Beat me to it. I just came here to post the same link.
This kind of goes to what I said above - hatred for Kerry may have blinded some of these guys into saying things they shouldn’t be saying.
Mic84: I don’t know - the book isn’t out yet. The Swiftboat Veterans describe themselves as non-partisan and say that they are both Republican and Democrat. We’ll have to see if they break down the numbers for us when the book comes out.
BTW, I think the claim that Kerry may be most vulnerable on is the claim that he was sent into Cambodia to fight. That would have been a violation of the rules. According to the sample chapter I got, there is no evidence anywhere of an incursion into Cambodia, every officer up the chain of command denies it, and there are eyewitness accounts saying that the river entry to Cambodia was heavily guarded by the Americans and no one was allowed in or out. Further, he claims that this happened on Christmas day, and Kerry’s own journal says that he was on base that day.
Could you be so kind as to email me a copy?
The fucktards have yet to mail me a single copy.
simonwmoon523@yahoo.com
Does any one know if the ads have run on television yet?
On an interesting overthinking type side note, this could force Kerry, if a case were brought to court, to release a medical records regarding the wound. Something that it appears the Kerry campaign wants to avoid.
SimonX: On its way.
Nursecarmen: If it went to court, it would also force everyone involved to repeat their claims under oath. That would be interesting.
It’s difficult to release what’s already been released.
McCain says these guys are shitheads. They’re funded by the Republican establishment. Their claims have already been shown to be a mix of half-truths and hypocrisy (if there was no gunfire, as only one guy claims, why did HE get and not hand back his award for the exact same incident?)
I don’t see much here. Bunch of guys who are really pissed that Kerry single-handedly made America lose the Vietnam war who are then willing to spin any nonsense they can get their hands on to attack him.
Given GWBs MO, his response will doubtless be: “Flip-flop! Flip-flop!” [My mind is forming a metaphor involving a beached carp, but I’d better save it for the Pit.]
I’m going on memory here, but I think it has run in a few swing states, including Ohio. Most of us will never see it. Damned Electoral College.
I posted this in the pit, but thought it was pertinent to this one so I’m reposting it:
One of Kerry’s critics is now retracting his statement:
And it turns out that the ‘retraction’ wasn’t quite…
Mr. Kranish, the ‘objective reporter’ for the Boston Globe who managed to mysteriously get the quotes all wrong and write a highly misleading story, just happens to be the same man who whote the offical campaign book for Kerry/Edwards.
This stinks. Sounds like a Democratic setup to me. That, coupled with the highly misleading and intimidating letter the Kerry lawyers are sending to any TV stations thinking of running this ad, makes me even more suspicious that these guys are actually telling the truth.
Apos said:
Kerry has refused to exercise his form 1080, authorizing the release of all his documentation. The stuff that has been released is mostly complete, but not everything is there.
McCain doesn’t like smear campaigns, and he’s characterized this as such. But what if these guys are telling the truth? Do they not get to air their grievances?
And this is not your typical ‘late hit’ political smear. These guys have been trying to get their message out for years, but the media won’t listen to them. They held a press conference months ago, before Kerry was even the nominee.
Defined as, “A Republican donated money to them”. This is a classic inuendo attack. “Hey! A Republican was caught helping these guys! That means it’s just dirty politics! Nothing to see here, move along.”
Because we all know that Democrats never give money to people they perceive as helping their cause, right?
Cite? DID he get it for the same incident?
However, this one case is one where you may be right in the sense that there was a lot of confusion. I believe that Rasmussen, the guy Kerry pulled out of the water, certainly thought he was being shot at. But then, there was tons of suppressive fire against the banks, and he was in the water. He may simply have been mistaken.
Because the ultimate question is, “If these four boats were sitting in the water taking fire from the shore, how come none of them had so much as a single bullet hole in them?”
Have you read the sample chapter they are sending around? Just that chapter alone has some solid facts, a lot of eyewitness testimony, and some serious charges. For instance, Kerry has said repeatedly that he spent Christmas Even five miles inside the Cambodian border. He has described this night in great detail, including being shot at by friendly Vietnamese troops who thought he was the enemy. The problem is, every officer in his chain of command denies this. The river entry to Cambodia was blockaded, there is no record of Kerry being out that night, and in fact his own journal shows him not to be there. Kerry’s official history now omits that story.
Don’t pick and choose among the one or two things you think you can dredge up an argument for. These guys deserve to be heard. And if they turn out to be liars, they deserve to be sued for libel. But if Democrats are all about honoring Vietnam vets and heros now, these guys can pile their medals up about ten feet high. Wouldn’t you say that at least entitles them to have their complaint heard fairly?
Well, I’m not a Democrat(for obvious reasons), but I think so. But they should return the favour and state it fairly. So far
[ul]
[li]They filmed a misleading ad[/li][li]They collected sigantures from people who had no first-hand knowlede of what happened[/li][li]Larry Thurlow seems to have implied that his Bronze Star isn’t legit when he stated that Kerry’s wasn’t, but he didn’t admit it outright[/li][li]Either The Globe is being very stupid and outright fabricating quotes, or Elliot has changed his story for the third time.[/li][/ul]
If I had a legitimate story, that’s not the way I would tell it.
At long last, the ultimate question.
Would you expect them to? One must fairly assume that the persons who designed this combat boat probably anticipated numerous hazards. Being shot at, for instance. I would be surprised to hear that a round fired from an AK-47 would punch holes in it.
How was it misleading? They said “I served with John Kerry”. They did. The doctor said, “I treated John Kerry for his wound”. He did. What else was misleading?
[quote]
They collected sigantures from people who had no first-hand knowlede of what happened
[/qutoe]
They collected signatures on an affidavit that says John Kerry is unfit to be CinC. The men who signed it have their own reasons. The people who claim to have witnessed actions so far have turned out to be correct.
Larry Thurlow got his Bronze star under different circumstances. This is what Thurlow did, from History.net:
This is basically what happened: A group of boats were patrolling, when one of them (PCF-3) hit a mine. The boat was severely damaged. Thurlow went to the rescue in PCF-53, while other Swiftboats laid down suppressive fire on the banks, in case the mine was set up to trigger an ambush. When he got to PCF-3, he jumped aboard the badly damaged ship and started pulling guys out. The ship was out of control and heading for ground, but Thurlow stayed on the ship trying to get the gunner out when the boat hit the shore and sent Thurlow flying.
In the meantime, Kerry brought his boat around and went back for Jim Rasmussen in the water. He pulled alongside, and pulled Rasmussen out.
Where the accounts of the Swiftvets and Kerry differ is that Kerry says they were taking heavy fire from the shore, bullets were spraying the water up around them, etc. Jim Rasmussen, the guy who got blown into the water (and who Kerry pulled out) also says so. The Swiftvets say the only firing going on was their own suppressive fire, and as evidence they point out that these boats were milling around as sitting ducks, and not one of them received so much as a single bullet damage.
Note that Rasmussen’s actions were heroic whether or not he was taking fire, because he stayed on a damaged boat when it was clearly heading for a crash. Kerry’s actions would only be considered heroic if in fact they really were taking fire.
I’m not saying which account is true. And also, consider that Rasmussen (and even Kerry) could easily have believed they were taking fire when they weren’t. It was chaotic, there were injured men, and a lot of shooting going on. The difference in accounts may simply be the fog of war. I’ll have to wait and read the book.
I have no idea. I find it suspicious that the ‘reporter’ who interviewed this guy happens to be the writer of the Kerry/Edwards official campaign book.
Anyway, the history.net link gives Kerry’s side of the story, and it’s a good read. But what it also does is explains how these guys can claim they ‘served with Kerry’ while not being on his boat. Simply put, Swift Boats were not like larger ships, going out on missions for days or weeks. The Swift Boats cruised the rivers in groups, working together. These guys were close comrades of Kerry’s. They trained with him, prepped with him, went out on missions with him, came back to base with him, and worked together on base. The only thing they didn’t do was travel on the same boat. Instead, they were on different boats a few yards away.
So when the Kerry campaign screams, “NONE of these guys were shipmates of Kerrys, so they aren’t in a position to judge!”, they are being pretty disingenous. The implication is that they have no way of knowing Kerry. But in fact, as fellow skippers, they would be in a better position to judge his actions in many ways than his crew, because the crew were enlisted men who weren’t at the meetings, didn’t have to file the after-action reports, debrief their superior officer on missions, weren’t allowed in the officer’s mess, etc.
The guys who are making these accusations were. As I’ve said before, I find this troubling because I suspect some of these charges are a little over the top, clouded by the hatred these guys have for Kerry. On the other hand, his ENTIRE CHAIN OF COMMAND has signed that letter. And of Kerry’s fellow Swiftboat skippers, only one supports Kerry. Four are dead, four refuse to be involved, and all the others are members of this group.
In total, there are over 250 veterans in this group.
You can’t write this off as a Republican smear-job. Not with a group that size, you can’t. They may be wrong, they may be blinded by hatred for Kerry because of his Vietnam testimony, but I believe they are sincere. They are saying what they believe.
And if some Republicans somewhere start funneling them money, that does not invalidate their message anymore than, say, The Sierra Club’s message would be invalidated if some Democrat with deep pockets decided they could help hurt Bush and slid them some money to help pay for an ad.
Small-arms fire wouldn’t penetrate the hull, but it would certainly leave marks. Chipped paint, dents, etc.
Unfortunately, the sample chapter I got from these guys does not have this episode in it, so we’ll have to see what evidence they can offer that shows whether they took enemy fire. In particular, it would be interesting to see what the after-action report says. If it says there was no hostile fire, then Kerry’s account would be in serious doo-doo. On the other hand, if it says there was, then the Swiftboat guys have some 'splaining to do.
Is anybody else confused that this same George Elliot who signed, partially retracted and possibly unretracted the affidavit describing Kerry as undeserving of at least some of his medals is the same guy who wrote the following about Kerry in December of 1969?
It seems Lt. Cdr. Elliot found the young Kerry much more impressive back then than he does now. Indeed, Elliot gave Kerry the highest marks possible for such performance factors as “Initiative”, “Judgement”, “Analytical Ability”, “Loyalty” and “Reliability”.
But I wonder if Elliot remembered that he had recognized in Kerry the highest standards of “Moral Courage” when the young man who was “unsurpassed” as a combat leader later testified against the war so effectively.
(The fitness reports can be found on Kerry’s campaign website .)
By the way, Judy Woodruff had Larry Thurlow and Jim Rassmann on Inside Politics and let them debate this issue.
I think both men are sincere. I think both remember things they way they think they remember it. One of them is wrong. I have no idea which one. Both make good points.
Which indicates to me that some minds have changed. At the time the actions involving Kerry and his citations and wounds were regarded as legitimate by his ENTIRE CHAIN OF COMMAND. Awards and rotations out of theater for having been wounded for the third time aren’t up to Kerry, or his immediate superior. They have to be passed up the CHAIN OF COMMAND for approval. And at the time the CHAIN OF COMMAND must have approved.
So in hindsight and after thinking it over for 30 years their memories, which make the events as clear as yesterday, have returned they’ve now decided they screwed up?
And there is a former Lt. Cmdr. by the name of Elliot, one of the 250, who is reported (6 August 2204) on Countdown with Keith Olberman (MSNBC) as having said his signing the letter was a big mistake; or, no it wasn’t after all; or, yes it was; ot, no it wasn’t.
I don’t know, but isn’t that enough? I myself saw a couple of people being mislead by the ad in re:these points. It was professionally produced, so there’s no deniability there. Hence, misleading.
If I have a genuine story to tell, I will try to avoid even the appearance of deceit. They don’t. So it looks to me that the ad is consistent with the theory that they’re throwing mud at Kerry and hope that some of it sticks, or that, like you say, they’ve convinced themselves of their own misrepresentation, but inconsistent with the theory of them being both honest and sane.
True, but not only that. Elliot, who admits to have no first-hand knowledge of the events themselves, signed an affidavit concerning these events. Again, maybe not quite lying(and what he wrote is phrased quite carefully), but if I know I have a good case, I don’t inflate it with bullshit like this.
Okay, thanks for that.
Well, I read the retraction of the retraction, and it doesn’t retract any specific quotes, which I’d think it would if it could.
Accidentally, anyone here know what a reporter risks for misquoting a person to the effect that the person is an idiot and a liar? Would he need to prove financial damage to receive compensation?
Sam, I just read the transcript so thanks.
I would use an analogy of a car crash. You have the driver of the car that actually crashed saying he was ducking bullets. The driver of the car next to him claiming his version on the accident he witnessed (but wasn’t in) is the correct version. I’d admit he probably believes his version is the correct one. And we all know that the driver in an accident isn’t always the best eyewitness.
That said, I’d go with the version Kerry and the guy in the water ducking bullets.
While I’ve never been in the military, like any bureaucracy “fact is what is documented.” None of this “he said, I said” crap. Fitreps, memos, etc are all part of a paper trail. And the paper trail at the time support Kerry’s position and suggests that the Swiftboat Vets are attempting 35 years down the road to rewrite history. I’d be happy to look at some military paper trail from 'Nam that contradicts Kerry’s version. But you’ll excuse me for not putting any weight in a revisionist political assassination hack job.
You skipped the part where another mine explodes besides Kerry’s boat and Kerry is injured. I don’t see how Kerry coming to the aid of a man overboard while injured is substantially different from Thurlow aiding an injured man on another boat. Either they both deserve their medals or not.