That doesn’t change the fact, though, that Kerry needs to be evaluated on his entire record. His behavior as a protester and his Senate record are fair game here, and the Swift Boat veterans have criticisms of both.
This is entirely fair and proper, and Kerry certainly invited it when he asked veterans for their votes.
duality72 said:
I left that part out because the Swiftboat Vets deny that. I wanted to put down what both sides agree on.
It seems to me that this should be easily provable, if the media would do some legwork on this. In this particular instance, for example, one version of events is that there was only one mine - PCF3 was hit, Kerry accelerated out of the ‘kill zone’, and the sudden acceleration flipped Rassman into the water. Then Kerry realized a man was left behind and went back for him.
The other version is that PCF3 hit a mine, and Kerry’s boat hit one shortly thereafter, blowing Rassman into the water and injuring Kerry. If so, the boat should have been damaged, and there should be repair records.
FWIW, I just saw one of the Swiftboat vets on Hardball, and he was not convincing at all. He was a horrible spokesman for the group. Did not come across well at all.
Not necessarily. Had it exploded some distance away from the boat, as would happen with an overly sensitive proximity mine or one near the boat but triggered by something else (or not a mine at all but a round from an RPG exploding some distance from the boat), Kerry’s boat could be given a jolt sufficient to knock a fellow off his balance and into the water without leaving visible damage to the boat. Or someone could have heard an explosion and the pilot jerked the wheel in response and everybody assembled their impressions into striking a mine and maybe Kerry’s minor wound was received earlier but not noticed until then so it associated with it–you know how the fog of war goes. A lot of “maybes” but there are studies aplenty on what lousy witnesses people are.
That’s pretty much what I’m thinking in this case. Hell it could even be that the first boat was hit, and then Kerry’s boat was hit by the wave created by the explosion, knocking Rassmann into the water. As you say, the fog of war.
It’s still somewhat surprising that five Swiftboats could sit in the middle of what Kerry described as ‘murderous fire’ long enough for a complicated rescue, and have no casualties and no apparent damage to any boats.
Oh, it was Kerry who described it as “murderous fire”? Only Kerry? Do you mean some insinution, Sam, or is that an innocent accident of syntax?
Well, Kerry’s spot report lists some boat damage apparently from the incident (last page). That brings to mind, though, that if these guys claim their reports of that day are substantially different, why aren’t we seeing their military records so we can see what they said then? A very curious omission.
Jesus H. Keerist! I can’t believe what I’m reading. We have several posts of wild speculation on events about which the writers can only have the sketchiest knowledge. I expect any time now that one of them will come on line with the results of his or her computer simulation of the event. Making suitable assumptions, of course.
Sir, MY speculation was neither wild nor without its share of caveats. I merely proposed plausible explanations for a lack of battle damage on Ltjg Kerry’s boat, if such lack actually existed. I would suggest a duel to restore my honor but I don’t feel like waking up that early. Instead I will merely pout. 
Who gives a shit what the Swiftboat Vets deny? The official record disagrees with them as do all the men who were actually on Kerry’s boat. That pretty much settles it AFAIAC, especially since this attack group has zero physical evidence for anything and there is simply no way to falsify their accusations except by the official record and the witnesses on Kerry’s boat.
That is actually not a “version of events” which is backed by documentation or by the witnesses on the boat.
This is not the “other” version, this is THE version- the only official version which has not been questioned in the written record or disputed by witnesses.
Why should the boat be damaged? Are you an expert on the effects of mine blasts on the hulls of swiftboats? Can you state categorically that there MUST be a record of damage to the boat and if there isn’t then that is proof positive that not only John Kerry, but all the men on his boat are liars.
Rassman himself, the dude who actually fell off the boat, says he was knocked off by a mine. I think he would know, don’t you? It was his ass in the water, not mine, not yours and not some guy on another boat a football field away who has only now decided 35 years later that everyone on Kerry’s boat is a liar, that the man who’s life Kerry saved is a liar and that his own memory is as clear as a bell.
Really. In order to believe this guy is telling the truth, you have to beliee that everyone on John Kerry’s boat is a liar. Factor in that this guy is part of a political activist group which is being heavily funded by supporters of the Bush campaign. What would Okham say about this?
What a surprise. Have you seen Rassman talk about this? The dude is rock solid.
Hey, look. I agree with most of your points. I’m just trying to understand this issue. I’m skeptical of their claims, but my attitude is that there are enough very serious people here that their claims are worth debating and trying to understand. This isn’t a couple of burned-out old vets from the sticks making wild claims. These are decorated veterans. Hundreds of them. So let’s hear what they have to say.
Personally, I think we may be looking at something like an urban myth here. These guys all hate Kerry so much, and have been telling stories about Kerry for so long, that they have managed to convince themselves of certain things that really didn’t happen the way they think. On the other hand, it’s pretty astounding that such a large number of Kerry’s ex-peers would come out against him.
As for his entire chain of command being against him, that’s not really surprising either. Kerry basically accused them of ordering war crimes. Now they’re looking for a little payback.
Okay, I read the sample chapter(thanks, Sam).
Some assertions are sourced, some aren’t, which leads me to conclude that they’re the parts that are just speculation. For instance:
This is under the titel “What really happened.” How do we know?
Ah, but why no one to support the assertion like you do with others? Because the only quote of a witness they’ve got is
Later we have an anonymous second-hand claim that there was no enemy fire, the existence of which follows directly from the “no report filed,” and adds nothing new.
Again, nothing explicitly sinister here, but that’s not the work of a responsible and credible author, IMO.
Another example, they call the wound “self-inflicted,” but explicitly endorse this quote:
That’s not what I think when I hear “self-inflicted wound,” but I suppose that the definition of “is” being what it is, if their story is right, that is a term they could use.
Polemic, ill-established speculation, no quoting of dissenting views. Not the work of honorable people, and dishonorable people aren’t credible.
I’m only sorry they are probably careful enough to not be worth suing. I’m not big on romantic accounts of military life, but what they did to the person they claim to have served with is just ugly.
Not quite. From Elliot, who complains about the Globe’s story a lot, but doesn’t dispute the quotes:
So it appears that at least some of the hundreds of vets just took the core group’s word for what happened and signed the affidavits. An unintentional urban myth is an a priori possibility, but given this, I think you’re being more charitable than would be reasonable at this point.
Note also that propagating an urban myth requires a good amount of gullibility, and publishing a book like this without reflecting on what you are saying and why, even more so. Yet the authors appear to be extremely well credentialled and all-around smart guys.
This is misleading. There are not “hundreds” of decorated vets who have any first hand knowledge of Kerry’s service or who knew John Kerry at all. They may still be bitter about the Winter Soldier stuff, but that is a separate issue from how John Kerry actually conducted himself during his Tour of Duty. The allegations made about how Kerry received his medals are all made by non-eyewitnesses and their allegations are contradicted in every case by the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses.
There is no reason to listen to them about the incidents which earned Kerry his medals unless they actually saw something- and they didn’t- and everyone who did backs up Kerry.
You’re probably right xcept they’re not his “peers” in the sense that they served with him or knew him personally. A lot of these guys never even met him. Kerry’s real peers, the guys who were in the boat with him, all support him.
Kerry’s direct supervisors gave him some pretty outstanding evaluations and fitness reports while he was there. They also put him up for those medals.
And JFTR, US soldiers DID commit warcrimes in Vietnam. It was no traeson to say so unless you think that it should be illegal for soldiers to report such things.
In any case, veterans who have a beef about Kerry’s activism is fine. They have a right to their opinion, but slandering his actual service record is a different kettle of fish.
You’re confusing men now, Sam. “Hundreds of them”? Are we agreed that it is vanishingly unlikely that “hundreds of them” have any direct knowledge of these events whatsoever? So what possible difference can it make if hundreds of uninformed people have any opinion?
And it isn’t remotely “astounding” that so many of Kerry’s “peers” are pissed at him. Its been a known fact for years and years! Its as well a known fact that a large number of Kerry’s “peers” regard him as heroic, for not taking the easy way out, for not blandly accepting the handshakes and the medals, and telling them what they wanted to hear.
The ad is carefully cut to lend the impression that all of the testifiers are talking about roughly the same thing, but they’re not necessarily. They talk about how Kerry “lied about what happened over there”, that he “wasn’t honest”. What do you want to bet those statements were recorded and cut to fit?
And its not even a lie, exactly. Its just artfully edited, rather like, hmmmmmm, memory fails, some other media event of late…Mickey Mouse! No, that wasnt it.
Am I the only person who finds it ironically amusing to hear the Bush apologists/Kerry-bashers try to defend the Swift Bullshiters For Revisionism commercial for using the same imply-without-stating-outright tactics Michael Moore used in Fahrenheit 9/11? “Oh, the commercial wasn’t misleading! When they said they ‘served with John Kerry,’ they didn’t mean they served with him in the same boat, just the same river!” :rolleyes:
Actually, I should take that back; at least Fahrenheit 9/11 sticks to the facts, with documented references to boot, something that’s still far ahead of what the Swifties have dredged up so far. Equating their commercial with Moore’s movie is an insult to Moore.
A bit amusing, but too easily reversible(“Funny how you left-wingers defend Moore but attack the swiftvets ad,” after which you’d have to shout out for a cite etc).
So I think we need to excercize some interpretative charity here. “So you believe the swiftvets ad isn’t misleading? Okay, if you’re using this standard I can see how you’d think that Bush never mislead anyone.” 
What qualification, apart from hating Kerry, has the co-author of this book about Kerry’s war service actually got??
From quotes on http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010 he doesn’t impress me as being the most impartial [or even sane] person to be co-writing such a book.
Moore’s got cites for all of his claims.
The stuff I’ve seen from the Swift vets is all personal recollection, which has been contradicted by the paper trail.
Point goes to Moore.
I don’t know… These guys have a little more than personal recollection. They’ve just sent a letter out to TV station managers in response to the letter from Kerry’s lawyers calling them frauds and threatening legal action to any station that runs the ad.
Text of their letter below:
If you read closely, every piece of supposedly counter-Kerry evidence is an affidavit, aka personal recollection. If their claims were true, they should easily be able to come up with conflicting after-action reports. Until they do, I see no reason to take them at all seriously.