# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/141 "2004-09-26T04:12:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So…why didn’t they? Well, since you want to know the answer it will be your responsibility to hunt out the cite. It’s somewhere in Townhall, I think. Strictly off the top of my head, the answer is that Pat Buchanan convinced Nixon that persecuting Kerry would make a martyr of him. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/142 "2004-09-26T04:20:02Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > And the world was proved flat, too. > . Coming from Scylla I have to go :dubious: The point here was this: you were saying: > [@](#): > > For a whole bunch of consecutive threads I’ve been trying to get one of you guys who insist the Swiftees are full of it, to get down to brass tacks on the subject. > > Pick your spot. Pick what you think demonstrates the falsity of these guys, and I’ll meet there, point for point. We concentrated on Gardner, and I could say you lied when you said that we did not “got down to brass tacks on the subject”, but maybe I am exaggerating here. 🙂 As for Gardner, I noticed that you left this item out of your “careful” research: Gardner, in a radio interview: > [@](#): > > And at that time he was trying to claim a purple heart and commander Grant hepburn told me flat out that he wasn’t giving him a Purple Heart because **there was no action involved when we received the fire from hostlies**. And in order to get a Purple Heart you can’t just go out and shoot yourself in the foot and get one. Now, it may be that in planet swifter no action will happen when one is shot at, so I guess they were happy to be sitting ducks…. …really pathetic (that, and putting words on the mouth of your commanders, qualifies to me as hearsay). I rather realize Gardner is the one “exaggerating” here. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/143 "2004-09-26T04:40:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Gardner, in a radio interview: > Now, it may be that in planet swifter no action will happen when one is shot at, so I guess they were happy to be sitting ducks…. > > …really pathetic (that, and putting words on the mouth of your commanders, qualifies to me as hearsay). > > I rather realize Gardner is the one “exaggerating” here. I’ll need a cite for that interview for context, so I’ll know what event is being referred to and what you mean. If Gardner said he heard the commander wasn’t giving Kerry a medal, that would be hearsay. Gardner is reporting that the commander directly told him that we would not give Kerry a medal. That is not hearsay. Hearsay basically means a rumor. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/144 "2004-09-26T05:02:54Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Gardner is reporting that the commander directly told him that we would not give Kerry a medal. That is not hearsay. Is. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/145 "2004-09-26T05:07:11Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I’ll need a cite for that interview for context, so I’ll know what event is being referred to and what you mean. Well, I now truly see that you don’t remember the last discussion, better leave it as that. Seeing someone mixing and matching first and second medals and not finding the swifter positions, on the medal cases, contradictory is sad. There is a lesson here, but this is not the time to discuss that. > [@](#): > > If Gardner said he heard the commander wasn’t giving Kerry a medal, that would be hearsay. > > Gardner is reporting that the commander directly told him that we would not give Kerry a medal. That is not hearsay. > > Hearsay basically means a rumor. Well, I really can’t see a commander telling him that there was _no action_ at all when the Vietcong was shooting at the group, also: there is no record of the commander complaining about this. If not hearsay, we then have the most likely explanation: he is lying. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/146 "2004-09-26T08:14:15Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > …off the top of my head, the answer is that Pat Buchanan convinced Nixon that persecuting Kerry would make a martyr of him. That might explain why Nixon did not pursue the matter further, if one needed a further explanation beyond the simpler one that there was nothing to pursue. And it does not explain why any of the other political enemies of Sen Kerry should be so strangely reticent, seeing as how the facts are so easily available to them now. If they could find it now, thirty years after the fact, why not then, when the memories and documents were fresher? If O’Neill and his hench-cronies had an inkling that they could discredit Kerry’s record, is there any reason at all to doubt that they would have leapt at the chance? Unless, of course, they had no such inkling, because no such facts existed. ---
**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 26, 2004, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/147 "2004-09-26T08:38:53Z")
**Scylla** : > [@](#): > > \*For a whole bunch of consecutive threads I’ve been trying to get one of you guys who insist the Swiftees are full of it, to get down to brass tacks on the subject. > > Pick your spot. Pick what you think demonstrates the falsity of these guys, and I’ll meet there, point for point.\* I’ve only read through one chapter of _Unfit_. Leaving aside the misleading, rhetorical innuendo which seems to fill it completely, there were passages which were _probably_ false and or misleading, and there were other passages which were _undeniably_ false and misleading. In the latter category, for example, we find this claim: > [@](#): > > \*\*Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. 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. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. A large sign at the border prohibited entry. 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. \*\* Apparently, (and rather mysteriously, given O’Neill’s record as a Swift Boat commander) the authors know nothing about Operation Sealord. As [this](http://www.pcf45.com/sealords/yrbm16/yrbm16.html) history of YRMB 16 replete with photographs, details: > [@](#): > > \*\*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. > > Some of the longest patrols conducted by the Swifts were from the YRBMs. _It was not unusual, as the interdiction effort moved right up to the borders on the Mekong, Bassac, and Vinh Te riverways, for a PCF to travel from the support barge to a position very close to Cambodia and then lay in wait in an ambush posture for five or more days before returning to the “mother barge” for a respite._\*\* In fact, the employment of Swift Boats up the rivers to, or even beyond, the Cambodian border was the tactical cornerstone of the [Sealord’s](http://pcf45.com/sealords/sealords.htm) operation: > [@](#): > > **To kick off SEALORDS, Market Time (TF 115) Swift Boats initiated the “Market Time Raider” program which mounted lightning raids into enemy held coastal waterways and took over patrol responsibility for the Southern Delta’s larger rivers. This freed up the smaller PBRs (Patrol Boat River) for operations along the previously uncontested smaller tributaries and canals. These intrusions into former Viet Cong bastions were possible only with the on-call support of naval aircraft and the heavily armed Riverine Assault Craft.** Need I mention that Costal Division 11, Kerry’s division, was part of TF (Task Force) 115? Or consider this, from **Sam’s** first post in this thread: > [@](#): > > _1) John Kerry’s first purple heart was not due to enemy action, but due to fragments from his own grenade. The Kerry campaign has now admitted that this may have been the case, after Admiral Scachte came forward and supported the swiftvets and claimed he was on the boat that night, and after it was discovered that an entry in Kerry’s own journal, dated 9 days after the supposed enemy engagement, had Kerry saying that he and his men felt cocky because they had yet to engage in combat._ Horsepucky, I assure you, of the highest order. The Kerry campaign has not conceded that Kerry might have wounded himself with his own grenade. Kerry flatly denies that Schacte was present in the boat on the night of the incident, as do both of the enlisted men present, Paul Runyon and Bill Zaladonis, whose [stories](http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/isele/109265584379530.xml?isele) have been fully consistent over time: > [@](#): > > \*\*An Ohio factory worker who was with John Kerry on a dangerous night mission 36 years ago in Vietnam said he has no doubt Kerry was grazed in a firefight and deserves his first Purple Heart for a combat injury… > > The small, flat-bottomed boat - Runyon called it a “skimmer” - _carried three men_ - Kerry in command, Bill Zaledonis on a machine gun and Runyon operating the outboard motor.\*\* In addition, there is some doubt as to whether the three even had an M-79, but no doubt that if so, [it was never fired](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/): > [@](#): > > \*\*Yes, there have been questions about whether the wound Kerry suffered that night really merited a Purple Heart, though those decorations were handed out rather liberally. But rather than quoting the two men known to have accompanied Kerry on that mission, “Unfit for Command” asserts a third person was along. William Schachte, later a rear admiral, “was also on the skimmer,” the book claims. > > It offers this account: “After Kerry’s M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade too close, causing a tiny piece of shrapnel . . . to barely stick in his arm. Schachte berated Kerry for almost putting someone’s eye out.” Schachte could not be reached for comment. But in a brief interview yesterday, O’Neill asserted that Schachte had told him, as well as other military men, that he had been on the skimmer. > > “I spoke to Admiral Schachte,” O’Neill said. “He places himself on the skimmer.” O’Neill also hinted that Schachte will soon address the issue himself. So what do William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon, the two men who were on the skimmer with Kerry at the time, say? > > “Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry,” says Zaladonis, the engineman on Kerry’s first swift boat, “we were the only ones in the skimmer.” > > “There definitely was not a fourth,” says Runyon. Though the two assume they took hostile fire, both men acknowledge they aren’t completely certain. But they also firmly reject the claim that Kerry somehow wounded himself by using an M-79 grenade launcher. > > “I am reasonably sure we didn’t have an M-79,” Zaladonis said. “I didn’t see one. I don’t remember it.” > > Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn’t an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat? > > “I wouldn’t say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn’t shoot them,” replies Runyon. He does remember Kerry having trouble with his M-16. “His gun jammed or he ran out of ammunition – I don’t know which – but he bent down to pick up the other M-16,” he says.\*\* Alas, I regret not being able to locate another interview in which Runyon was quoted as say, approximately, ”You know, Bill and I might not be too bright, but at least we can count to three.” Finally, **Sam** knows as well as I do that the two men who accompanied Kerry on the Boston whaler that night were _not_ regular members of his Swift Boat crew, thus making Kerry’s subsequent diary entry completely irrelevant to the case at hand. As for Hibbard, upon whose testimony **Sam** bases his entire version of events (as if that version was the unvarnished truth), well, he seems to have some selective amnesia problems. To begin with, in contrast to **Sam’s** claims, Hibbert has also conceded that he _did_ recommend Kerry for the Purple Heart. Interviewed by the Boston Globe in April of 2004, Hibbard stated, ”I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that’s what happened. . . do whatever you want.” In addition, Hibbert has apparently no real memory of Kerry’s wound. He has stated on numerous occasions that this would consisted of ”a little scratch on the forearm,” hardly more than what one would receive from, say, a rose thorn. By contrast, Kerry’s own medical records state categorically “Shrapnel in left arm **above elbow**. Shrapnel removed and appl bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty.” Could it be that Hibbert has confused the wound Kerry received with one of the doubtless hundreds of other wounds he treated 30 years ago? Or that he’s simply making it up as he goes along? The list goes on. When the claims made by the Swiftvets are inspected critically they fall apart like so much wet toilet paper. And if an openly partisan organization like the Swiftees were to launch a similar attack against Bush, I have no doubt whatsoever anymore that **Sam** would be leading the charge to discredit them, given that he obviously cares nothing about the truth. But let me just paraphrase from you, **Scylla** : \*I think that after thirty-odd years of investigation it is reasonable of me to ask: What exactly is Kerry being accused of, and where is the proof? After thirty years I would expect those who are willing to make accusations against Kerry’s combat service to have a firm case, defining the accusation and demonstrating guilt. If such a case is extant I would like to hear it. If such a case is not, I conclude that it is simply accusation for political value, and the worst form of irresponsible derogatory muckraking.\* Sound familiar? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/148 "2004-09-26T12:46:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, I now truly see that you don’t remember the last discussion, better leave it as that… > …If not hearsay, we then have the most likely explanation: he is lying. If you’re going to keep your sources secret so that I can’t see the context than your conclusions are worthless. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/149 "2004-09-26T12:55:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And it does not explain why any of the other political enemies of Sen Kerry should be so strangely reticent, seeing as how the facts are so easily available to them now. If they could find it now, thirty years after the fact, why not then, when the memories and documents were fresher? > > If O’Neill and his hench-cronies had an inkling that they could discredit Kerry’s record, is there any reason at all to doubt that they would have leapt at the chance? Unless, of course, they had no such inkling, because no such facts existed. This is really bad false logic. First off, O’neil did go after Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, and attempted to get into the Fulbright hearing. Secondly, Kerry hadn’t written **Tour of Duty** until last year, so the Swiftvets did not know to what extent Kerry was misrepresenting them and his own record. Kerry’s files were not public. Nobody knew what his record was until he put it out there. Thirdly Kerry didn’t go massively public with his war stories until the campaign started. So, in short the reason they didn’t try to correct Kerry’s falsified record 30 years ago is that wasn’t falsified yet, and there wasn’t much out there. They can’t correct **Tour of Duty** thirty years before it’s written. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/150 "2004-09-26T13:51:01Z")
Svin: You have posted nothing to contradict your original quote from the book which goes into detail about Sealords. Your statement: > [@](#): > > In fact, the employment of Swift Boats up the rivers to, or even beyond, the Cambodian border was the tactical cornerstone of the Sealord’s operation: is flat out wrong. I saw nothing to back your statement that incursions into Cambodia were the cornerstone of Sealords. I also see it as background. None of this really does anything to resolve Kerry’s XMas day contradiction when he’s in two places at once. > [@](#): > > Horsepucky, I assure you, of the highest order. The Kerry campaign has not conceded that Kerry might have wounded himself with his own grenade. [http://swift4.he.net/~swift4/article.php?story=20040824130358175](http://swift4.he.net/~swift4/article.php?story=20040824130358175) > [@](#): > > Kerry flatly denies that Schacte was present in the boat on the night of the incident, as do both of the enlisted men present, Paul Runyon and Bill Zaladonis, whose stories have been fully consistent over time There is indeed contradictory statements. More backing Shacte can be seen here: [http://66.235.198.251/~jeffsieg/archives/000197.html](http://66.235.198.251/~jeffsieg/archives/000197.html) To summarize: 1. The boston whaler tactic was Schacte’s tactic. 2. Kerry would not be given command of a vessel while in training 3. Schacte was on all the Skimmer missions. > [@](#): > > In addition, there is some doubt as to whether the three even had an M-79, but no doubt that if so, it was never fired I would not equate Zaladonis’ statement as there being “no doubt.” He doesn’t remember whether they had one, or even if they were fired on. How can he be so certain that an M-79 wasn’t fired? > [@](#): > > Finally, Sam knows as well as I do that the two men who accompanied Kerry on the Boston whaler that night were not regular members of his Swift Boat crew, thus making Kerry’s subsequent diary entry completely irrelevant to the case at hand. I agree with this. It’s not clear whether he’s referring to himself personally or his new command when he makes his statement. It’s a weak argument from the Swiftees. > [@](#): > > But let me just paraphrase from you, Scylla: > > I think that after thirty-odd years of investigation it is reasonable of me to ask: > > What exactly is Kerry being accused of, and where is the proof? > > After thirty years I would expect those who are willing to make accusations against Kerry’s combat service to have a firm case, defining the accusation and demonstrating guilt. > > If such a case is extant I would like to hear it. If such a case is not, I conclude that it is simply accusation for political value, and the worst form of irresponsible derogatory muckraking. > > Sound familiar? Yes it does, Svin. I’ve said something several times here that you seem to be missing. I beleive that John Kerry served honorably while in Vietnam. I do not think there should be an inquiry into his medals. I arrive at the same conclusion that you do, concerning Kerry’s service, specifically because the Swiftees fail to prove their case to the contrary. They have however, made a case. ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/151 "2004-09-26T14:44:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Who’s the dissenter? I don’t remember his name…something like Scott Gardner, perhaps? I think he spoke in one of the Swifties ads. Said it was a lie that Kerry was in Cambodia. Also said he spent more time on a boat with Kerry than anyone else. If anyone really, really needs a cite on this I’ll dig it up. Shouldn’t take more than 10 minutes to find. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/152 "2004-09-26T14:54:56Z")
Boy, this is a fun election year! 🙂 2000 was a boring election year! Wasn’t 2000 boring? Until they had to count the votes, that is. This, now, all this argument and nastiness and backbiting and slanders and machinations and demonstrations . . . this is **fun!** This is **civic life!** H.L. Mencken once said that democracy is the one truly amusing form of government humanity has ever devised. I say that’s one of the things that make it worthwhile! ---
**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 26, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/153 "2004-09-26T17:38:21Z")
**Scylla** : Sorry if some of my frustration with **Sam** is spilling over into my responses to you. Not intentional. Having said that, I’m not sure I understand your position. You yourself do not believe the arguments forwarded by the Swiftvets, but still require someone to debunk them? Sorry, does not compute. This confuses me as well: > [@](#): > > _You have posted nothing to contradict your original quote from the book which goes into detail about Sealords._ Let me clarify. The original quote from the book doesn’t discuss Sealords. Rather, the passage I quoted seeks to argue that Kerry could not possibly have been in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968 because, essentially, _no_ Swiftboats were allowed to travel north of Sa Dac: ”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.” That quote is taken directly from the text, and is one of the arguments presented to rebut Kerry’s claim that he was anywhere near Cambodia that Christmas. However, the other two cites I present make it clear that Operation Sealords involved deploying Swiftboats deep into Vietcong territory, far to the north of Sa Dac. Sealords started literally in conjunction with Kerry’s arrival at Coastal Division 11. Thus, either these histories of Sealords that I’ve presented are false – TF 115 wasn’t used to penetrate into territory north of Sa Dac, for example – or else Tom Anderson’s claims are wrong (or lies). > [@](#): > > _I saw nothing to back your statement that incursions into Cambodia were the cornerstone of Sealords._ No, as I actually wrote, incursions by Swiftboats up to the Cambodian border, and even beyond, were the backbone of the Sealords tactics. I added the ”and even beyond” in part because of this passage, found on the YRMB page: > [@](#): > > **YRBM-16 became very important to the Swifts assigned there in May 1970 as the staging base for the historic incursion into Cambodia in support of Operation Tran Hung Dao XI.** Along with these statements from the Sealords webpage: > [@](#): > > \*\*The Navy, in particular, spearheaded a drive in the Mekong Delta to isolate and destroy the weakened Communist forces. The SEALORDS (Southeast Asia Lake, Ocean, River, and Delta Strategy) campaign was a determined effort by U.S. Navy, South Vietnamese Navy, and allied ground forces to cut enemy supply lines from Cambodia, and _disrupt operations in his base areas deep in the Mekong Delta_… > > Later in the month **(November 1968)**,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.\*\* A quick glance at the map will show you that Chau Doc lies very close to the Cambodian border. Anyway, not to babble on about this relatively minor point, but you did challenge someone to rebut a specific claim made by the Swiftvets. As part of their arguments against Kerry, they claim that Swiftboats weren’t allowed anywhere near the Cambodian border. This claim is demonstrably false. Regarding the cite that allegedly substantiates the claim that the Kerry campaign had admitted that Kerry might have wounded himself with an M-79 in the incident that led to his first Purple Heart: well, that’s all very damning and everything, you know. Of course, Garrett is a spokesman for the Swiftvets, and I suppose there is the modicum of a sliver of a possibility that he got his facts wrong. Perhaps you have a link to the actual admission, in the form of a statement or press release from the Kerry campaign, I might find Garrett’s claim more credible. Not to be picky or anything. I mean, I know how rigorously the Swiftvets folks adhere to basic standards of honesty, but I just feel like I have to ask. Finally, regarding Schacte: well, two unidentified officers are quoted in Novak’s piece as claiming that Schacte would never have allowed anyone else to run such a mission. This is very thin soup indeed. But tell me, how do you explain the fact that the other three people that we know were there all deny that Schacte was present? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/154 "2004-09-26T17:45:43Z")
They must all have been “confused”, right, **Sam**? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/155 "2004-09-26T18:25:33Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > If you’re going to keep your sources secret so that I can’t see the context than your conclusions are worthless. Bwa HA HA HA HA HA HA! [Looks at Scylla’s reply again] Bwa HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Secret? Do you force me to conclude that it is only 100% rhetoric what you say and in reality, you don’t even care what was said before? It is hardly a secret when it was already discussed in the SDMB! [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=274553&page=1&pp=50](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=274553&page=1&pp=50) See shaynas 116th post and then yourself(!!!) replying to that on post 125, showing that you alredy saw where that came from! Come to think of it, this selective memory could explain why extreme right wingers come repeating subjects that were discredited or already disscussed like if nothing happened before…. …Like our fearless misleader. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/156 "2004-09-26T18:48:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Come to think of it, this selective memory could explain why extreme right wingers come repeating subjects that were discredited or already disscussed like if nothing happened before…. > > …Like our fearless misleader. It is a cliche that you should never attribute to malice what can be blamed on stupidity, but this year’s events move me to doubt. Not to Godwinize here, but Josef Goebbels figured out decades ago that you can get a lot of people to believe any Big Lie if you just repeat it often enough and keep repeating it in the face of all contrary evidence. And the “movement conservatives” have adopted the same tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/157 "2004-09-26T23:20:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **Plan B** , [here ya go.](http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/) Enjoy. > > **BG** , [This is the guy.](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/11/kerry_no_hero_in_ex_crewmans_eyes/) Critical examination of his claims is in the earlier link. I went there and found some “he said, she said stuff” but no single instance of a lie by the Swifties. Nothing along the lines of “I was in Cambodia during Christmas, 1968, when Richard Nixon was conducting an illegal war inCambodia.” So I guess the Swifties are telling the truth. Perhaps you all might be interested in this link which I came across while checking other venues: [http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/09/a\_challenge\_to\_.html](http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/09/a_challenge_to_.html) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/158 "2004-09-26T23:21:28Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Scylla** : > > Having said that, I’m not sure I understand your position. You yourself do not believe the arguments forwarded by the Swiftvets, but still require someone to debunk them? Sorry, does not compute. Okey dokey then. The Swiftvets attempt to make the case that Kerry’s service in Vietnam was dishonorable. My starting point on Kerry is that he’s a legitimate war hero and a combat veteran who served admirably. In reading the Swiftvet account I read it in the context that these guys are trying to paint Kerry in the worst possible light. They make no bones about it. When I read **Tour of Duty** I realize that Kerry is trying to paint himself in the best possible light. So, I read through the books. What have the swiftvets convinced me of concerning Kerry in Vietnam? Was he ambitious and opportunistic? Yeah, I think so? Was he a medal hunter? Yeah, I think so. Did he get his purple hearts for minor injuries? Yeah, I think so. Did he make some tactical mistakes? Yup. Was he trying to build credentials as a war hero for a political career? Yup. It looks that way. The point is that none of these things is incompatible with good honorable service. None of these things mean he’s not a hero. For example, If the Rasmussen incident happened **exactly** as described by the the Swiftvets, I think Kerry still behaved heroically. I think the incident where he shot (didn’t shoot) the Viet Cong with the rocket launcher also indicates high service and possibly heroism. So, after reading this through, I feel the Swiftvets have failed to demonstrate that Kerry’s service was dishonorable. It does not mean they are lying. It just doesn’t prove what they want it to prove. I realize there’s going to be a fog of war and differing accounts here. So I read it to see what it demonstrates. It does not demonstrate that the Swiftvets are lying or making this stuff up. If they were, they should be shot, because this stuff really isn’t bad when you read it, carefully. If they were making it up, one would hope that they had made up better stuff. So, in conclusion, I kind of find the whole thing about the Swiftvets story about Kerry in Vietnam to be kind of moot. But that’s just one theme of the book. The main theme of the book is that when Kerry came back he told a lot of lies about his service and impugned the people he served with falsely. To support this, they have direct quotes from Kerry or his authorized biographers wherein he contradicts himself. For example, this whole thing about whether or not it would be possible for Kerry to get a Swiftboat into Cambodia from where he was on the day in question is kind of moot. Kerry places himself in more than one place at this time. His biographer has stated that the XMas in Cambodia story is obviously wrong. The Kerry campaing has conceded as much and said that he was actually in Cambodia at other times on secret missions (Y’know when the plotline gets stolen by Apocolypse now.) So, we can play around and try to find minor contradictions, and I’ll do that. But, it’s kind of pointless. Nobody in the Kerry campaign is arguing that he was there on Christmas. Kerry told contradictory stories. > [@](#): > > The original quote from the book doesn’t discuss Sealords. Rather, the passage I quoted seeks to argue that Kerry could not possibly have been in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968 because, essentially, _no_ Swiftboats were allowed to travel north of Sa Dac: ”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.” That quote is taken directly from the text, and is one of the arguments presented to rebut Kerry’s claim that he was anywhere near Cambodia that Christmas. Well, it ain’t in the first chapter, which I thought was what you read. It’s in the third chapter. > [@](#): > > However, the other two cites I present make it clear that Operation Sealords involved deploying Swiftboats deep into Vietcong territory, far to the north of Sa Dac. Sealords started literally in conjunction with Kerry’s arrival at Coastal Division 11. Thus, either these histories of Sealords that I’ve presented are false – TF 115 wasn’t used to penetrate into territory north of Sa Dac, for example – or else Tom Anderson’s claims are wrong (or lies).No, as I actually wrote, incursions by Swiftboats up to the Cambodian border, and even beyond, were the backbone of the Sealords tactics. I added the ”and even beyond” in part because of this passage, found on the YRMB page:Along with these statements from the Sealords webpage:A quick glance at the map will show you that Chau Doc lies very close to the Cambodian border. “Close” is not “and even beyond.” 55 miles from Cambodia is “close” compared to say, New Jersey. What you are doing with your cites it appears to me is getting confused about two different things. **Unfit For Command** is giving the specific circumstances of Kerry’s unit at the time in question, December 25, 1968. Your cite is giving an overview of Operation Sealord over its entire course. You are conflating the general and the specific. Additionally, I am under the impression that Sealords didn’t get in close to Cambodia until late Spring early summer of '69, but I might be wrong about that. Finally, if you are right and there were Swiftboats operating on the border on that day, it doesn’t show a lie. They can make errors without being liars. What it appears to me, sitting here with the book right now, is that this is more background than an attempt to prove the point. What the chapter does is give the three accounts Kerry has given of this incident. March 27, 1986 in the Senate: “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting in a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shat at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American People that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is Seared—Seared—in me.” (Nixon, who he is referring to, was of course not President at the time. Than to the Boston Herald: “I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Chrismas. The absurdity of being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed that there were no American troops was very real.” The 2004 Boston Globe biography: To top it off, Kerry said laer that he had gone to Cambodia despite President Nixon’s assurances to the American Public that there were no combat actions in this neutral territory. The young sailor began to develop a deep mistrust of the U.S. government pronouncements he later recalled. Than you have the paragraph you quote. What you leave out though are the key earlier phrase specifically placing this paragraph in referance to Christmas 1968, and not as a general description of Kerry’s duties at all times. “During Christmas 1968, Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo…” Leaving out this part changes its meaning. With it in, it’s clear that it is in reference specifically to Christmas of 1968 rather than at all times which you seem to imply as the contradiction with your cite. I don’t know if the cite you got the paragraph from left the first part out, or if you did it, but it **does** change the meaning, and is an unfair way to try to create a lie where none was made. The Chapter than goes on to quote all the living commanders and superiors stating that Kerry was not in Cambodia in Christmas and was never ordered into Cambodia. It then cites Gardner saying the boat wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas of '68. It says that Zaladonis and Hatch (who were crewmembers at the time) deny that they were ever in Cambodia. It then cites **Tour of Duty** which says cites Kerry’s journal saying that they were involved in a mortar attack on Christmas Eve of 1968 in Sa Dec (55 miles from the border,) and that he spent Christmas day writing in his journal back at the base. Then later he attempted to take his boat and crew to Dom Tang Base to see the Bob Hope Christmas show there, but took a wrong turn in a canal, didn’t find it, ended up in a very dangerous canal (but encountered no action) and came back to base. > [@](#): > > Anyway, not to babble on about this relatively minor point, but you did challenge someone to rebut a specific claim made by the Swiftvets. As part of their arguments against Kerry, they claim that Swiftboats weren’t allowed anywhere near the Cambodian border. This claim is demonstrably false. I appreciate your making the argument. That claim though was not made. You ommitted (by accident I’m sure, or perhaps the cite where you got that paragraph from ommitted it nefariously) the beginning of the paragraph which gives the remainder its context in time. It is not a general statement. It is a specific one referring specifically to Christmas of 1968 only. > [@](#): > > Regarding the cite that allegedly substantiates the claim that the Kerry campaign had admitted that Kerry might have wounded himself with an M-79 in the incident that led to his first Purple Heart: well, that’s all very damning and everything, you know. Of course, Garrett is a spokesman for the Swiftvets, and I suppose there is the modicum of a sliver of a possibility that he got his facts wrong. I suppose. I remember seeing it on Fox news’ website as well, though. It’s not all that important though, so please don’t ask me to chase it. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you have a link to the actual admission, in the form of a statement or press release from the Kerry campaign, I might find Garrett’s claim more credible. Not to be picky or anything. I mean, I know how rigorously the Swiftvets folks adhere to basic standards of honesty, but I just feel like I have to ask. We can hunt for the transcript if you really really want it. Personally, it’s a minor point either way, and I don’t feel like hunting. I just typed a whole bunch of shit here, quoting and everything, and the idea of searching Foxnews for a small point is kind of depressing. Your call. > [@](#): > > Finally, regarding Schacte: well, two unidentified officers are quoted in Novak’s piece as claiming that Schacte would never have allowed anyone else to run such a mission. This is very thin soup indeed. But tell me, how do you explain the fact that the other three people that we know were there all deny that Schacte was present? Good question. It is three to one, and I can’t prove it either way. It seems logical to me that somebody has to be in command of the boat. Kerry, who is in training, seems an unlikely choice to be placed in charge. It seems more likely that he would go along for the ride with an experienced commander to gain experience and see how things are done. It also seem logical to me that Schacte, who originated the tactic and use of the whaler would be there. It would seem doubly so, since several sources say that he was always on it whenever it went out, that he was the only one who took it out on these missions. I tend to think he was probably there, and the other two are mistaken. One additional piece of evidence that supports this is that Kerry as a Senator many years later, recognizes Shacte and call him “Batman.” Batman was Schacte’s call sign on the whaler. It’s possible that Kerry might have known this even if Schacte wasn’t on the boat that night, but it seems more likely that the recollection is founded from a shared time on the whaler. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/159 "2004-09-27T00:17:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Bwa HA HA HA HA HA HA! > > [Looks at Scylla’s reply again] > > Bwa HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! > > Secret? > > Do you force me to conclude that it is only 100% rhetoric what you say and in reality, you don’t even care what was said before? > > It is hardly a secret when it was already discussed in the SDMB! > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=274553&page=1&pp=50](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=274553&page=1&pp=50) > > See shaynas 116th post and then yourself(!!!) replying to that on post 125, showing that you alredy saw where that came from! > > Come to think of it, this selective memory could explain why extreme right wingers come repeating subjects that were discredited or already disscussed like if nothing happened before…. > > …Like our fearless misleader. I really don’t understand this. You take a quote from a radio interview, and get some kind of victory because I haven’t memorized the radio interview? If you read the rest of the thread you link to, you’ll begin to see that what Shayna doesn’t realize is that there is more than one boat being talked about. At some point it becomes pretty clear that there’s more than one boat and Gardner’s statement can only be construed as a lie by one who does not understand what Gardner is talking about. At this point Shayna stops posting, for whatever reason. This is your victory? It’s kind of interesting to me how all this debunking of the Swiftees seems to inevitably entail misreading their statements or quoting them and leaving salient parts out to change their meaning. And one more note. If you want me to respond to you, you need to can the histrionics and stop playing games. I don’t wish to go on a scavenger hunt to figure out what you’re talking about. If you do this kind of thing again, I will ignore you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/160 "2004-09-27T00:57:29Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I really don’t understand this. You take a quote from a radio interview, and get some kind of victory because I haven’t memorized the radio interview? You said that I kept that a secret, and the context of my small victory is the main beef I had with you on this: accusing and pretending that there was no “get down to brass tacks on the subjet” before. > [@](#): > > If you read the rest of the thread you link to, you’ll begin to see that what Shayna doesn’t realize is that there is more than one boat being talked about. Silly me, I thought it clearly showed that your research on the timeline the swifters had on what happened on medal 1 and medal 2 was contradictory. > [@](#): > > At some point it becomes pretty clear that there’s more than one boat and Gardner’s statement can only be construed as a lie by one who does not understand what Gardner is talking about. He talks nonsense but that is ok, we have a great “traducer” here. > [@](#): > > This is your victory? Small, but I have to tell it is targeted one: It was really insulting of you to say none had discussed this before, THAT is the only victory here, but of small victories I see the big picture of a debater that writes pretty, but doesn’t even research their insulting comments. > [@](#): > > It’s kind of interesting to me how all this debunking of the Swiftees seems to inevitably entail misreading their statements or quoting them and leaving salient parts out to change their meaning. Like Gardner doing that to his commander’s words? > [@](#): > > And one more note. If you want me to respond to you, you need to can the histrionics and stop playing games. I don’t wish to go on a scavenger hunt to figure out what you’re talking about. Wrong, a rhetorical bully coming claiming that there was nothing discussed before and expecting everyone to ignore even the recent past has no right claiming that others are playing games. > [@](#): > > If you do this kind of thing again, I will ignore you. Too late, you actually did that by claiming that virtually nothing was discussed before. In any case, seeing that going the ignore way is not kosher in this place, I however reaffirm my pledge I made when I became a member here: I would never ignore anyone, I am here to see what others think and were they get their ideas, no matter if you decide to ignore me, I will never do that to even you. Otherwise, how can I bust someone else when they ignore even what they posted before? 🙂 > [@Scylla](#): > > In the final analysis Gardner’s testimony really isn’t damaging to Kerry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875.md?page=9)