Hey, I got it! Kerry bribed his crew with medals so they would support him for president 35 years later. What a long range schemer that guy is!
Which means he did not serve with Kerry and is in no position to talk about his service.
O’Neil was specifically sought out by Nixon to counter Kerry’s anti-war group. Want to see the transcript of Nixon’s taped conversation about it?
The fact that they are heavily funded by Texas Repubicans and other “grassroots” Republican Bush supporters goes straight to their credibility. This is a political activist group and nothing more. They have, as yet, produced not a shred of evidence that anything in the Navy’s official record is incorrect. Very few of these guys knew him at all. Not one of them has proven that any of Kerry’s citations were not deserved, nor have they proven that Kerry “lied” to get his medals. The burden of proof is on them if they want to sling shit like that, not on Kerry to disprove it. The Navy backs up Kerry, not the Swiftees.
No one is saying they don’t have a right to publish the book, and if yoiu wish to listen to them then listen to them. But then what? Where do you go after that? It’s pretty obvious that they aren’t going to produce any proof for their allegations which means the only reasonable default is to assume the Navy’s own record is correct. Let thes guys produce their own AAR’s which which differ from the official accounts. If they can’t or won’t do that then they deserve no attention at all.
Or maybe not. Or maybe Kerry was just doing his job.
Whatever happened to the right respecting war heroes?
Commonly accepted by whom, Sam? See, this is where I have an exceptional problem with your tactics. You make assertions such as these, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that your source for the “common acceptance” of this is the Shifters themselves. Got a cite that proves me wrong? I’ll just add it to the list, after the Kerry quote about accelerating out of the kill zone, the inaccessibility of the waterways, the Joe Wilson rampage…
Are you sure that is the account to be found in “Tour of Duty”? I have to imaging that you haven’t been clear here, because the account in the book is a bit different from the way you’ve described it above.
For others, here’s an excerpted version of the account. Sam did get it right that it comes from pages 290-291.
Intriguingly, on page 292 is testimony regarding Medeiros that also calls into question Sam’s assertions on another matter. On a prior mission, Medeiros has been ordered to go to the shore to search for VC. “Wanting to be prepared in case he encountered VC, Medeiros put on every armament he could think of, including forty-five grenades hanging from his belt, bandoliers and ammo rounds, and an M-16.” So, apparently not only does Rambo wear a bandolier and grenades, but also do contemporaries of Kerry.
I do recall Sam did once say something that was true. I haven’t seen it yet in this thread, though.
Two points of clarification to my post above - the first VC ambusher was killed when Kerry ordered the swifts to turn into the ambush. He was shot from one of the boats. Others from the other PCFs disembarked to search the dead body and search for more VC.
Secondly, the quote should read that Medeiros, and not Belodeau picked up his M-16 to try to shoot the fleeing VC.
You joke, but I just heard Cal Thomas on Fox news say that Kerry brought camera with him in Nam just so he could show the footage at the DNC 35 years later when he was nominated for president. He wasn’t kidding. When other members of the panel expressed skepticism at this assertion, Thomas responded, “Why else would you do it?”
It was pretty common for soldiers in the Nam to carry cameras with them in the field, btw. Kerry bought his own camera at a PX in-country.
Sam:
Can I take it you’re just going to ignore my last couple of responses to you, Sam, and sidestep my comparison of your defense of Bush with your attack on Kerry?
I must admit I’m getting a bit upset about some of the shit you are trying to pull in this thread. First off, under the guise of “objectivity” you’ve made numerous claims to support the Swift Boat vets, virtually all of which have proven to be baseless. When this was pointed out to you, you accused your debating opponents of lying. But then there’s shit like this:
Right.
The Kerry “attack machine.”
What are we supposed to do, Sam? Corsi is clearly a right-wing partisan whack-job of the first order. Are we required to sit here, in silence, and debate in all seriousness the accusations found in a book he has co-authored, without at least commenting on his political persuasions? These Swift Boat vets, sponsored by prominent Texas Republicans, have launched a terrible attack at Kerry’s credibility, and when it is pointed out that Corsi has posted a number of questionable comments at Free Republic, you start accusing Kerry’s attack machine … preposterous, and pathetic, really.
First off, Corsi is not a “minor player;” is the fucking co-author of the book. And the hateful, anti-semitic, off-color comments he posted at the Free Republic tell us a very great deal about him, and by association, about this group who have selected him to help write their history:
Secondly, who (aside from you and other supporters of the Swift Boat Vets) have decided that O’Neill has “absolutely impeccable credentials”?
You have apparently forgotten minty green’s post back on page 5. Let me refresh your memory.
Over the last 14 years, O’Neill has donated 14, 650 dollars to various Republican candidates and causes. He has not donated a so much as a dime to Democratic candidates or causes.
Good thing we for him can’t check his voting record, ain’t it? I guess we’ll just have to take his “impeccable” word for it, that he voted for Gore, despite his history of political donations.
I did not realize that Vietnam Veterans for Kerry, or MoveOn, had produced a book that goes into great detail about Bush’s term of service, in which it is claimed that he really was AWOL, and that he has flatly lied about his service career. A book co-written by an anti-semitic nutball. Nor was I aware that these organizations had produced a TV commercial in which they accuse Bush of lying about his days in the National Guard. I seem to have missed it.
What was the title of that book, again?
You warned earlier that the Swiftees’ tactics might backfire on them. It might backfire on you as well. The backhanded, below-the-belt, clearly partisan tactics you’ve employed throughout this thread have been truly despicable.
It is worth saying that a trait of any good platoon leader, company commander, battalion commander, brigade commander, division commander and I suppose of a good small boat commander is to try to make sure that your people get credit and recognition for what they do. I don’t see why it is a point against Senator Kerry that he recommended his crew for recognition – it is too his credit. Had he alone been recognized then I would think less of him. That his crew was recognized, that he did not luxuriate in his own recognition and leave his people with a miserable Vietnamese Service Ribbon (which was also earned by every quartermaster warehouse guy at Camron Bay) speaks volumes. Kerry took care of his people. Every one who has been there knows that taking care of your people is the first thing a small unit leader has to do.
Quite frankly this topic is becoming tiresome and is starting to reflect the tendency of some of our friends to refuse to be deprived of the last word. Sometime we have to recognize the Swift Boat Guys for what they are – a political guerrilla band – and there purpose and character to be as Senator McCain has told us.
Were I George Bush I don’t think I would have the nerve to send out my surrogates and running dogs to savage the reputation of men who when given the choice went out and did the honorable thing at no small cost to them selves. When you were never in harm’s way you don’t criticize people who were in harm’s way for the way they dealt with danger to your own selfish personal advantage. Bush’s service looks pretty cheap and tawdry when compared to Kerry’s. The way to overcome that is not to try to cheapen Kerry’s service. That course, as Senator McCain said, is dishonest and dishonorable. It is dishonest and dishonorable people who resort to those tactics. Some of our friends may say this is just guilt by association, but when you have the power to stop it and do nothing then it is not a matter of association, it makes you an accomplice.
Leave it to one of the most rabid of the President’s running dogs to put this whole thing in perspective. The state-wide paper, pallid rag that it is, reprints snips from op-ed columns. Here is the blurb from Miss Coulter with credit to the Universal Press Syndicate:
The last person I expected to be able to bring insightful analysis to this bunch of “dishonorable and dishonest” gas bags was our girl Ann, but by God she did it. It not about facts, its about religion, that is to say political ideology. Not a surprising conclusion but nice to see the fair and impartial Miss Coulter concede that point.
Wouldn’t this make any information that he has on the subject rumour and hearsay. It would not be acceptable as evidence in a court of law. If you were in court, you’d be horrified if hearsay evidence from people who hate you was permitted - but you’re quite happy to apply a lower standard when it comes to John Kerry - and find him guilty in the court of public opinion based on nothing but rumour and hearsay.
Not entirely fair to Sam. He has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he is entirely open-minded about all this, merely concerned that the Swifties get thier fair hearing, beyond the smattering of attention they have gotten from every news outlet in the country, and the glancing notice they’ve received from such as Fox News. (well, really, a 24 hour shrill telethon is not nearly enough, these guys need a fair hearing…)
And keep in mind, the book isn’t actually out there yet, can’t judge yet, because there may be a bombshell of incontrovertible evidence. They just didn’t get around to mentioning it, what with all the other stuff on thier plate, busy, busy, busy. All they’ve shown us is innuendo supported by supposition and buttressed by hearsay from clearly prejudiced sources. But that doesn’t mean they haven’t got anything! Just means they’re holding back the big stuff, lulling the Kerry people into a false sense of security and then WHAM! they hit them with the big guns.
What’s that you say? The book is out! Well, then, any second now…
(crickets chirping…)
Is it anything like the September blockbuster on Iraq WMD that David Kaye delivered? You remember, the one that blew the skeptics out of their socks.
For anyone out there who might still be moderately interested in this topic, some interesting links:
CSPAN has posted the entire 1971 Dick Cavett show debate between Kerry and O’Neill, as well as a recent short interview of O’Neill, here. Both are worth watching.
A fairly complex debate appears to be developing among wanna-be blogosphere military historians regarding Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia” story. For those who haven’t been following, Kerry admitted that he “got the dates wrong,” and that he was in fact not in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968. His official biographer, however, insists that while Kerry was merely “near” Cambodia during the Christmas holidays, he was nevertheless involved in clandestine incursions into that country during the first two months of the next year:
Kerry’s critics, on the other hand, dismiss even the possibility that Kerry could have been in Cambodia. They base this assertion on a number of factors, such as:[ul]
[li]PBRs, rather than Swift Boats, would have been used for the sorts of operations Kerry claims to have been a part of.[/li][li]Kerry served most of his time in Costal Division 11, which supposedly patrolled the waterways stretching south (and slightly west) from Sa Dec (see map) to the mouth of the Mekong. The area north from Sa Dec to the Cambodian border was under the control of River Division 531. The fact that Kerry’s division was labeled “Coastal,” apparently, constitutes iron-clad proof that Kerry’s Swift Boat would never have traveled north of Sa Dec, since obviously, that area would be under the control of a “River” division.[/li][li]In addition, all the members of Kerry’s chain of command, who ostensibly should have known if Kerry had been tasked to travel into Cambodia, have categorically denied that he was ever sent there (at least according to Unfit to Command).[/ul][/li]
In Chapter 3 of Unfit to Command, O’Neill and Corsi write:
The above claim, however, appears to be false. I refer interested parties to this webpage, replete with photos, dedicate to the wonder of so-called “YRBMs,” also known as Repair, Berthing, and Messing Barges." The author of the page writes:
Further details regarding The Sealords Campaign can be found here.
None of the above, of course, proves that Kerry is telling the truth; it merely establishes the fact that he could very well be. In addition, the history of the Sealords campaign linked above appears to directly contradict the claims made in Unfit to Command regarding the deployment of Swift Boats along the Cambodian border – quite the opposite. It would appear that the insertion of Swift Boats deep into the rivers north of Sa Dec was an integral element of Sealords.
Although it is entirely possible, I guess, that Kerry’s particular boat was never involved in those sorts of operations.
I’ve seen this fellow Elliott several times lately, so this story hasn’t fallen completely off the edge, but seems to be puttering out. As this thread demonstrates, its a confusing story, with a wide cast of characters. This Cambodian sidebar is just another in a series of ever-weakening accusations. The Swifties seem to be convinced that if they can establish any embellishment or exaggeration on Kerry’s part, no matter how trivial, that will stand as entirely convincing evidence that all their charges are solid.
One notes, as well, the entire absence of the illustrious Mr. Corsi, Ph.D. Must be busy. That must be it.
But the guy who does the Kerry counter-point is infuriatingly bad at it! He’s the head of some Vietnam Vets for Kerry org, but as a rhetorical technician he is a bust. One mention of John McCain’s criticism is quite enough, two is extraneous and implies you have nothing more of substance to offer, three times is right out! McCain wasn’t on those boats either! Worse, he doesn’t have the facts at this fingertips when he should have, and didn’t even know enough to holler “cite!” when the situation cried out for it.
One thing he said still troubles me, maybe I got it wrong, but he claimed that the Viet Nam vets pro-Kerry organzation he’s connected to numbers some 200,000. That strikes me as an amazing number, and invites pessimistic scrutiny. I know that many 'Nam vets admired Kerry for his anti-war stance and activities, and many did not (to say the least). But his figure of 200,000 such vets supporting Kerry…is too good to be true. Maybe I misheard, but if this is so…good Christ, why aren’t they all over this?
You’re talking about John Hurley, I believe. I also believe he is officially attached to the Kerry campaign, although this is never explicitly mentioned and no one seems to ask him about it.
The SEALORDS reference is interesting, and it may in fact back Kerry up. I seem to recall reading somewhere that in Kerry’s official military records there is some entry from a superior officer thanking him for his ‘help’ with SEALORDS.
Kerry can, of course, clear all this up by signing his form 180 and releasing all his records.
In other news (and I’m not going to go digging up cites right now), there is some minor trouble with Kerry’s accounts of his time with David Alston, one of the ‘band of brothers’. Both Kerry and Alston have implied that they served together for a long time, and in fact, both have implied that they were together on missions that they weren’t.
Okay, I’ll offer one cite because it gives the exact quotes, even though it’s from a partisan op-ed:
David Alston is the man who gave the fiery speech at the DNC convention. The problem is that Alston was a crewman on Boat 94 under Peck, the previous OinC. Kerry took over that boat when Peck was critically injured. Alston was injured in the same incident, and was gone for almost a month. Apparently, he and Kerry only served together for something like 7 to 11 days, and possibly only went on two combat missions together. This story is still developing, so the facts are still unclear.
Frankly, this is small potatos and wouldn’t be worth even mentioning if it weren’t for the other charges. Unfortunately for Kerry, this, coupled with his ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ claim is helping to paint the picture of a prevaricator - someone who shades the truth when it suits his purpose.
This Swiftboat thing isn’t going away. These guys are not shills for the Republicans - they are a bunch of veterans who are royally pissed off at Kerry, and they’re going to be around throughout the rest of the election. There are sixty of them in Washington today giving interviews and filming a second ad. They’ve raised half a million dollars this week from their web site, and they are going to use the money to follow John Kerry from state to state as he campaigns, running their ads in local markets. The book is #1, completely sold out, and a second printing is taking place from what I understand.
And their spokesman, John O’Neill, is really good. He’s calm, unflappable, and comes across as very credible. He’s also a very good, very thorough lawyer. For instance, the reason the Democrat’s attempt to threaten TV stations with legal action flopped is because O’Neill anticipated their threat and provided the TV stations with 100 pages of supporting documents for their claims before they even got the Democratic letter.
Here’s a debate between O’Neill and Hurley. You decide who won: O’Neill debates John Hurley
I think maybe he was just the ghost writer for the book - judging from what I’ve seen of his other writing I doubt if he’d have that many scruples about helping the swiftvets do a hatchet job on Kerry. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he, as the co-writer of this book, had any first hand knowledge of Kerry’s Vietnam experience either - just like quite a few of the other accusers.
To go away, something must first arrive. You know, I’m thinking it is turning out to be a bit of a theme for this election: “Just how stupid do they think people are?”
As Mr S pointed out, the reason they are pissed off at Kerry has to do with his views on the Vietnam war. But that’s an idea going nowhere.
Hence the chorus of insubstantial quibbles. Instead, they are snookered because deep conviction doesn’t amount to a persuasive case.
The best they could hope for is “That’s it, that’s why you think Kerry shouldn’t be President? Tell us the real reason.”
And of course they cannot give the honest answer.
Kerry is a great big liar. Not all politicians tell equal lies. Not all lies are equal.
Kerry was not a hard core fighting soldier. Then, on his acceptence speech he told a gigantic lie. All this froth about tiny details(oh, I know about how massive even tiny action is to an individual!)! The rest of the world despairs, as we are nothing.
Well, technically they could, but an admission of “We got great big bags full o’ money from rich Republicans” wouldn’t bolster their credibility appreciably. 
Cite or argument for him not being a “fighting soldier”? What’s this gigantic lie you refer to?
I said ‘hard core’. There is a world of difference. As to the gigantic lie, I point to his own words, when he said he was a ‘defender of America’ when refering to his service in Vietnam. For a record of his since, to say this is, well, a ‘gigantic lie’.
Yours, CM Wood.