the fact that he personally bears some responsibility for the treatment of Vietnam veterans. His reckless charges did a lot of damage.
Finally, we get to the Cambodia thing, and so far this is the only real charge we can say to have been proven. The Kerry camp admits he wasn’t there on Christmas Eve. Quite frankly, I don’t believe he was ever there. I think the Boonie Hat story was a cynical lie - an attempt to puff up his war rep and make him seem mysterious. I don’t for a second believe that he ‘mixed up the dates’ of his excellent Cambodian adventure. His story about Christmas is just too detailed and too forcefully told. He made it up. He repeated it on the floor of Congress. He used it to his advantage whenever it was useful. It’s a major slam on his credibility.
As for Bush’s lies, I can see how you’d feel the way you do. I disagree. There is a difference between over-stating evidence that reasonable people can disagree on, and manufacturing fake stories of heroics for personal aggrandizement.
Or let me put it this way - Bush’s claim is MUCH more serious in consequence, but much LESS serious as an evaluation of Bush’s character. Kerry’s story isn’t serious at all in a larger sense, but gives you a much stronger isight into his character.
I’ll bet we can agree on this, though: Isn’t it sad that in one of the most important elections of our time, the choice of leader of the most powerful nation is between these two guys?