Scylla:
Regarding this point:
This is, approximately, my take on Kerry as well. To be precise, I think he was also probably ambitious and opportunistic. I would not be surprised to learn that he exploited the system to the best of his ability in order to secure medals for himself and his men. I’m not qualified to judge whether or not he made any tactical mistakes myself, so I’ll leave that point alone.
The last claim, however, doesn’t sit well with me. I suppose that one could argue that Kerry chose to volunteer for a second tour in order to build up his military credentials. But the Swiftvets are quick to point out that when Kerry volunteered for command of a Swiftboat, the assignment was relatively safe. This was before Sealords kicked in and the Navy began to employ Swiftboats for inland patrols. So – if Kerry was out to build up credentials as a war hero, why would he have volunteered for this relatively safe duty? It seems to me that the Swiftvets want it both ways.
In addition, the argument that Kerry was just in it for the war hero stuff simply doesn’t make sense to me. As if he was so adroit with the use of an M-79 that he knew exactly how to fire it so as to be grazed, though not seriously wounded, by shrapnel, twice in a four month tour? Sorry, that beggars belief. Rather, I suspect that Kerry was doing pretty much what practically everyone else was doing at the time, namely, trying to get his ass out of there in one piece.
This is actually my general take on the Swiftvets real complaint, as well. They hate Kerry for what he did when he came back, or, at the very least, they find it hypocritical of him to portray himself as a war hero now, after having made the statements he made in the 70s.
Again, while I disagree with the Swiftvets on this point, I can at least understand why they might feel that way. I think they go overboard, however, when, on top of the criticism of his behavior after his return, they try to smear Kerry’s entire service, spread lies about it, portray him as a opportunistic coward, and so forth. Especially when one compares Kerry’s term of service with that of Bush.
Couple of points. First off, Sam has claimed that he doesn’t believe Kerry was ever in Cambodia, and also refers to sources like the one quoted above. Yet it is, of course, entirely possible that Kerry was in Cambodia on a different date, and subsequently got confused about the dates in question. That’s not impossible, you know. However, in these terms, the question isn’t moot at all. Sam uses cites like this to bolster his claim that Kerry is lying outright.
You also challenged someone to present an example of the Swiftvets being “full of it.” Well, here’s one. I have a whole bunch.
By the way, you’re right, I didn’t mean to be unclear; the quote in question is taken from the 3rd Chapter. Let’s reiterate, using your objections:
Okay, let’s not mark words here. Let’s just say close. Or let’s be even more specific, and say within 5 clicks. The linked map, if you would care to inspect it, clearly shows that Chau Doc is right on the Cambodian border. And the text tells us plainly that by the end of November 1968, Swiftboats were patrolling freely between Chau Doc and Ha Tien (also on the Cambodian border, but further west).
If you look at the map, you will see that this is a long stretch of river ways and marsh right up against the Cambodian border. And we know that Swiftboats were involved in these patrols, which are far to the north of Sa Dec. This was by the end of November, 1968, and unless you have information to the contrary, it would seem absurd to assert that a month later, in the December, Swiftboats had suddenly been withdrawn from that area.
Well, according to my Sealords history, posted previously, you are wrong.
Oh, I see. They can make errors, but naturally, if Kerry makes an error, it’s a lie.
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.
Maybe, I’m not intentionally leaving out stuff, but I don’t have the entire quote handy anymore: I read the pre-release of Chapter 3 on the net. I’m not 100% sure where Kerry was stationed, and I understood that he served with Costal Division 11, not 13. But the point still stands: the Swifties are claiming in this passage that no Swift boats were allowed to operate North of Sa Dec in December of 1968. Again, I point out that this claim is demonstrably false (unless, of course, the Sealords history I’ve cited is wrong).
I also addressed this previously and explained why I thought it was misleading. In truth, I suspect, the only person against whom Kerry’s word stands is his immediate supervisor.
I’m not the sort of person that sends his debating opponents on pointless cite chases. But I would appreciate it if you would at least not make those sorts of statements without stronger evidential backing, since it smacks of spreading misinformation.
Kerry had already served one tour of duty; within 9 days he was commanding a Swift boat all on his own. Your argument here doesn’t convince me, nor does it explain how the other two people whom we know were present agree with Kerry’s version of events. The only person who claims Schacte was on the boat is Schacte himself. Could he have gotten the dates mixed up?
But, on the other hand, there is of course no way for me to know with any certainty either. This one’s a judgment call, so I doubt it can be resolved.
What about Hibbert’s memory?
