As I said, O’Neill says that he’s given far more to Democrats, but at the Houston civic level.
But I’m not sure why O’Neill’s partisanship is even at issue here. It would be if he was offering up his personal testimony against Kerry’s, but he’s not. He’s simply compiled a brief against Kerry. He has presented evidence, and the evidence should be evaluated - not the personal character of O’Neill. But of course, this is just part of the Democratic smear campaign. Don’t debate the evidence - throw up a cloud of bullshit and side issues and character assassinations and hope the whole thing gets so confusing that it goes away.
But there are facts that can be evaluated. No speculation required. For example:
John Kerry’s 3rd purple heart:
-
John Kerry claimed that he was injured in combat by shrapnel when a mine went off under his boat. The wound listed in the medical report was specifically “shrapnel wound to the buttock”.
-
John Kerry’s OWN JOURNAL says that he got his buttock wound earlier in the day, when he and Rassman were destroying VC rice stockpiles with grenades.
Conclusion: Kerry lied. He saw an opportunity to turn his embarassing accident into a combat injury, and he took it. These documents are publically available and can be examined. Please explain this.
John Kerry’s first purple heart:
-
John Kerry claims that he was injured by enemy fire when he was reaching for an M-16. The swiftboat vets claim that he shot an M-79 grenade off too close to the boat and nicked himself with a small piece of shrapnel, and that there was no enemy fire.
-
The only medical officer at the base says that he plucked a tiny shard out of his arm with tweezers and applied a band-aid.
-
Kerry’s commanding officer says that Kerry came to him and said that he had been wounded in combat and should have a purple heart. The commander denied the request, and sent him on his way.
-
Kerry got a purple heart, and no one knows how, because Kerry won’t release the records surrounding it.
-
If there was combat, there has to be an after-action report. It’s mandatory whenever the enemy shoots at you. There is no after-action report for that incident.
-
Kerry’s story is denied by Admiral William Schact, who was the Judge Advocate General for the navy. He says he was on the boat at the time, and there was no enemy fire. Generally, the JAG for the Navy would be considered a pretty good witness. Two enlisted men dispute this, and say Schaacht was not on the boat. Again, the records surrounding this award could help clear this up, but Kerry refuses to release them.
Christmas in Cambodia:
-
Kerry has claimed for 35 years that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. He claims this was a defining moment of his life - a moment when the wool was pulled from his eyes and he saw the war for what it was. Key to this memory is that he was ORDERED into Cambodia, and that his president was telling people there were no troops there while he was sitting five miles across the border.
-
The Kerry campaign has now admitted that he wasn’t there. They have alternately said that he was ‘near’ the border, that he wasn’t near the border, that it must have been January, that he made one mission into Cambodia at a later date, and that he made three or four missions. The story changes repeatedly.
-
Not a single crewmember backs him up on this, including the ‘band of brothers’ he hauls around with him. Steve Gardner, who was the gunner’s mate on his boat at the time, flatly denies that they were ever within 50 miles of Cambodia.
The other episodes in dispute (the silver star and bronze star) are more fuzzy, and I’m still inclined to say that the differences of opinion could be simply the ‘fog of war’. The swift vets also do not dispute Kerry’s 2nd Purple Heart, simply because they have no evidence one way or the other.
Kerry should have been discharged from the reserves in 1972. He was discharged in 1978. We don’t know why, because Kerry will not release the records around that time.
Finally, Kerry’s records are strange. There are three separate citations for his Silver Star, all with different wording (not just re-issuances of his first citation). His Silver Star citation says that he is entitled to wear the ‘combat V’, which is not awarded with the Silver Star. It could be a clerical error, I suppose, but since the pattern of his three citations are that each subsequent one has increasingly glowing language, my guess is that someone sympathetic to Kerry somewhere along the way tweaked his records a bit for political purposes.
There are at least 100 pages of records in the Navy file for Kerry. A FOIA request turns up six pages. The rest are witheld. Kerry can sign a standard form 180 and release them all, but he refuses.
You anti-Bush guys have been going on about his guard service for what, four years? Based on far less evidence than what we have about Kerry’s record. And you know, when allegations about Bush’s guard stuff came up, I don’t remember the big effort to attack the character of those making the allegations. When Turnipseed said he couldn’t remember Bush, you all treating this like an absolute smoking gun, despite the fact that the man changed his story shortly after.
When allegations are made against Bush, the allegations must be investigated. When allegations are made of Kerry, we must investigate those making the allegations. Big difference here.
