Give it up Sam. There are like six other independent reports of that incident. The swifties have been exposed . They’re liars. You lost. Move on.
Well, the 9-11 commission seemed to look into it pretty thouroughly. Also the Intelligence committee seems to have come up with some pretty solid information regarding the processing and usage of intelligence. I assume Congress is independent enough?
Whether Sam won or lost depends on what his actual goals are (or were). If his goal was to actually convince us that have something going on in the truth department, he did indeed lose, as the Swifties’ lies have nbeen so thoroughly debunked.
If his goal was to contribute to the general effort to smear Kerry’s name by propping up the Swifties as a legitimate source of info about Kerry long after they’d been exposed as liars and smear artists, he’s won. Not personally, not on this board at least, but his cohorts in the mainstream media definitely succeeded. They changed the military service issue from one of “war hero vs. National Guard wastrel” which is by any objective measure the truth, to one of “two guys with disputed records about their military service.”
Nice bit of chicanery, that.
When someone attempts to defend and indefensible position long after it has been shown to be indefensible, it may not just be a matter of their being unable or unwilling to recognize the hopelessnes of their position. They may have some more rational reason for thier behavior.
You’re right - posting a link to an article in a respected mainstream newspaper is beyond the pale.
A poor practice is to represent to us that one of Canada’s regular readers of the Chicago Sun-Times, just by chance, happened upon this story.
What would someone who’s purpose was honest discourse do? Indicate exactly how they came upon the story, perhaps? Yes, I do think so.
Quite the contrary, there is support for such a contention. As Athelas pointed out:
Well, the NY Times is certainly no partisan to the Republican party. That said, I would opine that Judith Miller’s offense was downplayed because it came on the heels of the Jayson Blair affair. I would venture to say that the NY Times was more concerned with protecting its already tarnished image, rather than protecting the WMD myth.
Na, not really. You didn’t see me poppin’ a hemmorhoid over Michael Moore’s Farenheit 911 the way your kindred spirits have done over the SBVFT.
I wasn’t aware that this was part of their perview…But maybe you are right. Do you have a cite on what they said on this point?
Well, here from CNN is some information on that (bolding mine):
This isn’t support for your contention of their motives. We all know that CBS was sloppy and, as a result of this sloppiness, they probably did more good for Bush than harm in the end by turning the story away from the general facts about Bush’s service and changing the focus to these forged documents. If CBS wanted to help the Kerry campaign, they picked a pretty stupid way to do it.
This sentence shows exactly how you operate. You assume your conclusions and then fit the facts to them accordingly.
Where is the evidence that CBS is a Kerry partisan, especially given that the chairman of their parent company has endorsed Bush?
Well, it is fascinating how the motives you infer from people’s actions very much depend on the situation.
Who, ya reckon, will Dan Rather vote for?
And what’s wrong with that?
And?? If they are facts. And if they fit. Again, what’s wrong with that?
Mr S, you’ve been Pitted. Well, sort of.
The passage is open to interpretation.
I can envision more possibilities. Assuming for purposes of argument that Swift Boats were operating North of Sa Dec at the time, it may simply be an error on the part of either Anderson or the authors. Their case does not hinge on this, and is provided as background. The case relies on Kerry’s contradictory statements and the fact that his own crewmen do not back him up. So, there is no reason to attribute malice.
This is kind of frustrating, this line of inquiry of yours. First off, it’s technical and minor, not the kind of thing to blow the Swifvets apart, even if you are correct. Secondly, assuming you are correct, showing a single innacuracy would hardly count as proof that the Swiftvets were full of it.
A two foot space along each bank? Ok. I’m open to reason. How far up the bank and over the land do you propose it is reasonable to travel by Swiftboat?
Page 47. Anderson is cited as the source for the following yet not quoted directly:
“During Christmas 1968, Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13s patrol area extended to Sa Dac, about 55 miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than…”
and you seem to have the rest.
I’ve shown you the original cite from where I got the information. It has been widely disseminated and know one appears to have contradicted it. The original first person information is now so old that it is archived and requires a subscription. I told you where it was and how you can get it, if you want it. You have nothing to back up your refusal to accept the source I’ve provided other than your personal skepticism. I’ve provided a cite. If you dispute it, show me a counter cite that contradicts it.
Really now. Are you still beating your wife, or are you in denial?
This is not accurate. My cite says that the Kerry campaign conceded it was possible Kerry was wounded by friendly fire. It does not say that Shacte’s version was conceded.
Again, your cite says “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.”
The Mekong runs perpendicular. Your cite says they came from the Gulf of Siam (which would be Ann Thoi) not up the Mekong river. You are talking about different rivers and different canals patrolled from Ann Thoi, not from up the Mekong. This cite does not contradict Anderson. The Mekong river runs up the middle of the country. Ha Tien is on the West coast. It hardly qualifies as the “Area” of the Mekong river by any stretch of the imagination.
Really, this is pretty feeble stuff. Are you really trying to:
A: Prove the Swiftvets are full of it because
B: They get their information from the man on the scene in charge which
c: Is “Contradicted” by general historical overviews because
D: You want me to believe the “area” of the Mekong river is in fact the West coast of Vietnam and other rivers and canals?
Had he said the “Area of Ha Tien” you might have a point. He didn’t.
Not at all. This is the “mortar attack” version of the story referred to by the Swiftvets in his Brinkley interview which contradicts other versions, and does not place him in Cambodia.
Scylla:
I agree with you in part; taken in isolation, this single inaccuracy hardly counts as proof that the Swiftvets are full of it. I’ve never contended otherwise. All I’ve contended is that it is one example, among many, in which the Swift vets have been shown to be full of it. I’m not even sure if it is the best, or strongest example. In fact, I don’t really care about the answer to that question, and leave it completely up to you to decide. It’s just Exhibit A: the Swiftvets claim that Kerry could not have been in Cambodia because no Swift boats were operating north of Sa Dec in December of 1968. That claim is false.
My intention here is not to present you with some sort of slam dunk, or smoking gun, by which the Swift vets can be completely dismissed. Given their style of attack, such a gun or dunk would be hard to find. Indeed, if this was the only example I could provide, my case would be weak indeed. Rather, I’m hoping to demonstrate a consistent pattern of wilfully misleading accusations, based on misrepresentations of fact, innuendo, insinuations of misdeeds, exploitation of circumstantial evidence always viewed in terms of the worst case scenario (in which that scenario is usually taken for granted), on the part of the Swiftvets.
We have some time to sit down together and reflect over these things, you and I. Who knows? You may convince me that you’re view is correct. Anyway, I have no problem lingering over details until we can come to some sort of consensus about them, or at least agree to disagree. In addition, it never occurred to me that you would dismiss this example so tenaciously. Thus we’ve got bogged down in it, and that’s were we are right now.
I’m okay with that.
I thought I made it clear in my last reply that I considered it reasonable to include, for example, Chau Doc, which I estimate to be within 10 kilometres of the Mekong, and probably much closer, and which sits on the Cambodian border on the banks of the Bassac River, which is also a major waterway running in and out of that ancient kingdom.
As I pointed out, by the end of November 1968, Swift boats were patrolling freely from Ha Tien, on the Gulf of Siam, along the Cambodian border all the way to Chau Doc. Chau Doc is north/northwest of Sa Dac, about 5 clicks from the Mekong, and connected to it by an intricate network of both man-made canals and natural waterways. Sorry if that seems to me to be in the ”area of the Mekong” north of Sa Dac.
”…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.”
Perhaps I can try an analogy.
Many members of the America Right during the first years of the 21st century promoted an immediate invasion of Iran after the conclusion of hostilities in Iraq. Scylla, for example, arguing from the perspective a ”Big Dawg” theory of international relations, suggested that the US was entirely within its rights to invade a weaker nation for the purposes of ”making an example” of it. His arguments are only one version of the aggressive strain of international imperialism extant in the US public during that time. The common denominator of these views was their antipathy towards the Iranian government.”
Okay, perhaps the example is somewhat strained. But hopefully you can easily see how I’ve taken your views out of context and employed them to support an agenda that you do not, in fact, support (I hope).
In the passage quoted from the Unfit, I’m arguing that the Swiftvets are employing precisely the same technique. Very, very few of us are going to surf out on the net, read a history of Sealords, take out a map, and go through it with a fine-toothed comb, only to discover that it was imminently possible for Kerry to make it to Cambodia for Christmas Day, 1968. Rather, most readers will simply buy the Swiftvets apparent argument that Kerry couldn’t even have made it to Cambodia anyway, even if his diary did jive with his later claims.
I asked you to demonstrate to me that Anderson’s statement was not being taken out of context, or employed in a manner so as to mislead the reader into thinking that it was impossible for Kerry to have made it to Cambodia for Christmas of 1968. You respond by citing precisely the statements I question as evidence that Anderson was referring specifically to Kerry’s unit. Anderson made no apparent mention of Kerry’s specific unit in his statement; this mention was added by the authors in their attempt to frame in Anderson’s claims. I still think they’re being purposively devious and misleading.
I conceded much earlier in this thread that I thought it was a minor example, but somehow we got stuck on it. Maybe we’re both just too pig-headed to give on even a minor point!
What the hell do you think I’m doing? Agreeing with it?
How about this?
Or how about this, also taken directly from Kerry’s website?
So: do you still hold that the Kerry campaigned has ”conceded” that Schacte’s version of the events on the evening in question is the correct one?
Still beating my wife, I’m afraid.
God help me, but she loves it.
You?
The Kerry campaign did not ”concede” that Kerry could have been wounded by friendly fire. They never disputed that possibility in the first place. To claim that the Kerry campaign ”conceded” this point is to imply that at first they claimed otherwise, but then, under the mighty onslaught of the Swiftvets truth brigade, were finally forced into admitting otherwise. This implication is misleading to the point of an out-and-out lie.
Yes, I agree, Ha Tien is not north of Sa Dac. But what about Chau Doc, at the other end of the patrol area, I ask now for something like the 5th straight time?
If he had said ”in the area of Chau Doc,” would I have a point then?
No Svin. It’s the one example among… well no others that you’ve provided that demonstrate this. And you’re pretty far from demonstrating anything of the kind with this one.
That is not the claim that was made. If we’re going to hash this out in detail, there is is no point in continuing if you are not going to be accurate.
Kind of like evidence of UFOs. I know what you mean. It’s difficult to prove something that you have no proof for.
I agree.
[quote[Rather, I’m hoping to demonstrate a consistent pattern of wilfully misleading accusations, based on misrepresentations of fact, innuendo, insinuations of misdeeds, exploitation of circumstantial evidence always viewed in terms of the worst case scenario (in which that scenario is usually taken for granted), on the part of the Swiftvets.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know about the misleading accusations and I haven’t seen any misrepresentations of fact. There’s not much innuend as the come out and state their accusations. On the other hand they do interpret everything in the worst possible scenario for Kerry. I don’t consider this dishonest as their motives are not hidden, and I take it into account.
Okey doke.
It’s probably half that Svin. I would consider Chau Doc to be in the area of the Bassac River, or near the juncture of Mekong and Bassac. The problem here and the reason for my frustration is that this quest of your appears fruitless. “The Area of the Mekong River” is a phrase too vague to be essentially meaningful, and certainly to vague to disprove in this context. You will argue to make “area” more inclusive. I will argue to make it more restrictive and nothing can be proven because “area” is too subject.
If you are lookign to find an innacuracy to prove as an example. This is a bad choice.
But it doesn’t. Not to me. Your knee bone is connected to your thigh bone which is connected to your groin. That doesn’t mean your knee is the area of the groin. I would say that Chau Doc is “Close” to the Mekong. But not in the area.
It would be in the area of the juncture of the Bassac and Mekong, or the area of the Bassac, but not the area of the Mekong. Semantically, in this context, the area of the Mekong seems to mean the North/south corridor defined by the Mekong. The area of the Bassac would be the east/west corridor defined by that river. The Chau Doc is on the Bassac, so it is more in the area of the Bassac than the area of the Mekong. Though of course it is on the area of the juncture.
Does that make sense?
Do you know also, that we are attempting to read into this statement a lot more precision than it contains? I really don’t know what, precisely, he meant. Neither do you. Proving it a lie then, is difficult.
I honestly read the statement as suggesting that boats weren’t supposed to go further up the Mekong at that time than about 55 miles and and that the border into Cambodia at the Mekong was blocked. That’s all.
Of course not. We should be taking out Sweden next. It’s a strained analogy at best, as you concede so I’m not sure what you want me to say. Do the Swifties interpret everything in the most unfavorable light to Kerry? Of course. That’s why I’ve also read Kerry’s book.
Doing the map game, though. You’re not proving the statement false or innacurate. It’s not a detailed statement. It’s a general one. If I say “Svin is a liberal.” That’s a general statement. It may not be true in specifics. Not everything about you is liberal. You do have some redeeming qualities. 
It’s not Anderson’s statement. He’s not quoted. He’s just given as the source of the information. This is all there is on this in the book. I can’t give you more in depth details that don’t exist and weren’t implied.
In order for you to win this point, you have to read into the statement more precision then was implied. I think you lose. I think there are better examples, and I’m not afraid to concede them when they are presented. As, you will note, I have done in another thread. So, I would respectfully suggest, without a hint of insult intended, that it is you who are being pigheaded on this one. What you are looking for, just isn’t there.
That’s not what was conceded. The possibility of friendly fire was what was supposedly conceded.
No. I’m not beating your wife? Why do you ask?
No. Here’s Kerry’s quote in the Brinkley interview:
“The entire sky seemed to explode into daylight. The men from the Sampans bolted erect, stiff with shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover like a herd of panicked gazelles [Kerry] had once seen on TV’s “Wild Kingdom.” We opened fire… The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach strafing it. Then it was quiet.”
That doesn’t read like friendly fire is a possibility to me. Does it seem that way to you?
Well… Yeah. You would. He didn’t though. Did he?
Scylla:
Yes, well, as I wrote earlier, it never occurred to me that the word ”area” could be subjected to such wildly varying interpretations. Honestly. I thought the implications of Anderson’s statement were quite straightforward: they were intended to demonstrate that Kerry could not have possibly been in Cambodia in Christmas anyway, because the route was blocked.
Since it is apparent that by your interpretation of the word area, Chau Doc is not included, and since we both agree that Swift Boats were operating in Chau Doc in Christmas of 1968, that makes Anderson’s statement really rather irrelevant in this context, doesn’t it?
Fair enough; since I’m trying to convince you, I’ll grant you the right to determine whether or not the example is telling and move on to another one.
I just want to be clear that I really disagree with you here, and point out that you seem to be arguing that, depending on your interpretation of the word ”area,” Anderson’s statement is either 1) wrong, 2) a lie, or 3) simply irrelevant. If we select option 3), I have difficulty understanding why his statement was included in the paragraph in the first place.
In addition, I’d like to try to demonstrate the effect these sorts of (in my opinion) misleading arguments employed by the Swiftvets. (I know that my demonstrations generally fail to convince, but at least I can get some extra credit for trying.)
In a previous exchange on this topic, you wrote the following (post # 220):
Here, it seems clear to me that you’ve been mislead by these arguments presented by the Swiftvets into believing that a Swiftboat couldn’t even make it into Cambodia. You understand now, though, that it was imminently possible for a Swiftboat to travel into Cambodia, yes? In 1968, there were over 50 reported cross-border incidents between US and Cambodian troops, many involving Swift boats (I referred to one earlier in my cite from the Ha Tien page.) My guess is that there were considerably more unreported incidents. Do you now concede that it would at least have been possible for Kerry to have been in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, even though he wasn’t, and that it is entirely possible that Kerry travelled into Cambodia on a later date?
Part of why I react so strongly against the Swift vets is precisely this. What do you make of a group of veterans working actively and publicly to ”interpret everything in the most unfavourable light to Kerry,” yourself?
I find it despicable, especially during an election year, that a group of men would go out of their way to present an honourable veteran’s service record in the worst possible light. I also find it despicable that some posters, such as Sam Stone, do everything in their power to further that dishonourable attack, and am insulted by their attempts to make rhetorical mountains out of factual molehills. Because that’s what this is about: Sam does everything in his power to make mountains out of Kerry’s molehills, and molehill’s out of Bush’s mountains. It would seem that you agree that this is what the Swifties are doing as well.
No, no, not my wife, your wife.
Oh, I see.
:looks at other sharks, nods:
DENIAL!
Regarding the Purple Heart ”concession”:
- I’m aware of Kerry’s version of the events, having read it a number of times myself. Nowhere in that version does Kerry claim to be injured by enemy fire. To answer your direct question, friendly fire is not ruled out in the passage, and could easily be the source of Kerry’s wound.
You cannot reasonably ”mark words” about the passage from ”Unfit” we’ve discussed earlier, and fall back on the ambiguities of the word ”area” as a defense of it’s accuracy, only to subject Kerry’s story to your own personal interpretation. In the passage quoted above, Kerry makes no claim whatsoever regarding the origin of his wound.
2) You’ve claimed that Kerry’s campaign has ”conceded” that Schacte’s version of events are correct, and that Kerry ”admitted” this only after the Swiftvets came forward with Schacte’s story. Your only evidential backing for this claim is a sound bite taken from the Brit Hume Show of all the places in the world, of a statement made by a representative of the Swift vets themselves, who says that Kerry conceded, without any apparent evidential backing. I’ve patiently asked you several times for better, less partisan evidential support for this claim, and you’ve flatly refused, and even gotten your gander up about it. When you ask me for cites, I provide them forthwith. Above are two examples in which Kerry (and/or his campaign) concedes nothing to the Swiftvets regarding the events surrounding his first Purple Heart. Are you planning to simply ignore them?
3) Let’s go back to the original quote that caused me to take up this issue. During his lowly, vile, and despicable hatchet job on Kerry’s war record a few pages back, Sam Stone wrote the following:
Let’s take a closer look at this passage.
”John Kerry’s first purple heart was not due to enemy action, but due to fragments from his own grenade.”
In the pit thread currently dealing with these questions, Sam would have the reader believe that he is simply trying to rational and honest, in search of open debate on these issues. But here we see Sam stating as fact, with no reservation or caveats whatsoever, a version of events that is flatly disputed by the Kerry campaign and contradicted by at least three eyewitnesses (Kerry, Runyon, and Zaladonis).
We do not know if Kerry was wounded by enemy or friendly fire. It could have been either one, and Kerry has never – at least to my knowledge – denied that he could have been injured by friendly fire. Kerry, Runyon, and Zaladonis do deny, however, that Kerry ever had a grenade launcher with him in the boat that night, so the claim that Kerry was wounded by fragments from his own grenade is almost certainly false.
”The Kerry campaign has now admitted that this may have been the case…”
False and intentionally misleading. The Kerry campaign has never admitted that Kerry may have been wounded by fragments from his own grenade.
”…after Admiral Scachte came forward and supported the swiftvets and claimed he was on the boat that night…”
False and intentionally misleading: the Kerry campaign has never disputed the possibility that Kerry was wounded by friendly fire, and never conceded that he had a grenade launcher on the evening in question. Sam’s statement here further implies that the Kerry campaign changed their story after Schacte stepped forward, and this is also simply a lie, designed to denigrate Kerry and make him appear to change his story in response to the Swiftvets allegations. In fact, with regard to the Purple Heart, Kerry’s story has been consistent throughout.
”…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. ”
Again, intentionally misleading. As noted earlier, Zaladonis and Runyon were not members of Kerry’s Swiftboat crew, and thus the passage in Kerry’s diary is irrelevant (as you’ve previously conceded yourself). This is yet another smear by the Swiftvets that Sam, in the interest of ”fair and rational debate,” continues to dishonourably and disingenuously promote on these boards, despite having been presented clear and compelling counter-evidence on several occasions.
It is this passage from Sam Stone that I take issue with. If you concur with the points I outline above, then we have no real disagreement at least as to the facts of the matter.
Dere are no sharks in denial.
Dere are crocodiles, dough.
I honestly read it to say that the route up the Mekong river into Cambodia was blocked, not that it would be impossible just difficult and against orders.
Gentlemanly of you to concede as much. “Area” is a tough word to pin down precisely.
To show that Kerry wasn’t supposed to be there and that steps were taken to assure he was not.
Yes, I so concede.
Well no, not really. Do you also feel the same way about Kerry? It seems to me that in his Wintersoldier investigation and in his testimony he did everything possible to paint his fellow servicemen in the most unfavorable light. To me, it’s not that he argued his point strongly. I expect people to argue forcefully. To me, it is the fact that he turned against his own that causes my distaste. But seriously, Kerry did the same thing, and this is your point. Do you hold it against him as well, or just the Swiftvets?
Do you abandon your position when you feel that somebody on your side is arguing it overzealously?
I think they are collecting a payment that is long, long past due. I also think that the Wintersoldier thing says a lot about Kerry and his capacity for betrayal. I think it takes a lot of nerve to turn around after that and try to play the war hero. There’s a horrible arrogance there and opportunism. Does he really think he can get away with it?
This is nothing new, you know? O’neil’s been fighting this battle since about 1972. I come from a military family. My father hates Jane Fonda to this day. He remembers Kerry as a man who dishonored his country and fellow soldiers. I just don’t see how this guy can be put up there as a man who can run our country after what he did. I really do applaud the Swiftvets for what they’ve done, and I don’t begrudge them the tactics pioneered by Kerry himself during Wintersoldier. Please tell me that you see it. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. They don’t owe Kerry a measured response.
Well sure. I think they are arguing their points as strongly as they can. Sometimes you do it, too. As do I. Sometimes I do it a lot. You seem to concede that the particular use of “area” in the statement we’ve been arguing about is something of a molehill, but we’ve certainly been climbing Everest arguing it, haven’t we?
Sometimes it’s nice though to step back and try to investigate and understand what actually happened, or what the actual basis for our viewpoints are. If you find somebody who has a different viewpoint and is willing to do this as well, sometimes you overcome each others’ prejudices and end up with a better understanding of the truth. Sometimes your position is reinforced on stronger ground, sometimes it stands but for different reasons. Occasionally it may change.
My wife can kick my ass. Seriously. I am David Gest to her Liza Minnelli.
That’s true. It could be friendly fire, there. It seems to me that the implication is that he feels he was shot by incoming fire, though.
This is not precisely what I claimed. We might as well be precise. Actually it was a lot of posts ago, and I don’t remember if I actually said that, but I know I’ve corrected it several times. They didn’t concede Schacte’s version is correct, they conceded that Kerry may have been hit by friendly fire. That’s where we are with this, right? This is a different thing from Schacte’s version being correct, yes?
Well two things here, Svin. 1. You’re asking me to prove something I’m not arguing. I’m not arguing they conceded Shacte’s version, just the part of it which says friendly fire is a possibility. 2. You are good with the cites, generally I am too. In this particular exceptional case, the only access to the original firsthand cite requires a paid subscription to a website. I’ve mentioned this several times, and you have failed to satisfactorily address it? Are you willing to pay to see the cite. I don’t remember, but I think it’s $20 or so. I’m not. If a particular cite cost you $20, I would tend to forgo it, unless it was going to prove something earthshaking. I just don’t care that much.
Well, first off. Sam can take care of himself. He’s arguing the viewpoint he believes, and he’s arguing it strongly. If you think this lowly and vile, there are plently of examples of it occuring on both sides of the fence on these boards, you know? Credibility, would suggest that you also crusade against unworthy left-wing attacks against the right, would it not?
As for me, I understand that the events are disputed. Personally, I tend to think that Kerry got hit with his own grenade fragment, fired from a launcher. I think this is the most reasonable explanation for the small fragment that embedded itself in his arm. Had it been a piece of a bullet fired in his direction it would have had a lot more energy and probably would have torn his arm off. The boat itself, being a foam skiff isn’t the kind of thing to produce shrapnel. A grenade being a fragmentation device is more prone to throwing off shrapnel some of which will be fairly low energy. A bullet is softer metal and is somewhat less likely to fragment up but tends to stay in one large high energy piece. It is of course possible that it’s an enemy bullet, just somewhat more likely it was a grenade fragment.
No, but I think the gist of Kerry’s story sugggests otherwise. According to him, he wasn’t firing at the time. One of the other guy’s was operating the engine. That leaves one guy in the boat who could be firing. If you got shot by a guy in the same skiff with a high-powered rifle, it would do a lot more than a leave a tiny fragment in your arm. For it to be friendly fire in this case, we would be looking at an extremely unlikely ricochet, with a bullet fragment having to travel quite a long distance to land in Kerry’s arm. This kind of thing is almost impossible. That’s why it’s generally safe to fire downrange into a backstop. Ricochet’s of this type are almost precluded by the laws of physics and bullet design. A grenade on the other hand explodes in all directions and can throw shrapnel quite far. So, friendly fire or not, I think a grenade is the likeliest culprit. That’s one thing I find attractive about Shacte’s story. It has a grenade in it. Another is something I’ve mentioned earlier. Either Shacte is lying or misremebering, or Kerry and the two enlisted guys are lying or misrembering. That website that I showed earlier suggests that Zaldonis may not have even been at Cam Ranh Bay at the time.
I don’t feel that I have enough information to actively endorse either side of the story. They both have components that are convincing and they both have components that are problematic.
My best guess is that it was Kerry’s grenade that fragged him. That there were multiple sites that they went to and that the manning of the skiff was not consistent across all those sites. I suspect Zaldonis was there, and that the cite showing him elsewhere is simply not comprehensive.
Well, there are so many contradictions here, I doubt the equiptment on the boat can ever be accurately determined. I suspect Kerry was wounded by a grenade, because that best fits the profile of the wound he received according to my understanding of the armaments involved and the action. Kerry was on a foam boat. A bullet hitting the boat won’t fragment except under very weird ballistically anomalies, the same for one hitting the water. So it probably wasn’t a bullet fired at him. It probably wasn’t a friendly fire bullet because that would have to travel a considerable distance, impact, fragment, and travel all the way back to end in Kerry’s arm. It probably wasn’t a grenade from an enemy, simply because if you are on the recieving end of a grenade it’s hard to mistake it or not notice it, and nobody is saying one went off near them. A grenade fired from the boat though would credibly through shrapnel back and frag you. (Kerry has first hand knowledge of this from the rice bin incident.)
So, that’s my analysis. I also favor Shacte’s story because he was in command, so where was he if not on the boat, and why all this Batman and Robin nonsense if Batman isn’t around, and what’s the point in sending Kerry out on a training exercise without a trainer?
I also favor Shacte’s story because I don’t like Kerry. Big surprise? But I don’t think that overshadows my logic and I don’t think my position is unreasonable? Do you?
Right. Just friendly fire is a possibility. We are agreed that that was the concession if one was made, and that it was never stated otherwise so it’s not much of a concession if it is one. Ok with that?
Yes. To the best of my knowledge Kerry has only one version of this story out there.
Ummm. Are you sure? I thought they both served on Kerry’s Swiftboat later. Are you sure of this? I’ll try to check.
No. I don’t think it’s a lie. It is an inconsistency. The passage in Kerry’s diary can be interpreted two ways. One way is that Kerry and his crewmates have not yet been involved in combat in their current boat. The other is that they have not yet seen combat. It doesn’t prove anything one way or the other, but it can be used to argue a point in conjunction with other data. That’s what you say you are trying to do when you present me with examples that do not prove your case completely but just point to it (like the whole area of the Mekong thing.) Why do you object to Sam doing it?
I understand that you’re frustrated with Sam. That should be between you and him. I seem him as arguing his point strongly. He’s read the book, he’s entitled to his opinion and to argue. I’ve read both books, and understand the general arguments. Nonetheless I’ ve gained further knowledge by arguing with you about maps and such. Why not gain what knowledge you can from Sam?
I think he made an excellent point in explaining why O’neil was not lying when he told Nixon he was in Cambodia, don’t you? I had not particularly understood the implications of his later stationing at Ann Thoi? Did you?
So, if you get something from it, it’s hardly worth complaining about, IMO. The only people that really frustrate me are those that don’t offer anything but namecalling, or empty assertions, devoid of logic or evidence to back them up. Sam is willing to argue specifics, so he’snot one of those, and the motherfucker has taken a shitload of abuse for his trouble. Chances are he’s frustrated too.
Earlier, in one of our more heated moments you asked me if I was going to meltdown. Than we had the wifebeating thing. We chilled out. None of us are perfect though.
Your father may well be right about Jane Fonda. With allies like her, who needs enemies? But he, and you, are fundamentally wrong about the nature of “dishonor”, in this regard. The men who committed the crimes, in our names, wearing our uniforms…they are the ones who dishonored thier country. You want to be mad at someone, be mad at them.
Are you mad at Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, the helicopter pilot who saved lives at MyLai by threatening to open fire on American soldiers? He testified against some of those soldiers. Did he betray his country? Did he dishonor all servicemen, everywhere, by his behavior?
If I find myself considering telling the truth as a betrayal of my country, I should hope to have enough decency to reconsider my loyalties.
Scylla:
Well, this is the crux of the biscuit, in a way. I disagree that he did so. For example, he didn’t name a single person in his testimony. The statements to which the you (and the Swiftvets) object so strenuously is takes up a mere paragraph or two in his entire 15 page testimony.
Honestly I don’t see Kerry as ”doing the same thing.” But if his testimony was factually incorrect, or if he lied, then of course I think that should be pointed out and made public, so to speak.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I don’t expect you to ”abandon your position;” I just want to get at the truth of the matter, and be as scrupulous about that truth as I can be. This includes Kerry’s testimony as well.
But when does ”overzealousness” cross the line into innuendo, lying, and wilful attempts to manipulate the public by gross distortions of fact? This is a judgement call, I know, but as I’ve written previously: I have no problem with the Swiftvets contention that they were ”betrayed” by Kerry in 1971. I disagree with that view, personally, but I can fully respect the fact that someone else might feel differently. I even agree – or at least, agreed – with the Swiftvets when they question Kerry’s integrity now, and wonder how someone who testified of US war crimes before the Senate in 1971, and threw away his medals in protest, could turn around 30 years later, wrap himself in the flag, and act the war hero.
But when this, arguably legitimate, criticism of Kerry spills over into a smear campaign designed to impugn the record of a man who served honourably in combat, and to imply that this man who performed his duties more bravely than I ever would is really a coward, well… then they’ve crossed the line, in my opinion. And to my mind, the sin is not ”overzealousness.” It’s wilful misleading, lying and dishonourable character assassination. Which I can never, ever condone, ever, at least not in this context.
Perhaps. I disagree, but even if I agreed, I don’t think I would agree with the idea that it is okay to lie, distort, spread innuendo, and so forth, as a means of collecting that payment.
elucidator makes a good point about this, and I agree; Kerry spoke truth to power.
You know, the guy who finally blew the whistle on the Abu Graib situation has been forced to go into protective custody. Many people believed that he ”betrayed” his country when he spoke out, and he received numerous death threats.
Do you, Scylla, think that this brave man betrayed his fellows when he decided to tell the truth about what was going on in Iraq?
Another biscuit crux, here. Perhaps your military history, and your loyalty to your father and his ideals, explains why you feel the way you do. I don’t come from a military family – although I’ve served – and I simply don’t feel that way.
But a man who lies to the entire American public in order to instigate a costly, pointless, counter-productive war of choice – he is someone you can vote for? A man who used his family connections to avoid combat service, and then couldn’t even be bothered to fulfil his stateside duties in a cushy Guard unit – he is in some way a better choice?
I’m sorry Scylla. I don’t.
Maybe not. But they owe me, and you, and Sam Stone, and all the rest of us an honest and truthful response. Instead, they are using people like you, and your father, in a personal grudge match against Kerry. (I want to emphasize the word ”use” here, as in ”exploit.”) Their grudge against Kerry has nothing to do with you or me, however. It’s not an important issue in the presidential election, which should be about what’s going on now – not about the wounded egos of a bunch of old soldiers who could simply never forgive Kerry for his opposition to the war 30 years ago, and his damaging testimony before the US Senate.
Nothing wrong with arguing forcefully for your beliefs.
However, if, after this discussion, I were to continue using the passage from ”Unfit” I quoted above, again and again, in thread after thread, claiming that it was irrefutable proof that the Swiftvets were full of it, and completely ignoring the conclusions we’ve reached in this thread thus far – am I ”arguing my point as strongly as I can,” or am I simply being obtuse? If this is pointed out to me time and time again, and I refuse to acknowledge it, and continue blithely acting as if I had proven beyond doubt that the Swifties were full of it: obtuse, or wilfully spreading lies and innuendo?
I’m not on a crusade to wipe out all lowly and vile arguments here at the Straight Dope. I’m engaged in an argument with you, and Sam, about the credibility of the Swiftvets. In that argument, I’ve watched Sam employ these dishonourably tactics again and again.
Your point of view on this matter is arguably more balanced and dispassionate than my own. For me, what I can’t understand is how the other three men involved in the incident all have the exact same story; a story that was never in dispute until Kerry started running for President, and the Swiftvets – who make no bones whatsoever about their bias against Kerry – began their smear campaign.
In addition, Runyon comes off to me, personally, as an honest, straightforward, simple, credible witness. He does not try to exaggerate his role in the events of that night or turn himself into a hero (”It was the scariest night of my life”), and he just feels honest to me. For example, he says, ”Me and Bill ain’t the smartest, but we can count to three.” This is not the statement of man caught in a lie and on the defensive, in my opinion.
But of course, we have no real way of knowing what happened that evening, so in the final analysis, we are both left to speculation. We make the best and most reasonable guess we can with the information we have available. However, afterwards, you do not write, as if it were an established, undisputed fact, that:
”John Kerry’s first purple heart was not due to enemy action, but due to fragments from his own grenade.”
I do not write:
John Kerry’s first purple hear was due to enemy action, when he was shot by enemy combats fleeing from an engagement.
We both acknowledge that we don’t know with certainty. Sam, on the other hand, pays lip service to reason, and to open debate, and then pulls shit like the above out of his ass; and this is a dishonest debating tactic. He’s been called on both the specific quote above, and the tactics he employs in general, time and time again, and yet he continues to employ both.
Somewhere along the way I lost track of the accusation. Again, if your only point is that Kerry could have been wounded by friendly fire, and that the Kerry campaign has acknowledged that possibility, then the point is mundane and I have no argument with it. I think that Garrett’s statement is considerably more ambiguous, on the other hand, and could be easily misconstrued as a claim that Kerry had conceded Schacte’s story is true. With Sam’s version, there’s no room for doubt: Sam has already decided that Kerry is a dishonourable liar, and that Schacte’s version is accurate, and writes as if that was an established fact.
I’m very okay with that.
I’m fairly sure that Runyon never served on Kerry’s Swifboat. I think Zaladonis was with Kerry for a short period of time, long after Kerry wrote that sentence in his diary.
Sam knows, or at least should know by this point, that Runyon never served on Kerry’s Swiftboat, and that Zaladonis wasn’t a part of Kerry’s crew when he wrote the passage in question. Yet he continues to employ it.
I try to piece things together as well, but I don’t use information that was previously debunked and that I know is false, or at least disputed, as if it were an undisputable truth upon which a rational argument can be based.
Not really, no. ”In Cambodia,” the phrase O’Niell used in his conversation with Nixon, does not mean, ”Sailing around off the coast of Cambodia.” To me, this is just another one of Sam’s standard tricks: confronted with information that contradicts his beliefs, he rationalizes, or simply makes up something to serve as a possible excuse for the inconsistency.
Sam doesn’t know what O’Niell meant when he told Nixon that he had been in Cambodia. He provides no evidence whatsoever that his interpretation of O’Niell’s statement is correct. But watch the way he works, now: in six months, Sam will have forgotten all of this, and his version of O’Niell’s statement will be, for him, the incontrovertible facts of the matter.
No one, least of all me, would give Sam shit for arguing specifics with logic and evidence. I don’t at all. But the truth is, Sam doesn’t use logic or evidence. He picks and chooses arguments, ignores contrary evidence, refuses to concede even when the counter-evidence is overwhelming, continues to make spurious claims even after they’ve been factually disproven, and employs an entire gamut of rather despicable rhetorical tricks. And when people finally get tired of it, he plays the martyr.
That’s why he gets so much shit.
God knows I’m not.
I’m really glad we’ve been able to keep this discussion on such a gentlemanly and reasonable level, though. That’s what I come here for, really: not all the name-calling and shit, which I find to be a sterile waste of time. Although I know that in the heat of the moment it’s easy to loose one’s temper.