John Kerry and Vietnam

Great Debates
121

Sam, I hesitate to committ myself to a line by line refutation here, not being privy to piles of documents. But there are obvious elements of spin control here.

“…John Kerry’s four-month abbreviated tour…”

The advective “abbreviated” is necessary? Only if one is making a case that requires a bit of innuendo for seasoning. What a wealth of implication can be tucked into those words! Rather like the way the words “self-inflicted” are used to describe Kerry’s wounds, knowing full well the implication brings forth “shooting oneself in the foot to escape duty”. Of course, the record, as reflected herein, offers no such innuendo, but our correspondents see no need to let a perfectly good slur escape their grasp

“… A large majority of those who served with John Kerry in Swift boats in Vietnam and whose location is known have joined the organization…”

What a delightfully constructed innuendo! “Whose location is known…” to who? Are we given to understand that those persons who have not joined the group have disappeared from the face of the earth? Kidnapped by Hilary and JaneFonda, never to be seen or heard from again?

Or could it just be that it means “whose location is known” to the Swiftys? Whose location is known because they joined the Swiftys or had some contact with the Swiftys? Presumably, numbers would be available, such as “167 of the 169” or “10 of the 15”, but no, we are given, “a large majority”, the nature of “large” being at the discretion of its definers.

They also permit themselves considerable laxity in the “served with” category. They don’t define it at all. Does “served with” include boat mechanics at their main base? Does it include administrative personnel at a considerable remove? We are not told.

“…Thus, for example, sixteen of the twenty-three surviving officers who served in Coastal Division 11 with Kerry (the place where Kerry spent most of his time) have joined the organization…”

And seven did not. Why not? We are not told, it isn’t important, nothing to see here. But why not? And note again, implication without statement. They “served in Coastal Division 11 with Kerry”. Did they know Kerry? Were they intimately involved with the events under discussion? Well, they “served with Kerry”, we are to be satsified with that.

“…together with most of Kerry’s Vietnam commanders and 254 sailors from Coastal Squadron One, ranging from Vice-Admirals to Seamen…”

Isn’t this first group already mentioned? Being as they are, necessarily, officers? Are the Swifty lawyers mentioning the same group twice as though it were an addition, rather than a duplication?

And “254 sailors”? Out of how many? 255? A thousand? Ten thousand? A bit of perspective there would be enlightening, would it not? An enlightenment the Swifty lawyers omit, or do not possess in the first instance. Nothing strange about that, its a lawyerly work, only helpful evidence is offered.

“…The purpose of Swiftvets is to present the truth about John Kerry’s post-Vietnam charges of war crimes and John Kerry’s own Vietnam record. Swiftvets is uniquely positioned to do so since it includes most of the locatable sailors and officers who served with John Kerry in Vietnam…”

Interesting juxtaposition. From all the fooforaw about all this, one might well imagine that Mr. Kerry’s wartime conduct was the main thrust of the Swiftvets complaint, certainly it is the main focus of the attention they have so stridently demanded. But clearly, as regards Sen. Kerry’s testimony, etc., the Swiftvets are no more “uniquely positioned” than any other Viet Nam vet, no more “uniquely positioned” than such men as joined the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. An appeal to expertise entirely unsupportable. And again, the adroit phrasing “…includes most…”. How many? Surely they know?

And what are we to make of the word “locatable”? By whom? By what means? They might mean “locatable” by stringent and rigorous effort, beating the bushes for every lead. Or it could just as easily mean “locatable” by means of sending in an application to join the Swiftvets

(As an aside, here’s what I suspect: that Sen. Kerry’s antiwar stance and testimony is the central issue, that the men drawn to this group were primarily motivated by their anger over those statements and actions of Sen. Kerry that they strongly disapprove. Entirely their right, of course. )

“Captain George Elliott, USN …Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)… Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann…”

AS noted elsewhere, the testimony of these worthies is less than stellar. Mr. Elliott cannot seem to make up his mind, he states, he retracts, he restates. “…I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand…” I believe we can be forgiven if we dismiss further testimony from Mr. Elliott.

Adrian Lonsdale?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/05/04/25m_ad_campaign_showcaes_kerrys_career/

Again, a man of uncertain convictions, it would seem.

“…“He earned his medals, he did what he was supposed to do in Vietnam,” said retired Coast Guard Captain Adrian Lonsdale…”

(Aside: Coast Guard? Huh?)

So Sen. Kerry’s service is not the issue with Mr. Lonsdale, apparently, or at least not at the time of the interview referenced above. What is, then?

“…But I was very disappointed in his statements after he got out of the Navy. He is fit to be a great senator. But by his unfounded accusations about the atrocities, I was just very disappointed…”

It would seem, then, that Mr. Lonsdale has a bone to pick with Sen. Kerry. But he testifys that, in his opinion, Sen. Kerry did his duty and deserved his medals. Why then is he included as an accuser?

Because the Swiftvets have conflated the two! They have attracted veterans who are displeased with Sen. Kerry’s antiwar stance and testimony, and now pretend that the sheer numerical bulk of that group is somehow evidence, that it somehow relevent to Kerry’s service in the war.

By similar techniques of spin, we could present the surviving members of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War (if they were “locatable”…I knew a lot of those guys, their record keeping talents were limited by a lack of enthusiasm…). We might imply that their expertise is relevent, when of course it is not.

It is known that many 'Nam vets detested Kerry for his antiwar stance. This is not in dispute. It is also known that many 'Nam vets supported Kerry’s position, and testimony, and continue to do so to this day. It would be interesting, perhaps, to have such numbers, but not very enlightening, since those are disagreements as to politics, and not to facts.

I tire. There is too much to plow through, perhaps another tag-team member can pick up. But I think I make my point: this is a very lawyerly piece of work, wherein the last drop of innuendo is squeezed, wherein “wholesale returns of conjecture are realized from a paltry investment of fact.”

We have lawyers here as well. The formidable Dewey, for instance (a rhetorical rapscallion enlisted by the Forces of Darkness for thier heinous ends) and the equally estimable Minty and Spavinged (palladins of truth and virtue, widely beloved and admired hereabouts)

One must be careful in one’s dealings with lawyerly attestations. They are not always entirely what they seem. It’s probably different in Canada. But that’s how it is here.

122

So signed affidavits from Kerry’s entire chain of command that he was not in Cambodia as he says he was is not considered evidence? You couldn’t go into court with that?

Eyewitness accounts from members of Kerry’s own boat, saying that they were nowhere near Cambodia? Steve Gardner WAS a member of Kerry’s crew, and he says they were nowhere near Cambodia. He also apparently still has the boat logs, which also show it was nowhere near Cambodia.

How about the evidence that the river entry to Cambodia was blockaded, and there is no evidence anywhere that a boat went through?

Or the numerous eyewitness accounts that put Kerry on base at Sa Dec on that day?

If this were a court of law, and these guys put twenty people on the stand testifying under oath that Kerry had no such orders, that his boat was not where he said it was according to the logs, that they personally saw him on base when he claimed to be in Cambodia, would that not make a powerful case?

Again, the reason I continue to follow this and take it seriously is because these guys deserve to be heard. They may be wrong, they may be letting their hatred cloud their judgement, but I don’t think they’re making all this up. There are too many of them, and many of these people have absolutely impeccable characters. We’re talking about rear admirals in the Navy, powerful business leaders, people with reputations who are now willing to put those reputations on the line over this. This isn’t the same as the ‘whisper’ campaign against McCain, in which no one could be held responsible. This isn’t a couple of burned out old vets no one has heard of, repeating hearsay. This is the vast majority of his fellow officers, one member of his actual crew, and his commanding officers. They are signing affidavits, offering to testify under oath. These are serious people, and they aren’t backing down.

And this isn’t just political dirty tricks. If it was, it would be more like the McCain charged four years ago - it would be handled in a way such that everyone had complete deniability and there would be no chance of tracing it back to anyone. In this case, these people are standing up publically. If this were a giant conspiracy where Republican dirty tricksters got dozens of people to do this, all it would take is for one of them to break silence and say, “we were put up to this by the Bush campaign”, and Bush would be done. Republicans in fact are scattering away from these charges in case there is blowback.

123

Cambodia? Cambodia! Jesus fuck a shit souffle, Sam, everybody, up to and including our illustrious Commander in Chief, Richard Goddam Nixon, denied we were in Cambodia!

Kerry thinks he was in Cambodia, others swear he was not. Are we reduced to this? What are we going to here next? Sworn testimony from somebody’s sister’s hairdresser who knows somebody who has proof that Kerry was in Cambodia to meet Jane Fonda and plot heinous deeds?

Of course they deny he was in Cambodia!

124

Letters are not evidence. Affidavits are evidence. The affidavits are nowhere to be seen.

And of course, even when they are seen, they’re somewhat underwhelming. For instance, there’s George Elliott’s new affidavit, which concedes that he has no personal knowledge of the events at issue, but asserts that “Had I known the facts [which, of course, he just conceded he did not and does not know], I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.”

Never mind that the Citation for that Silver Star describes a hell of a lot more than killing one guy running away with a rocket launcher:

As for Sam Stone’s “these guys deserve to be heard” but “I’m skeptical of their claims” act, is anybody else reminded of the Vince Foster “murder” and all those other right-wing nutcase rumors from the Clinton years? How all that baseless bullshit was kept alive by people who insisted that “I’m not saying it’s true, but it deserves to be looked at”? Bollocks.

125

But elucidator, Cambodia is the next evolution of the story. Kind of how like Whitewater led to finding out Clinton got a blowjob. They’ve learned the lesson well - keep flinging shit, and people like Sam will start saying “Hey, they have a lot of shit to fling. There must be something to it.”

The contortions that Sam is willing to go through regarding whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia are interesting, given the lack of interest he had in whether Bush was in Alabama.

But Sam, you keep saying that these guys deserve to be heard. Why? To my mind they have no more right to have their allegations heard than Joe McCarthy did. Shouldn’t they have evidence of some sort before they have a right to be heard? If a group got together, say, 254 people who served with George Bush in the Government of Texas, to allege that he took bribes and was unfit for office, after several months of making allegations based on their own opinion, would they deserve to be heard?

You seem particularly credulous to factors such as the smile of a weapons inspector or the number of signatories to a scurrilous charge. Perhaps you should alter your criteria for making determinations a bit.

126

Done. and with PAID advertisements even.

I think your judgement is the one being affected here, as I said before, keep on bringin up this already old trash, it will only bring McCain to our side and it seem that it is making other military men speak in favor of Kerry: in This Week when asked by George Stepanopolous, “Do you believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander in Chief?”, General Tommy Franks responded, without hesitation, “Absolutely”.

That got a chip on their shoulders when Kerry protested the war

Actually it is the money trail and organizers’ connections who are the ones that are proving to be slippery, as it is the connection with the republicans, but it is silly to not see that there is a political component of this, it is incredible naive not to wonder why, when memories were fresh, this was not done by the swifters when Kerry was running for office, like in the case of Clinton, dubious testimony of women and shady deals was put together in a more efficient way only when he was running for president. But I will go on a limb, and trust the left blogs in this case: It seems that some organizers are involved with Free Republic, and with guys that where with Nixon.

And that is IMO the level of respect the swift flipfloppers deserve, if (oficially) they are not welcomend that should be enough, And even though I dislike General Franks, I go with his opinion.

127

I’ll answer these points as best I can from the information I’ve read.

I agree that there is inflammatory language in that letter, which I think is more a reflection of the real hatred of Kerry these guys have. They would be better served to be a bit more dispassionate, although overall this response is a hell of a lot better than that sham of a letter the Democrats send out to intimidate stations.

It was 35 years ago. Lots of people drop off the map. Go to any reunion site, especially veteran’s reunion sites, and you’ll see all kinds of empty boxes with requests like, “If anyone knows what happened to PFC Jones, please let us know.”

This is a silly argument. They were just being honest. “Of the people we could find, here’s how many joined us.” They’ve never hidden the fact that some did not, or that most of the peopel on Kerry’s boat did not. I don’t see any attempt to inflate their numbers or make the percentage look higher than it is. I think you’re reading too much into that. Parsing with a microscope, as it were.

You can find out exactly who they are at their web site. All of the men who appeared in the commercial have their backgrounds thoroughly listed. For that matter, you can see who they are if you actually read any of the accounts of the battles. For instance, Thurlow is the guy who won the Bronze star on the same mission Kerry did. He jumped about a disabled Swiftboat that was heading for shore out of control, and stayed on it trying to rescue people until it his and threw him overboard.

The others will not take a position one way or the other, and one is working for the Kerry campaign. Again, they do not hide anything. If you go to their site at www.swiftvets.com, there is a picture there that the Kerry campaign itself has been using to show Kerry with his ‘brothers in arms’. In the ad in question, as each man tells his story the camera zooms into that picture and highlights him. These are the very same men who were in Kerry’s “class photo”. Not some mechanic who never knew him. If you hover your mouse over the picture, it shows you the man who supports Kerry.

We’ve been over this. Their names are posted on the web site, along with how they served with Kerry. One of them, Steve Gardner, was a crewmember of Kerry’s boat. Most of the others were fellow Swiftboat skippers, who worked with Kerry every day and fought alongside him in combat (swiftboats operated in groups, so they trained for missions together, covered each other in battle, debriefed together, etc). Other members of the group are people like his commanding officer, the medical doctor on the base he served (and who treated his first purple heart wound), etc.

There is one large group, “Swiftboat vets for truth”, which I believe is comprised of anyone who wanted to join who was a 'Swiftee" in Vietnam. That group numbers over 250. A smaller group is a subset of these men who have stepped to the forefront because they knew Kerry, were eyewitnesses to the things in dispute, and have stories to tell.

Here’s a Non-Political site dedicated to the history of Swiftboats. It lists every crewmember of Swiftboats they could find. Most of the men who wrote those affidavits can be found on these lists. As for overall numbers, it looks like there were about 100 Swift Boats in total. They had a crew of six. Not all of them served at the same time, and some crews served in multiple boats. Judging by that page (and without counting all the names and duplicates), I’d say that it looks like there was on the order of maybe 1000 men on those boats.

More interesting would be to look at the total number of men who served while Kerry was ‘in country’, and of those, compare how many joined SwiftVets for Truth compared to those who didn’t. I don’t have that information.

How can you say that? Kerry’s testimony is that he personally witnessed (and engaged in) atrocities and war crimes. These were the men that were there with him. How can you say they have no more expertise than anyone else? Part of Kerry’s testimony is that he was sent into Cambodia, which would have been illegal. Kerry has been repeating that story for decades, including on the floor of the U.S. Senate as a Senator in public hearings. These men say it never happened.

Like you, I have a suspicion that the real beef these guys have is with Kerry’s testimony after the war. But their charges should stand on their own. Either they can provide a convincing amount of evidence for these charges, or they can’t.

You’re reaching on this one. This was a short legal document. It’s heavily footnoted with supporting documents that we don’t have. And certainly the ‘most’ applies to his immediate peers - 16 out of 23 fellow skippers who served with him and went on missions with him have signed those affidavits. That can’t just be waved away.

Could be. I suspect so as well. Nonethess, their charges should stand on their own and be evaluated as such.

No you certainly cannot. He claims that he was grossly misrepresented in that interview. He immediately faxed another affidavit to the Swiftvets standing by his original claim. The reporter that seems to have misquoted him is none other than the guy who wrote the introduction to the Kerry/Edwards campaign book.

In any event, the only think Elliot said he wished he had done was had the words ‘shot in the back’ taken out, because he couldn’t verify that. Even in the interview, he said that he was standing by everything he said.

This I have no comment on. I have no more information than you.

Somehow I don’t think you’d be as tired if this were a group levelling similar charges against George Bush. If a large group of fellow pilots came out and claimed that Bush lied about his service record, you’d be on it like a bloodhound.

Uh, right. It’s all a lawyerly trick.

Did you see the letter the Kerry Campaign’s lawyers sent to TV stations? Talk about your lawyerly tricks. It was a despicable attempt at squelching these guys through half-truths and misquotations. The Swiftboat letter above is a model of restraint and accuracy compared to that.

Incidentally, the guy who wrote the above letter, John O’Neill, is one of the most highly regarded lawyers in Houston. He graduated first in his law school, clerked for the Supreme Court, and formed his own 32-lawyer law firm. The Kerry camp would do well not to underestimate him.

128

Did you happen to notice a post in this thread that noted that Thurlow earned that Bronze Star in the same action that Kerry earned his? The same action in which Thurlow has repeatedly claimed there was no action?

Thurlow’s lying. Brazenly. Why do you still consider him a reliable source?

129

Here’s some additional information on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush from Kerry’s website: http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html#false.

130

If you read the action, you’ll see that Thurlow’s bronze star had nothing to do with enemy action. He got it for jumping onto an disabled boat rescuing people while it motored towards the shore out of control. It hit the shore, throwing him out of the boat and injuring him.

Kerry’s Bronze Star was for going back and pulling a guy out of the water “under heavy enemy fire”. There were four other boats in that action, and none of them reported taking any enemy fire. In fact, all four boats were dead in the water trying to get the disabled boat going and pull people out of the water, and not only was no one hit, there was no reported bullet damage to any other boat.

The people who signed affidavits to this effect were eyewitnesses, who were right there in that action with Kerry. Including Thurlow, who without question acted heroically that day and has the right to have his story heard without being reflexively called a liar because you don’t like what he has to say.

131

The problem, of course, is not that the Swift Boat Guys have a right to be heard. The problem is that they keep saying that they have something to say but never quite get around to saying it. If they have something to say there has to be a point that they quit showing the previews and start the main feature.

If these people have something to say which contradicts the recitations of Senator Kerry’s Bronze Star and Silver Star Awards then let them trot it out. So far about all we have is CPT Elliot (USN Ret) saying that if he had known the facts he would not have recommended the SS – but not a hint as to what these supposed facts, now uncovered some 35 years after the fact, might be or in what way they contradict the citations which are the official, vetted, published and accepted version of Kerry’s participation in those two incidents. If these guys have something they need to break it out and quit growling in the bushes. The longer it takes these people to come up with something positive as solid the more the whole thing look like a cynical and dishonest hatchet job – just what John McCain called it.

And what does Cambodia have to do with whether or not Kerry was properly awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star for valor (as opposed to meritorious service) and a Silver Star? Nothing? What does it have to do with Senator Kerry’s anti-war activity after he left active duty? Let me suggest everything.

So lets see them.

132

Thing is… If Thurlow is a hero when “no one” whas shooting at them and rescued people on a boat that was out of control (somehow I have a hard time to see how he can be rescuing people when the boat is out of control) gets injured by the boat, and he is a hero, why is Kerry not if he did pull up the guy out of the water? it seems bullets flying at that time was not the reason why they got the medals.

133

Have you read the sample chapter of their book coming out? They go into considerable detail there.

They claim to have signed affidavits to every charge they made. They should be forced to produce them. I don’t believe that they would be so stupid as to claim that they have a pile of affidavits and then refuse to produce them when called on to do so. So I’m operating on the assumption that they have the affidavits they claim to have.

Their book comes out in a few days. I think they’ll sink or swim based on that. They’ve gotten enough attention now that the book will be read and discussed, which is probably what they were hoping for with this opening salvo. If the book is short on fact and long on innuendo, these guys will sink like a stone, and deservedly so.

On the other hand, the book may turn out to be solidly documented and backed by enough evidence that they would be willing to go to court with it.

We’ll see in a few days.

In the meantime, I read the ‘rebuttal’ on Kerry’s site, and I have to say that it’s more than a little disingenuous. It keeps repeating, “These men did NOT service on Kerrys boat” over and over again. We know that. We get it. The site is clearly trying to make us think that these are people who are not in a position to judge Kerry. But in fact, in a lot of ways these fellow skippers were in a better position to judge Kerry than the enlisted men on his boat, because they were fellow officers who knew the doctrine, debriefed with him, trained with him, slept with him, ate with him, etc. They were on the water with him, and at least one of these guys was in every action that won Kerry his medals. So the Kerry site is pretty disingenous about that.

Here’s something else I don’t get. The Kerry site says, “Letson offers NO PROOF that he treated Kerry.” But yet, there is no statement from Kerry saying, “Letson is not the man who treated me.” Shouldn’t Kerry come right out and say that? On Letson’s side, he says he was the physician in charge, and he did the treatment, but the actual form was signed by a junior medic who was present, and that this was common.

134

Have you read the “action”? Try doing so here: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/SpotReports_March1969.pdf

I admit that I am not one to interpret all the jargon. Perhaps you, as an expert, might be able to help me read it. See, I get something else from it. Sounds like the MSF (I assume the guy who got knocked overboard) was in Thurlow’s boat. Yet Kerry picked him up and towed Thurlow’s boat. All boats returned fire, apparently, despite the absence of fire, for some reason. Here’s my transcript of some of the rough sections. Any transcription errors are mine.

It also sounds like Kerry’s boat did suffer a bit of damage:

But perhaps I am reading it all wrong.

135

Maybe you should just read the descriptions of what happened. A boat was hit by a mine, which blew three men into the water. Kerry immediately accelerated out of the ‘kill zone’, in case the mine was a setup for an ambush (there is dispute over whether this is correct behaviour - the other Swiftees say doctrine was to go to the aid of the damaged boat - the other three boats did that - Kerry’s accelerated away). Either the acceleration, the wave from the first mine, or a second mine detonating near Kerry’s boat caused Rassman to fall into the water off of Kerry’s boat.

After the initial excitement, Thurlow (who was a fellow Skipper like Kerry) pulled his boat alongside the disabled boat, and jumped aboard to help the gunner get out. The boat was apparently damaged and motoring towards the shore. Thurlow stayed on the boat and helped the gunner until the boat hit the bank, sending him flying.

In the meantime, the other three boats stopped in the water and started pulling in the other three guys from the first boat that was hit by a mine, while the gunners laid down suppression fire on the banks in case there was an ambush.

At the same time, Kerry realized that he had lost a man on his boat, and turned around and went back for him. He pulled the guy out of the water, joined up with the other boats, and they made their way out of the area.

Those are the facts which are not in dispute. In Kerry’s version, they were hit by a second mine, which wounded him and blew Rassman off the boat and into the water. Rassman says he just remembers hitting the water and hearing gunfire, so he dove to the bottom of the river, and then surfaced and re-dove until Kerry came back for him. Rassman says he believes they were taking fire. Kerry says they were taking fire. None of the other Swiftees on the river say they were taking fire.

To be fair to everyone, they may all believe it happened their way. Certainly when a boat explodes over a mine, people are hitting the water, and machine gun fire is erupting, it must all get very chaotic. And one difference is that the guys who say there was no return fire were the guys actually shooting at the banks, so they A) may not have heard the return fire, or B) may have been in an even better position to see that there was none. I don’t know. Maybe Kerry knew there was no enemy fire, or maybe there wasn’t but all the suppressive fire and the heat of the moment made him think there was.

This is one issue where, unless there is more evidence than I’ve read, I have to give the benefit of the doubt to Kerry. It is interesting that there were no casualties from gunfire or bullet damage to the boats, which doesn’t seem likely if four boats are sitting dead in the water taking heavy fire from hidden positions. But again, even if it turns out there was no enemy fire, I can certainly see how Kerry and Rassmann thought there was, so you can’t call it a lie, and if they thought there was enemy fire then Kerry’s actions were every bit as brave as the medal citation said they were.

136

I forgot Hoffman. It would appear that Hoffman, at least, had considerable contact with Sen. Kerry, by way of the aforementioned Lonsdale…

“Captain Roy Hoffman was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, and it was Hoffman’s decision to send Navy Swift boats up the narrow rivers in the Mekong Delta of South Vietnam — almost always without support from helicopters or artillery — where they ran the risk of mines and were fired on almost at will by Viet Cong dug in along the river’s banks. A Swift boat mission up a Mekong Delta river was a fool’s errand, serving no greater purpose than showing the flag. At one point, Kerry and a fellow skipper named Don Droz protested to Hoffman’s immediate superior, Area Commander Adrian Lonsdale, an act of courage in itself. Kerry told the commander: ‘Sir, I don’t see how you can ask American troops to risk their lives when the priority in that area isn’t high enough to warrant their getting certain support. I just don’t think that’s right.’ A career Navy officer, Lonsdale told Kerry and Droz he was doing what he was told and couldn’t fight it.”

http://cjr.org/issues/2004/2/larsen-endless.asp

Black eyes, feathers in our caps, and Catch-22.

137

In fact, they’d be just as brave as the medal citation, the situation report, and everyone there at the time said at the time. I really, really don’t care if they have affidavits where they now swear things happened differently. At the time, everyone agreed on what happened. Either they were lying then, immediatley after it happened, or they’re lying now, when they’re trying to stop someone they now dislike (based on his actions after he got home) from becoming elected. I’ll opt for “lying now.” Perhaps they don’t realize they’re lying; perhaps they have built up a different version of events from what they remembered immediately thereafter (eye-witness testimony can be funny like that). But I believe they are lying now.

Unfortunately, the standard for libel against a public figure is saying something which you know isn’t true. If they have convinced themselves that it’s true, then they get a pass, and it would be hard to proove what they know.

138

Here’s a version (I assume based on Kerry’s description) of the incident. It seems to match the action report pretty well.

http://www.thehistorynet.com/ah/blkerryinvietnam/index2.html

It also illustrates why making this debate, as distracting as it is from the other problems that Bush is facing, pretty problematic. It focuses attention on the actions that Kerry took, reminding people that he was indisputably under fire and heroic during his time in Viet Nam, choosing to ask people whether these actions were medal-worthy. Even if one blindly chooses to believe that they were not, it solidifies the fact that he put himself in the middle of a shitstorm, whereas Bush may or may not have been showing up in Alabama.

139

If these swift boat guys are so sure that Kerry’s Silver Star was bogus, why don’t they petition the pentagon to get it revoked?
As this site shows, there is a mechanism in place for taking back such honors:

Why make all this noise in the press, and not do anything about what they claim is the real problem?

140

But while we’re discussing this, nobody’s hearing the Bush was AWOL in Alabama. What the polling suggests is that people don’t care that much about Kerry’s Vietnam record. So the best thing for Bush to do is to try and pick up the occasional moron who believes these Frei Korps wannabes, while avoiding a side by side comparison.