# Swiftboat Vets startin' to look pretty good. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875 "2004-09-24T14:26:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/261 "2004-09-29T01:49:09Z")
Buckle in, kiddos-looks like we’re in for yet another 22 page debunking for the Swifties. _sigh_ ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/262 "2004-09-29T01:58:32Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > That’s not a cite, that’s merely a repetition of the allegation. There is no appeal to authority there. It’s like saying “Bush snorts cocaine off hookers’ breasts” - [www.kittykelley.com](http://www.kittykelley.com) or “Clinton, Gore: Illuminati Space Aliens!” - [www.lyndonlarouche.com](http://www.lyndonlarouche.com). Couldn’t you be bothered linking to Free Republic or something? It appears you’re not very observant. Look again at the link. This time carefully: [www.swiftboats.net](http://www.swiftboats.net) Do you see it? Now go ahead and click on it. Not what you thought it was, was it? Now look again for PCF-31, and the name Zaladonis. Do you see my point? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/263 "2004-09-29T02:01:36Z")
**Diogenes** , that’s a smart move. Nothing that you say is going to move The Immovable Object, since the point of this exercise isn’t to prove anything one way or the other, it’s to keep this stuff in play so that no one thinks about Cheney’s deferments, Ashcroft’s deferments, Buchanan’s bum leg (he at least opposes the Iraq war, anyway), or of course the fact that Bush pulled every string on the planet to make sure he didn’t have to do anything more strenuous than play a fighter pilot on TV instead of actually being one. There is a long and highly dishonorable history of cowards sending brave young men off to fight and die for nothing more than their egos. That’s what we have in the Iraq war. These threads are an exercise in trying to deny this simple truth. Every additional post validates that denial. Let it die, and let these people stew in their own dishonor. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/264 "2004-09-29T02:08:21Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > It appears you’re not very observant. Look again at the link. My apologies, I was wrong. I thought you were attempting to do the same thing you did in post #91, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/265 "2004-09-29T03:16:11Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > \*\* > > Regarding the “M-79 wounds,” I wrote that it seemed unbelievable that he could wound himself like that twice on purpose, and you respond:My impression, from having perused the Swiftvets message board, is that in fact many people believe just that. YMMV. I’ve been perusing the board since August, and I have yet to such an opinion expressed. I must have missed it. I don’t beleive there’s much if any of what you say going on. Can I have some links? > [@](#): > > Then why on earth do these baseless accusations take up so much space, both on their web site and in their book? Because it’s the only part that’s arguable. The Testimony, the interviews, etc are all on the record. > [@](#): > > But which one’s service was more honourable, do you think? It doesn’t work that way, in my book. Honor is either there, or it’s not. > [@](#): > > Yet the fact that Bush lied in order to start an unprovoked war of choice in Iraq, which you have freely admitted, somehow doesn’t damage him in your eyes – at least not to the extent that you would consider voting for someone else. I find this discrepancy simply mind-boggling. We’ve done that. We’re talking about Kerry here. Or, at least I am. > [@](#): > > Well, his biographer claims that he was there, but just got confused about the dates. It’s possible that with the passage of years he got confused about the dates and came to genuinely believe he was in Cambodia on Christmas: these things actually happen, as any psychologist can tell you (ask **Hentor** , for example). Or, indeed, he may have purposely chosen to ”fib” a bit for the sake of rhetoric – how many old vets don’t occasionally exaggerate a war story or two? Or, finally, he may have been lying outright, although this is simply a faith-based assertion on your part, since you have no evidence whatsoever that he wasn’t in Cambodia.No. Being in Cambodia is a claim that Kerry made. There is no substantiation, not a single person who served with him or on his boat that claims they were ever in Cambodia with Kerry. It is rather unusual and exceptional claim that Kerry has made. A negative cannot generally be proven. It is the actual claim that requires substantiation. The **only** substantiation that Kerry has is the story he told, and he is on the record telling it several different ways that are mutually contradictive. He’s in Cambodia, no he’s in a mortar attack, no he’s back at base, no he’s going to the Bob Hope show, no it was Christmas eve, not Christmas, no it was secret missions at some other time. Nobody substantiates the Cambodia story. Nobody. Not even Kerry. He contradicts himself and you have to arbitrarily choose which version to believe. By what possible criteria do you put it out there as fact. It’s ridiculous. > [@](#): > > YOU ASKED ME TO PRESENT AN EXAMPLE IN WHICH DEMONSTRATED THAT THE SWIFTVETS WERE ”FULL OF IT.” I PRESENTED ONE QUOTE FROM THEIR BOOK WHICH IS DEMONSTRATABLY FALSE. No. It is not. You have a cite which appears to contradict it. It only appears to contradict it when you refuse to see that two different things are being described. UFC describes Kerry’s units’ patrol area on Christmas of 1968. Your cite describes an overview of all units participating in operation Sealord throughout the campaign. Further, it is disingenuous of you to say that this is an example of the Swiftvets lying. The Swiftvets did their research and they properly attribute their research in this instance to Tom Anderson who was the Commander of River Division 531, who happened to be **on the scene** at the time. Would you argue that your cite presents a more authoritative viewpoint for this particular fact, than the man who was on the scene? And again, if I’m generous, and I decide that your generic overview cite trumps my specific man on the scene cite, than Tom Anderson is simply to blame. The Swiftvets have not lied. They’ve produced a cite that is in error. > [@](#): > > Whether Kerry ever was or was not in Cambodia is really irrelevant to this point. In the passage from the book cited above, the Swifties claim that NO SWIFTBOATS WERE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL NORTH OF SA DEC IN DECEMBER OF 1968. What it actually says is “Areas closer than 55 miles to the Cambodian border _in the area of the Mekong River_ were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats.” (I added the italics.) This is somewhat different from your capitalized statement. > [@](#): > > The cite I’ve presented, which is a history of Operation Sealords, CLEARLY SHOWS THIS CLAIM TO BE FALSE, AND STATES UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT BY LATE NOVEMBER OF 1968, SWIFT BOATS WERE PLAYING AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN SEALORDS OPERATIONS NORTH FROM SA DEC TO WITHIN AT LEAST 5 KILOMETERS OF THE CAMBODIAN BORDER. If you are going to shout, which I take to mean that you’re getting huffy because you feel I’m being stubborn or obtuse THAN IT BEHOOVES YOU TO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. The fact that you are disputing is not the one made in the book, and your cite is hardly the final authority even if it were. > [@](#): > > Sorry for the all the caps, but I feel like I have to keep addressing the same objections over and over again. You don’t seem to be reading my links very carefully. On the contrary. You seem to missing something. Sam it appears, has it right. As do I. I’ll tell you as clearly as I can where I believe you’re making the area. There is more than one base besides Cat Lo. What UFC is actually saying is that PCF from Cat LO did not patrol further up the Mekong river than 55 miles from Cambodia in December of 1968. Your cite says that there were patrol boats closer than 55 miles to Cambodia. These boats came from An Thoi and had a different patrol areal than the ones from Cat lo. Logical, yes? Different bases in different locals equals different patrol areas. If you go to [www.Swiftboats.net](http://www.Swiftboats.net), which appears to me to be a historical cite rather than a partisan one you can click on different groups and bases and see their patrol areas. Anderson in UFC does **not** say no PCF were closer than 55 miles from Cambodia, contrary to your claim. He says the patrol on the Mekong river closer than 55 miles to Cambodia was patrolled by PBRs not Swifts in Decmeber of '68. Furthermore, there were Swiftboats operating of Ann Thoi in the Gulf of Siam that clearly spent much time right off the coast of Cambodia, perhaps mere meters. Look at the map on your cite and find Ann Thoi, and you’ll see what I mean and why there’s no contradiction here. > [@](#): > > The challenge was not to ”prove” the Swifties were lying, by the way, just that they were ”full of it.” One can be full of it because one is flat out wrong, you know. They’re not full of it. You didn’t fully understand your own cite and the context of Anderson’s quote. There are other ways to Cambodia besides the Mekong river. There’s the whole coas which was patrolled by Swifts out of Ann Thoi. > [@](#): > > And by the way: the claim made by the Swiftvets, that the waterways into Cambodia were marked and blocked by concertina wire, pylons, and so forth, is absurd on the face of it, and has also been shown to be false, in the previous thread on this topic. I doubt it. It’s just the Mekong river that was blocked on the border. Clearly the coastline remained open and was patrolled by Swifts out of Ann Thoi. > [@](#): > > That’s two examples of the Swifties being ”full of it” thus far, with regard to this story alone. Only if you don’t have your facts straight. > [@](#): > > But there’s more.By spring of 1970, Nixon had officially sanctioned such incursions into neutral Cambodia.I can’t really judge if it’s the best. Kerry wasn’t there. It’s not what we’re talking about. > [@](#): > > We have more, many more. If you concede that this an example of ”inaccuracy” on the part of the Swifties, we can move on to the next one, if you like. I’ve got time. Sure let’s move on. Before we do, though. Do you agree that you are wrong on this one. Do you concede that there is a Cambodian coastline that was patrolled closely by Swifts out of Ann Thoi and that by context Anderson was specifically not referring to these? > [@](#): > > Why is it that when I give you what you request, you always degrade it as a ”potential inaccuracy on a minor point”? It’s not even that. Now that I understand it, it’s obvious that you are flat out wrong. Once you look at the map, I’m sure you’ll agree. You were much better off with the “potential innacuracy.” Now you’re completely, and obviously wrong. > [@](#): > > This, you claim, is a minor point. That the Kerry campaign has admitted that Kerry ”might” have wounded himself with his own M-79 on December 2, 1968, is a ”minor point,” you tell me. Yeah, it’s a minor point. > [@](#): > > When does a lie or inaccuracy become a ”major point”?I don’t want to send you on a fruitless hours-long search over things you believe to be minor. Concede that you have no real evidence for your statement and we can forget it. But if you want to cling to this claim, or make it in other arguments, then I’m going to be forced to ask you to back it up. Well, this is a real quandary. I’m not going to pay for the transcript. This press release that I did cite is widely circulated. If it were a fabrication I’m sure somebody would have jumped on it. It is not in dispute by Kerry’s campaign or any bloggers that I’ve been able to find. I’ve presented you with a press release substantiating my claim. The press release admittedly is not a first-hand transcript. The first hand transcript costs money. Even if I pay for it, I can’t link to it, you’ll have to hear it from me which will still be secondhand. The only way that this can be substantiated to your satisfaction is if you see it firsthand yourself in the transcript which means you have to pay money, too. I’ve presented you with a cite. It could be better, I admit. If you seriously doubt it, and it’s important, go pay the cash. I’m not going to take crap though for saying something and providing a cite for it. Nor am I going to fault you if it’s not good enough. But, if you want to resolve it and see the transcript, you have to subscribe. My subscribing and telling you it’s what is described in the press release is still secondhand. > [@](#): > > By the way, I don’t really consider this statement to be minor. If the Kerry campaign has admitted that Kerry may have wounded himself, by mistake, with his own M-79, for which he received his first Purple Heart, I would consider it to be major. Remember, though, that the quote in question must specifically concede that, in the incident that led to Kerry’s first Purple Heart, Kerry wounded himself with his own M-79, as claimed by Schacte. I think it’s minor. It’s pretty obvious to me that it was probably a friendly fire wound. To me that is not a knock on Kerry. Whether or not a Kerry representative admits the obvious is only of academic interest. There is nothing wrong about getting hit by friendly fire. The only reason we are interested in this is because of an attempt to prove that Schacte is lying. Such an admission or lack of one, does not prove the point either way, so it’s minor. > [@](#): > > Continuing: with regard to this first Purple Heart, I wrote that ”within 9 days he (Kerry) was commanding a Swift boat all on his own.” You respond:? > > Kerry received his first Purple Heart on Dec 2, 1968. Yes? He was given command of PCF 44 on Dec. 6, 1968. That’s four days later, which is certainly a period ”within 9 days.” In what way have I been inaccurate? What you said was: "Kerry had already served one tour of duty; within 9 days he was commanding a Swift boat all on his own. " I took this to mean (and I still take it to mean from context) that Kerry took command of a Swiftboat within 9 days of the end of his first tour of duty. This is obviously wrong, and I corrected it. If you meant something else that’s no problem. I went off what you actually wrote. **This** seems minor. Yes? > [@](#): > > Finally: I’m not all that concerned about Kerry’s memory. I’m asking you about Hibbert’s memory. See my post [#145](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5297231&postcount=145), bottom section. You’re kidding me, right. Forearm, elbow who cares? People do not speak with absolute precision. Do you really expect them to? Kerry says he was in Cambodia, no wait he was back at base, no wait he is in a mortar attack, no wait he was looking for Bob Hope and you find this perfectly acceptable. Hibbard on the other hand conflates elbow with forearm and this disproves the Swiftvets? Gimme a break. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/266 "2004-09-29T03:32:35Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > My apologies, I was wrong. I thought you were attempting to do the same thing you did in post #91, for example. No problem (I was being facetious there, you know.) [www.swiftvets.com](http://www.swiftvets.com) and [www.swiftboats.net](http://www.swiftboats.net) **do** look very similar, don’t they? Anyway, did you see what I was pointing at. According to that, Zaldonis was **not** in Cam Ranh Bay at the time. This is interesting because of a letter that Schacte wrote concerning this incident: > [@](#): > > I commanded each of these Skimmer operations up to and including the one on the night in question involving Lt. (jg) Kerry. On each of these operations, I was in the skimmer manning the M-60 machine gun. I took with me one other officer and an enlisted man to operate the outboard motor. I wanted another officer because officers, when not on patrol, were briefed daily on the latest intelligence concerning our sector of operations and were therefore more familiar with the current intelligence. Additionally, at these daily briefings, officers debriefed on their patrol areas after returning to port. > > On the night of December 2-3, we conducted one of these operations, and Lt. (jg) Kerry accompanied me. Our call sign for that operation was “Batman.” I have no independent recollection of the identity of the enlisted man, who was operating the outboard motor The full letter can be read here: [http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200408280010.asp](http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200408280010.asp) From the part that I quote, Schacte says he always took one officer and one enlisted man. Runyon and Zaldonis are a part of Kerry’s band of Brothers. Both claim to have been on the boat. Zaldonis apparently wasn’t even in Cam Rahn Bay on the date in question. As far as I can tell, this is the first place that this has been put together. I’m not asserting as of yet, that this proves Zaldonis is lying or that he wasn’t on the boat. Somebody show me if there’s a hole in this though. It certainly seems interesting, does it not? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/267 "2004-09-29T07:25:45Z")
**Sam** : I’m not sure that the Vietnamese shoot guns to celebrate Tet either, for what it’s worth, which is a month-long celebration of the lunar new year. In 1968 Tet was began some time in February, which was also discussed in the previous thread. > [@](#): > > \*Plus, this is the ONLY Christmas he spent in Vietnam. Don’t you think he’d remember where he was? Special Christmases like that do not fade from memory. \* Good point. While of this ”seared into his memory” stuff could have been added for rhetorical purposes, it seems that he would have remembered that particular Christmas. But I’m not at all convinced that he never was in Cambodia. Sorry. Also, I’m not sure about if, or how, the Vietnamese celebrate Christmas. Approximately 10% of the population is Catholic, though, and the South Vietnamese government of the time was Catholic as well, so it’s possible that they celebrated Christmas in some manner. **Scylla** : I’ll get back to you on the quotes from the Swiftvets message board. Mods, am I allowed to post short passages from other message boards here at the Straight Dope? Let’s stop and summarize the dispute thus far: The Swiftvets argue that Kerry was not in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, which the Kerry campaign has also conceded, so that point is moot. However: As a part of their argument, the Swiftvets assert that Kerry couldn’t possibly have made it to Cambodia during that period, because Swiftboats were not allowed to traverse the border area. In support of that contention they quote Tom Andersson, who flatly states: > [@](#): > > **Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats… Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared.** Now, you know, and I know, that the purpose of this passage is too imply that Kerry’s claim is completely absurd from a logistical perspective as well, as in, ”Not only can Kerry not confirm that he was in Cambodia, the fact is that _no_ Swiftboats were allowed up there.” Now, observe the quote from the YRMB page: > [@](#): > > **As SEALORDS gathered steam in late 1968 and 1969, and _with the Swifts joining the other river forces in the push to take the interdiction operations closer to the border of Cambodia_, the YRBMs also became “forward bases” for the PCFs operating out Cat Lo and eventually, in 1970, out of Sa Dec and Vinh Long.** Then, note this passage from the Sealords history page: > [@](#): > > **Later in the month, in operation Foul Deck, Swift Boats, PBRs, Riverine Assault Craft, and Vietnamese naval vessels penetrated the Giang Thanh River-Vinh Te Canal system, north of Search Turn and nearer to the Cambodian border, to establish patrols all along that waterway from Ha Tien on the Gulf of Siam to Chau Doc on the upper Bassac.** Now, look at the map. What does Tom Anderson mean when he uses the word ”area,” **Scylla**? How large is an ”area?” 5 miles? 10 miles? Is the Bassac River in the same ”area” as the Mekong? Is Chau Doc in the same ”area?” Do you get to decide what ”area” mean, or can I play to? Did Swifts travel from Chau Doc to Ha Tien, a stretch of marsh and waterways along the Cambodian border, as stated on the Sealords page, and as I stated previously as well, or not? > [@](#): > > _UFC describes Kerry’s units’ patrol area on Christmas of 1968. Your cite describes an overview of all units participating in operation Sealord throughout the campaign._ ? Mr. Anderson makes no specific mention of the whereabouts of Kerry’s patrol unit whatsoever. He makes a general statement that no Swiftboats were allowed north of Sa Dec ”in the area of the Mekong” during an operation in which, at least as far as I can see, Swiftboats were employed in a major combat roll to free up larger waterways in the area north of the Mekong (depending, perhaps, on how narrowly one chooses to define ”area”). Even you concede that Swiftboats were patrolling the area along the Cambodian border. > [@](#): > > **He says the patrol on the Mekong river closer than 55 miles to Cambodia was patrolled by PBRs not Swifts in Decmeber of '68.** Well, okay, if we’re going to mark words in this manner, two can play I suppose. Anderson says no such thing. He says that there were no Swifts patrolling in the _area of the Mekong River_ north of Sa Dec in December of 1968. However, let me suggest an alternative scenario: since, apparently, by your definition, Chau Doc doesn’t lie in the ”area” of the Mekong, then let’s say that is entirely possible that Kerry boat travelled up the Bassac to Chau Doc and then into Cambodia. This would make Anderson’s claim, in this context, _completely irrelevant._ If this is the case, why would O’Neill and Corsi include it in a discussion of Kerry’s whereabouts in 1968? > [@](#): > > _Sure let’s move on. Before we do, though. Do you agree that you are wrong on this one. Do you concede that there is a Cambodian coastline that was patrolled closely by Swifts out of Ann Thoi and that by context Anderson was specifically not referring to these?_ Not really, no. I don’t agree with your version of the context. The context of the quote is a debunking of Kerry’s claim that he was in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968. In this context, the quote is designed to lure the unwary reader into believing that Kerry could not possibly have made it into Cambodia on that date, because the only route in was blocked by PBRs. This is misleading, if not an outright lie. Regarding this: > [@](#): > > **I’ve presented you with a cite. It could be better, I admit. If you seriously doubt it, and it’s important, go pay the cash. I’m not going to take crap though for saying something and providing a cite for it. Nor am I going to fault you if it’s not good enough. But, if you want to resolve it and see the transcript, you have to subscribe. My subscribing and telling you it’s what is described in the press release is still secondhand.** This is Great Debates. You know the rules. It is not my responsibility to chase down cites to prove your point. If the Kerry campaign has conceded this point, a simple Google search would surely locate a direct quote from Kerry or one of his representatives in which this concession is made. An off-the-cuff sound bite from a representative of the Swiftvets on a single talk show is _not good enough_, and you should know this. If you cannot find and cite a more reputable source, but continue make the claim, then I will be forced to accuse of wilfully spreading disinformation. Which, by the way, is exactly what I accuse the Swiftvets of doing. Gotta go. More later. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/268 "2004-09-29T12:26:06Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > [b > **Scylla** : > > What does Tom Anderson mean when he uses the word ”area,” **Scylla**? How large is an ”area?” 5 miles? 10 miles? > > Is the Bassac River in the same ”area” as the Mekong? Is Chau Doc in the same ”area?” Do you get to decide what ”area” mean, or can I play to? Since it’s oen to interpretation, it seems very irresponsible to insist he’s lying > [@](#): > > fts travel from Chau Doc to Ha Tien, a stretch of marsh and waterways along the Cambodian border, as stated on the Sealords page, and as I stated previously as well, or not?? I wasn’ there. > [@](#): > > Mr. Anderson makes no specific mention of the whereabouts of Kerry’s patrol unit whatsoever. He makes a general statement that no Swiftboats were allowed north of Sa Dec ”in the area of the Mekong” during an operation in which, at least as far as I can see, Swiftboats were employed in a major combat roll to free up larger waterways in the area north of the Mekong (depending, perhaps, on how narrowly one chooses to define ”area”). Even you concede that Swiftboats were patrolling the area along the Cambodian border.Well, okay, if we’re going to mark words in this manner, two can play I suppose. Anderson says no such thing. He says that there were no Swifts patrolling in the _area of the Mekong River_ north of Sa Dec in December of 1968. I have the book. Anderson is not quoted directly here, but cited as the source of the information. This information applies specifically to Kerry’s unit. That is the context. > [@](#): > > However, let me suggest an alternative scenario: since, apparently, by your definition, Chau Doc doesn’t lie in the ”area” of the Mekong, then let’s say that is entirely possible that Kerry boat travelled up the Bassac to Chau Doc and then into Cambodia. This would make Anderson’s claim, in this context, _completely irrelevant._ I suppose. > [@](#): > > If this is the case, why would O’Neill and Corsi include it in a discussion of Kerry’s whereabouts in 1968?Not really, no. I don’t agree with your version of the context. The context of the quote is a debunking of Kerry’s claim that he was in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968. In this context, the quote is designed to lure the unwary reader into believing that Kerry could not possibly have made it into Cambodia on that date, because the only route in was blocked by PBRs. This is misleading, if not an outright lie. Jesus Christ Svin. They probably included it, because Kerry was supposed to keep his boat in his patrol area with the other boats in his patrol. > [@](#): > > Regarding this:This is Great Debates. You know the rules. It is not my responsibility to chase down cites to prove your point. Bullshit. I gave you the cite. **You** want a better one. I showed you where a better one is. **YOU** have to pay to get it, if you want it. [/quote] If the Kerry campaign has conceded this point, a simple Google search would surely locate a direct quote from Kerry or one of his representatives in which this concession is made. An off-the-cuff sound bite from a representative of the Swiftvets on a single talk show is _not good enough_, and you should know this. If you cannot find and cite a more reputable source, but continue make the claim, then I will be forced to accuse of wilfully spreading disinformation. [/quote] And then I’ll call you a lying lemur, and a hypocrite with double standards. You just walk around insisting that Anderson’s quote is a lie, when in fact, by your own admission, you can prove no such thing. Then I’ll make some other threats involving toilet paper and chewing gum and we can call each other names. Or you can just debate. > [@](#): > > Which, by the way, is exactly what I accuse the Swiftvets of doing. > > Gotta go. More later. And you need a better cite to do that. Anderson was the man on the scene, the Commander in charge. That’s my cite. Your cite is an historical overview. If you want to stand on this, you need a better cite to overcome Anderson. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/269 "2004-09-29T13:41:31Z")
Well, it appears that the premise of my original OP has been validated, much to the chagrin of the majority of those who wear the badge of “Doper”. The thread has gone on for six pages now, and the veracity of the Swiftboat Vets is still debatable. While, on the otherhand, CBS’s reprehensible offense against the whole of American society, is beyond debate. See, here’s the deal. Had CBS been truly concerned with factually reporting the story in question, CBS would have discovered that the documents were forged. But, CBS’s main concern was to report a story that painted President Bush in a less than flattering light, so as to influence the election of a president. CBS’s actions were egregious to the point of warranting FCC sanctions. So, compared to the Swiftboat Vets, IMNSHO, CBS has actually been detrimental to society as a whole. ## Yep, comparatively, Swiftboat Vets don’t look bad at all. Dopers and Freepers… the same birds, just a different color plumage. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/270 "2004-09-29T13:45:45Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > CBS’s actions were egregious to the point of warranting FCC sanctions. > > So, compared to the Swiftboat Vets, IMNSHO, CBS has actually been detrimental to society as a whole. > > Yep, comparatively, Swiftboat Vets don’t look bad at all. Fine… make your own conclusions… I just think CBS was stupid and wanted their “breaking story” too quick. Even if they were out to get Bush they didn’t make up those documents. Swiftboats were out to hit Kerry by deliberate lies from the beggining. ``` Did anyone actually defend CBS ? To me it seems your trying to defend Swiftboats. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/271 "2004-09-29T18:21:33Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Even if they were out to get Bush they didn’t make up those documents. Wonder who did create those forgeries. CBS says that they don’t want to reveal the name of their source. (I guess they want to use the same source again.) I just don’t see why a major player in the establishment media would want to protect a source that screwed them over with forged documents. But wait a minute, maybe they don’t have a source to reveal. Perhaps the “source” is internal to CBS. > [@](#): > > To me it seems your trying to defend Swiftboats. Why’s that, 'cause I compared them to a division of the “Ministry of Truth”? That seems to be the only rebuttal available to those whose sacred cow is getting gored. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/272 "2004-09-29T18:39:19Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > The thread has gone on for six pages now, and the veracity of the Swiftboat Vets is still debatable. Well, I would argue that the fact that the debate has gone on for 6 pages says more about some of the people debating it than about the premise itself. > [@](#): > > While, on the otherhand, CBS’s reprehensible offense against the whole of American society, is beyond debate. If you mean by “reprehensible offense” you mean that CBS made an incredibly stupid mistake then I agree. If you mean that in doing so, they committed a reprehensible offense by: (1) Giving the right-wing echo chamber something to harp about and an excuse to dismiss all past and future reporting about any subject that they don’t like as biased, and (2) Creating a distraction that has now caused people to discount the various questions surrounding Bush’s National Guard service even though those questions remain and even though the secretary who says these particular memos not the real thing notes that they were not inaccurate in their representation of her boss’s view of Bush and were similar to memos that she did type. then I also agree with you. Somehow, though, I don’t think this is what you are complaining about. > [@](#): > > Had CBS been truly concerned with factually reporting the story in question, CBS would have discovered that the documents were forged. But, CBS’s main concern was to report a story that painted President Bush in a less than flattering light, so as to influence the election of a president. Pure speculation as to motives. And, as I noted, you have been selective here in what you have focussed on. Why not reserve the same shock and horror for the fanciful reporting about WMDs in the N.Y. Times by Judith Miller before the Iraq War, as I noted in post #52? Why not insist that the N.Y. Times launch an independent investigation as CBS is doing? This was an offense with much worse consequences since it was not uncovered until well after the deceptions had been propagated and the Iraq War had happened! As I noted, the net effect of CBS’s idiocy is that they have helped Bush. I’m not claiming that was there intent (because I’m not psychic like you are) but that was their effect. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/273 "2004-09-29T18:45:55Z")
Oh yeah…And, another bit of fallout from the CBS fiasco is that now the network has delayed until after the election [a story](http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert262.shtml) about the Bush Administration and the forged Niger documents: > [@](#): > > CBS confirmed over the weekend that its news division had shelved a CBS news investigation into the Bush Administration’s intelligence on alleged Iraqi nukes because it would be “inappropriate” to air so close to a presidential election. As you may recall, this story has its own dubious documents: President Bush based his famous and false claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger on a set of crudely forged intelligence communiqués. For the last two years, no one has uncovered who falsified these documents, which lie at the heart of Bush’s case for war. CBS now seems unwilling to put the issue before the American public. And, in other news (from that same link), the Chairman of CBS’s parent company Viacom announced his endorsement of Bush: > [@](#): > > Sumner Redstone told the Asian Wall Street Journal: “From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on . . . from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/274 "2004-09-29T19:36:24Z")
Might not be a bad move on CBS’s part anyway. The topic isn’t a scoop by any means, any other source can do the story (and may feel compelled to if/when it gets heavy play in the debates), and it’s too easy right now for the RW echo chamber to reply “Oh, is \*that \* what CBS is saying now? Tee hee.” > [@Razorsharp](#): > > The veracity of the Swiftboat Vets is still debatable. Ya know, that doesn’t really matter. None of them is running for President anyway. But what do you conclude about _Kerry_’s “veracity”? Is it similarly debatable? How does his veracity compare to Bush’s? That’s what you need to ponder. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/275 "2004-09-29T20:59:02Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > Wonder who did create those forgeries. CBS says that they don’t want to reveal the name of their source. (I guess they want to use the same source again.) Not one to let the facts get in the way of a good rant, are you? CBS has indeed revealed the identity of the person who gave them the memos. Dan Rather even interviewed him on camera to question him about the documents. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644539.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644539.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/276 "2004-09-29T22:23:34Z")
**MrS** , as much as I appreciate all of your ignorance fighting efforts in the past – and believe me, I do – I think you’re wasting a valuable resource here: yourself. For this is one ‘debate’ that’s specifically designed to be unwinnable. No matter how many facts you bring into the picture, no matter how many allegations you knock-down, in the end, the Whack-a-Boaters, can simply change course, move the goalposts and make any number of additional _subjective_ claims that no one’s ever going to be able to “debunk.” So the whole thing simply becomes a battle of attrition, one that you _can’t and won’t_ win, because of the bottom line: Kerry is bad because [sub]fill in the blank[/sub]. Lather, rinse, repeat…and hope something sticks. And the longer they manage to keep the topic alive, the better the odds a soundbyte or two will linger around long enough to catch someone’s ear. i.e. post the last message on the topic and claim ‘victory.’ I say let them have it. While it’s true that the Kerry campaign reacted slowly to the initial attacks, I also think that by now anyone still pushing the Shifties wares, either, 1-Can’t and won’t be convinced that they are peddling BS, because they are True Believers and Bush is good and Kerry is bad. or 2-Know _exactly_ what they are doing but will continue to do so anyway…because they are also True Believers and The Cause is all that matters. Anyway, far be it from me to tell you what to do. But I’d love to see those great dabating skills of yours put to better use. As in yet another thread reminding all comers of the numerous deceptions and outright lies used by this Administration in their reckless pursuit of their ideology. Not only can you nail them with facts yet again, but there’s the outside chance you might reach an undecided reader or two. Just a thought. All the best just the same. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/277 "2004-09-29T22:25:51Z")
Make that “great **debating** skills” and leave the rest as is. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/278 "2004-09-29T23:51:23Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > Well, it appears that the premise of my original OP has been validated, much to the chagrin of the majority of those who wear the badge of “Doper”. I just reread your OP. Strictly speaking, it didn’t **have** a premise. > [@Razorsharp](#): > > The thread has gone on for six pages now, and the veracity of the Swiftboat Vets is still debatable. It is being debated. That does not make it “debatable.” > [@Razorsharp](#): > > See, here’s the deal. Had CBS been truly concerned with factually reporting the story in question, CBS would have discovered that the documents were forged. But, CBS’s main concern was to report a story that painted President Bush in a less than flattering light, so as to influence the election of a president. I’ve been a journalist. Believe me, CBS’s concern was to break open a hot, earth-shattering scoop before anybody else. That’s how the game is played. They would have done the same if somebody had handed them some shocking dirt on Kerry. > [@Razorsharp](#): > > So, compared to the Swiftboat Vets, IMNSHO, CBS has actually been detrimental to society as a whole. CBS News has been making invaluable contributions to American society for decades. The SBVT has been broadcasting cynical lies for a few months. There’s really no way you can make the Swifties compare favorably. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2004, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/279 "2004-09-29T23:55:53Z")
**Scylla** : I’ll start from your last post, and then work my way backwards. Regarding the statement by Anderson in the passage from _Unfit_ currently under dispute, you write: > [@](#): > > _Since it’s oen to interpretation, it seems very irresponsible to insist he’s lying_ Again, all I can say is: ? Previously, in post # 219, I wrote: _But I actually can envision two possibilities. I assume Tom Andersson must have known about Operation Sealord. So, either 1) he’s lying, or 2) his statement has been taken out of context. He could have been referring to the period prior to Sealords, for example, when he claimed that Swift boats weren’t allowed to operate north of Sa Dec._ Speaking for myself, I lean much more heavily towards the second of these possibilities; that is to say, I believe the authors of _Unfit_ lifted Anderson’s claim from some other context and placed it in this context, with the hope of misleading their readers by creating the false impression that _no_ Swiftboats were operating north of Sa Dec, along the Cambodian border, in December of 1968. What did not occur to me, however, was the possibility that the phrase _”in the area of the Mekong River”_ could be subjected to wildly varying different interpretations. I thought the phrase was fairly straightforward, and looking at a map, I took it to include at least Chau Doc, and arguably even west of that village a few miles. That you interpret the phrase to mean ”the Mekong River plus a 2 foot space along each bank,” by the way, doesn’t necessarily mean that I don’t understand my own cite. > [@](#): > > _I have the book. Anderson is not quoted directly here, but cited as the source of the information. This information applies specifically to Kerry’s unit. That is the context._ Oh, well. I’m glad we’ve cleared that up. If only you could do me the favour of pointing out where, exactly, in the cited text, Anderson specifically refers to Kerry’s unit, or explicitly states something along the lines of ”Costal Division 11, or 13, never patrolled north of Sa Dec in November and December of 1968,” we’ll be able to finally clear this up and move on. I keep looking, but I don’t see it. > [@](#): > > _Bullshit. I gave you the cite. **You** want a better one. I showed you where a better one is. **YOU** have to pay to get it, if you want it._ Look, if I were to present a sound bite from a spokesperson from [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) claiming, _”Bush was AWOL in Alabama during his National Guard Service, and even the Bush administration recently admitted this to be the case,”_ I think you would display a natural and fully understandable scepticism towards this statement. You would be completely within your rights to request from me the specific admission made by the administration as evidence that the claim was accurate. My request is no way exceptional. And I’m not interested in the full transcript of that particular interview, as I have already made clear. You seem to have ”accidentally” missed that part in your response. > [@](#): > > _And then I’ll call you a lying lemur, and a hypocrite with double standards._ Oh my. Touchy touchy. Do I sense another **Scylla** meltdown waiting in the wings? You are painting me into a corner here, **Scylla** , one that I truly do not wish to be forced into. I don’t want to ”demand” a cite from you; nor do I want to be forced into accusing you of wilfully spreading disinformation, if not outright lying. But you’re giving me very little choice here. If you continue to insist that the Kerry campaign has conceded Schecte’s version of events is the correct one, you’re going to have to prove it. Proof, obviously, consists of such a concession taken directly from the Kerry campaign. If you can’t provide that proof, then your claim is nothing more than so much hearsay – and, in addition, a good example of exactly the type of smear tactics the Swiftvets employ. > [@](#): > > _You just walk around insisting that Anderson’s quote is a lie, when in fact, by your own admission, you can prove no such thing._ As I pointed out above, I’m not insisting that Anderson is lying. I don’t know where you get all this stuff from. > [@](#): > > \*And you need a better cite to do that. Anderson was the man on the scene, the Commander in charge. That’s my cite. Your cite is an historical overview. If you want to stand on this, you need a better cite to overcome Anderson. \* Hmmm… I seem to recognize this tactic. Ah, yes. The Pee Wee Herman Defence. ”I’m rubber, you’re glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” You don’t have to provide more evidence in this debate when I request it, but I must do so when you request it. I see. Well, I ain’t exactly a military historian, but let’s see what I can find…. From the [Department of the Navy](http://www.history.navy.mil/seairland/chap4.htm), Navy Historical Center: > [@](#): > > **In the first phase of the SEALORDS campaign allied forces established patrol “barriers,” often using electronic sensor devices, along the waterways paralleling the Cambodian border. In early November 1968, PBRs and riverine assault craft opened two canals between the Gulf of Siam at Rach Gia and the Bassac River at Long Xuyen. South Vietnamese paramilitary ground troops helped naval patrol units secure the transportation routes in this operational area, soon named Search Turn. _Later in the month, Swift boats, PBRs, riverine assault craft, and Vietnamese naval vessels penetrated the Giang Thanh-Vinh Te canal system and established patrols along the waterway from Ha Tien on the gulf to Chau Doc on the upper Bassac_. As a symbol of the Vietnamese contribution to the combined effort, the allied command changed the name of this operation from Foul Deck to Tran Hung Dao I.** From this page on [Ha Tien](http://www.pcf45.com/sealords/hatien/hatien.html): > [@](#): > > \*\*On October 14 1968, shortly after Admiral Zumwalt conceived of SEALORDS, Swift Boat OinC Mike Bernique was informed by local Vietnamese at Ha Tien that the VC had set up a tax collection site a few miles up the Giang Thanh River from Ha Tien. > > Even though it was strictly forbidden by the Rules of Engagement for Swift Boats to operate that far up the rivers, Mike proceeded to follow up on this lead and investigated. He discovered the tax collection site and a fire fight ensued. This resulted in five enemy KIA’s and the collection of weapons, ammunition, supplies and documents left behind by the fleeing communists. > > Mike was called to Saigon to explain his unauthorized conduct and to answer a diplomatic protest by Cambodian Prince Sihanouk that he had fired across the border into that supposed neutral country. Facing possible disiplinary actions, he answered Admiral Zumwalt’s questions with an emphatic “Tell Sihanouk he’s a lying SOB.” > > _The Admiral declared that Bernique was exactly the kind of aggressive skipper he was looking for and awarded him a Silver Star instead of a general court marshal._ > > Eventually, patrols were augmented throughout the length of the Giang Thanh River and extended from its northeastern head along the Vinh Te Canal to the east all the way to the western bank of the Bassac river. _Interdiction operations included not only Swift Boats_, but also PBRs (Patrol Boat River) and units of the Navy’s Mobile Riverine Force. \*\* And just in case these sources aren’t ideologically pure enough for you, here’s a Freeper page, the [Freeper Foxhole](http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-vetscor/1204481/posts), that also details the history of Sealords, although it basically rips off the Navy History text I quoted above. It’s late here. If you require more, I’ll look tomorrow. **RedFury** : Thanks for your kind words and advice. I will take them under advisement, even though, perversely, I don’t seem to be able to let this topic go just yet. It’s like a bad itch – you know if you scratch it it’s only going to get worse, but still…. scratch scratch scratch. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/280 "2004-09-30T00:42:08Z")
If memory serves from the previous 22-page smackdown, the sole mainstream source offered from the claim that the Kerry campaign admitted he wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas was a British news article, which made the statement without attributing it to any particular person. This was about the same time that the guy who wrote _Tour of Duty_ stated that he didn’t think Kerry had been in Cambodia on Christmas, so one suspects that to be the source of the British newspaper claim. There certainly appears to be no record of such a statement by the campaign anywhere in their public statements, press conferences, etc. And of course, lost in the shufffle, is [perfectly good evidence](http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2105529&) that Kerry was, at the least, darned close to Cambodia on Christmas Eve, and that his boat was indeed involved in a firefight that included getting shot at by allies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875.md?page=15)