Final Word On Lies About Kerry

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]vroom wrote:
When Kerry has ties to smear ads I’ll be unthrilled about that as well. However, a smear isn’t simply anything which the other side does not like to hear.

I don’t imagine you can tell the difference between advertising that is negative but sticks to facts and advertising that is negative and is based on conjecture.[/quote]

Conjecture meaning differing eyewitness accounts? 'Cause eyewitness accounts are what the Swiftboat ads are based upon. What’s obvious is that there are dueling accounts. What isn’t obvious is which side is lying or having a failure of memory.

[Subsequently added] Of course, as umpteen newspaper editorial boards have noted, Kerry may be able to clear that confusion by releasing the records he has thus far withheld. Why won’t he release? That matter is left for conjecture until Mr. Kerry decides to sign the form for the Navy, open his diaries, or both.

As to Kerry and smear ads, I believe you’re familiar with the ads MoveOn.org ran against Bush’s guard service, which Kerry “condemned” while scheduling a press conference for Wes Clark to discuss, and which condemnation he subsequently refused to confirm?

82

[quote]vroom wrote:
When Kerry has ties to smear ads I’ll be unthrilled about that as well. However, a smear isn’t simply anything which the other side does not like to hear.

I don’t imagine you can tell the difference between advertising that is negative but sticks to facts and advertising that is negative and is based on conjecture.[/quote]

I don’t understand why you care so much about American politics? What is your deal? You sit there under the security blanket that America provides you, and all you can do is bash the greatest political system in the world.

It seems that you are lost and somehow found your way into this forum. What you really need to do it spend your time discussing Canadian politics and perhaps working out.

Done with rant. Later hoser…

83

Excerpt from article linked above:

“The Republicans, in an e-mail message to reporters, listed several Democrats who they said showed connections between Democratic 527 groups, Mr. Kerry’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Among them were Zack Exley, the former organizing director for MoveOn.org’s political action committee who now works for Mr. Kerry’s campaign; Jim Jordan, the former campaign manager for Mr. Kerry who now works as a consultant for the liberal groups America Coming Together and the Media Fund; and Joe Sandler, who is a lawyer for both the Democratic National Committee and MoveOn.org.” [End excerpt]

Not that the NYT would be inclined to look into those relationships or anything…

Or, here’s another good one:

Neil Reiff is listed as the contact person for MoveOn.org’s 527 organization, as can be seen on the actual form submitted by MoveOn.org to the IRS here http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=13159&formType=E72

But Mr. Reiff seems to have another job. According to his firm’s website, he’s also the Deputy General Counsel for the Democratic National Committee
http://www.sandlerreiff.com/bio_reiff.htm

From June, 1993 until May, 1998, Mr. Reiff served as Deputy General Counsel of the Democratic National Committee, and will retain this title in his new firm. In this capacity, Mr. Reiff has been responsible for assisting the DNC General Counsel in all legal matters affecting the national party. Mr. Reiff’s major field of expertise is federal and state campaign finance laws. In that regard, Mr. Reiff advises and represents the DNC in all matters before the Federal Election Commission and state election agencies.

Basically, the Republicans have release parallel “ties” to those highlighted by the Democrats. Neither set of relationships on its face proves any collusion in violation of campaign finance laws, or even any relationship between the organizations.

This is stupid, and I blame the Republicans for joining in, although it’s hard to blame them too much given the hay that was being made over the non-showing by the Democrats.

84

Putting it all together – very minor quibbles, but generally a very good article:

[Internal links in original]

Swift Retribution
By Duane D. Freese

How did we end up debating the Vietnam war again?

The anger and bitterness heightened by the Swift boat veterans’ accusations against Presidential candidate John Kerry and the Democratic reflex to then attack President Bush demonstrates that some wounds don’t heal.

So who pulled off the scab of this one? What is really making it bleed? And what does it have to do with the presidency?

Well, who pulled off the scab is pretty simple. Go back to when the topic first came up. It amounted to a one-two punch aimed at President Bush by Democratic Party leaders and supporters.

Anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore at a rally for Democratic candidate Wesley Clark back in January called Bush a “deserter” from his Air National Guard Service, and then Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe said that Bush was “AWOL.”

They instigated a media reinvestigation of Bush’s service in the Guard. It was an easy target because it had been brought up in the 2000 campaign, and 30 year old records lead to all sorts of scattered memories. Nonetheless, the media took the line that Bush, despite his getting an honorable discharge, was obligated to prove his innocence. The fact his fellow guardsmen came to his defense hasn’t stopped the Kerry campaign from continuing to try to make an issue of it, both on its web site and in attempting to contrast Kerry’s and Bush’s service.

Indeed, one might say that Kerry’s “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty” salute was not only a way to again wave his own medal-winning service before the public but to resonate with McAuliffe’s AWOL and Moore’s deserter charge. Good political propaganda – true or false – plays upon subtle repetition of previously enunciated themes.

The reverberation, though, included some echoes that that could hardly have been unexpected by Kerry and crew. And that is what is making it bleed.

Some veterans of the Swift boats – the kind Kerry honorably served aboard and even commanded during his four months of duty in Vietnam – had long held grievances with him, dating back to when Kerry returned from Nam to join anti-war groups. Particularly upsetting to many of these veterans was Kerry’s denigrating their service by talking up atrocities he claimed he witnessed in Vietnam.

The most vocal of Kerry’s foes, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have come out with books and television ads alleging that Kerry won some of his medals with false claims.

As in Bush’s case, the military record generally supports Kerry’s accounts, although not one particular embellishment he made regarding a Christmas spent in Cambodia. The crew members who served on his Swift boat support him as well.

And this time, the media generally are putting it on the Swift boat vets to prove their claims, rather than on Kerry. That’s as it should be.

But that being the case, what is keeping the controversy alive? Again Kerry and crew. Kerry and his followers have gone ballistic. Kerry, in a Cooper Union speech in New York, in which he sounded more like a vice presidential candidate in his attack tone, accused the president of “using fear and smear tactics” to keep from talking about “the issues that matter.”

Now, there is no denying that some Republican Party stalwarts support both the Bush campaign and the Swift Boats’ folks. It’s true, too, that a lawyer for the Bush campaign also did some work for the Swift Boats.

But the hypocricy of the Kerry position is that the same thing is going on for the Democrats. MoveOn.org is one of several 527 organizations started by Democratic Party faithful, such as financier George Soros who contributed $5 million to its founding, to circumvent the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act that limits presidential campaign spending. Lawyers for Kerry’s campaign and the Democratic Party have advised those organizations.

Bush’s lauding of Kerry’s war record and his condemnation of the Swift Boat ads and other ads by 527 organizations didn’t satisfy Kerry. Kerry wants him only to condemn the Swift Boat vets, even though Bush, not having served aboard Swift boats with Kerry, has no way to know personally the veracity of what they have to say.

In short, Kerry and crew want to have it both ways. They want their 527s to have free hand to attack Bush in any manner, while Bush is obligated to try and control any 527s that attack Kerry.

The fact is that you can’t parse the First Amendment that way. You can’t require reining in the rights of some people and not others. In fact, if the First Amendment and freedom of the press mean anything, then these 527s can say whatever they want, just as the editorial pages of a newspaper can.

The fact, though, is that the 527s drain money from the parties and from the campaigns to get their messages out. Supporters give money to them instead of giving more to the parties. And there is no way the parties can really control them. That’s the flaw of the McCain-Feingold act. Get money back into the parties and these 527s would shrink.

And as for what service in the Vietnam war has to do with being president, well, nothing.

Go through the history of presidential military service and you’ll find it doesn’t prove a thing. Being a good soldier doesn’t necessarily make for being a good president. Abraham Lincoln, revered by most historians as the greatest president, was actually busted from being captain, and ended as a private, seeing no battle in the Black Hawk War, and few could imagine today his being beaten by Gen. George McClellan who ran on his military record in his campaign against Lincoln in 1864. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose polio prevented service, was a great war time president. Meanwhile, the great generals Ulysses S. Grant and Zachary Taylor were at best mediocrities. Richard M. Nixon served honorably and bravely in the Navy during World War II, and Jimmy Carter afterwards, and both are rated among the 10 worst presidents.

So why are we debating the Vietnam war again? Excuse me, I forgot – Kerry and the Swift Boat veterans are reliving a tortured time in both theirs and the nation’s life. But not doing so in a very enlightening manner.

Author’s note [From Duane D. Freese]: I had a low draft number for the Vietnam War and anticipated entering the military. At my physical, a doctor pulled me aside and told me I’d have to come back for another physical. I had a heart murmur. When I came in for my second physical, as the doctor was listening to my heart, a captain stepped into the room and said: “If there’s any doubt, he’s out.” I found out later that two young recruits had died of heart attacks at Camp LaJuene, N.C. The doctor stamped me 4F. I have nothing but admiration for all who have served in our military, including Sen. Kerry and those Swift boat vets whether they support or oppose him.

85

Very interesting - John O’Neill answered questions submitted by Washington Post readers - looks like they were mostly from those skeptical of the Swiftboat Vets:

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/oneill082604.htm

Book: Unfit for Command
John E. O’Neill
Co-author
Thursday, August 26, 2004; Noon ET

In his book, “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” co-author John E. O’Neill questions numerous aspects of Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry’s Vietnam service.

O’Neill was online Thursday, Aug. 26, Noon ET to take your questions and comments on the book as well as the accusations.
John Hurley, National Director of Veterans for Kerry, will be online Thursday, Aug. 26, at 2 p.m. ET.

The transcript follows.

John E. O’Neill: A lot of good information can be found at swiftvets.com. The readers will have to go after that site that exactly because if you vary or alter the name in other ways or use search engines you are libel to reach bogus Kerry sites to divert people from our site. So you would have to use exactly the words swiftvets.com.

Another good place to get information is Unfit for Command the book to which over 60 of us contributed. The members of Swift Boat Veterans for truth are listed on the Web site and include over 260 Swifties led by Adm. Roy Hoffmann, our commander in Vietnam. I am simply one of many people involved in our organization.

We are here for two reasons. First Kerry lied about our record in Vietnam, both in 1971 and most recently in his authorized biography. Second, and less important to us, he exaggerated wildly his own short record in Vietnam.

Bethlehem, Pa.: Mr. O’Neill, you are questioning the validity of medals awarded to John Kerry by the U.S. government. Aren’t you also by implication questioning the competency of the medal eligibility determinations made by U.S. military brass? If so, aren’t you in reality calling into question the authenticity of every medal awarded to every U.S. serviceman? If so, how do we differentitate the “good” medals from the “bad” medals?

John E. O’Neill: A portion of the book deals with the incidents in which John Kerry obtained medals. With respect to John Kerry?s first Purple Heart the book demonstrates that it was from a self inflicted wound in the absence of hostile fire. It was denied by the commanding officer at the time Grant Hibbard. It was granted only three months later when Kerry applied after all who had known the facts had left Vietnam. With respect to Kerry?s third Purple Heart Kerry represented to the Navy that he had received shrapnel from an underwater mine. He know admits that he had wounded himself earlier in the morning playing around with a grenade. The would was minor and superficial. The Naval award system particularly with purple hearts depends on a self reporting system relying on integrity. Kerry gamed that system by submitting false information to the Navy. He used the three Purple Hearts to get out of Vietnam 243 days before his one year tour ended. No one else in the history of our unit ever reviewed a Purple Heart for a self inflicted wound. Neither did anyone else leave early because of three minor scratches. None of which resulted in an hour lost or involved more than bandaid and tweezers. The Naval System depends on the integrity of a Naval officer. Kerry didn?t have it.

New York, N.Y.: You made a statement that you would have voted for John Edwards for President. What qualities do you think will make John Edwards a great VP choice for voters?

John E. O’Neill: I am a lawyer in Houston. I have heard only good things from other lawyers about John Edwards. He obviously has given up a successful career in order to pursue the public interest. I hope he has a long and successful career in public service. In the summer of 2003 I was contacted on this matter by the Boston Globe and indicated that I supported Sen. Edwards for President. Unfortunately that is not the hand we got dealt.

Arlington, Va.: How would you characterize your group’s relationship with Benjamin Ginsberg?

John E. O’Neill: After we received threatening letters and complaints from at least two law firms representing the Kerry campaign it became apparent that we would need additional council in order to respond and represent us. We therefore retained the Patton-Boggs firm where we worked with several lawyers. We were happy for their assistance. We are proud that Mr. Ginsberg has decided to represent us as opposed to the much larger clients available. We were very surprised at the attacks on him and his firm given that many of the huge Kerry 527 organizations are represented by exactly the same law firm as his campaign. The attacks obviously hold us to a higher standard than the Kerry campaign and that is fine with us. We would want to adhere to a higher standard than the Kerry campaign.

St Augustine, Fla.: Mr. O’Neil, are you saying that John Kerry lied when he reported the information he had received about atrocities in Vietnam to Congress? Are you saying there were not attrocities committed in Vietnam or that they should not have been reported?

John E. O’Neill: All atrocities in Vietnam should have been reported to investigative authorities and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Neither John Kerry nor his associates in VVAW ever reported a single atrocity to the Naval investigative service or any other law enforcement authority. Instead Kerry made a general charge that rape, murder and mayhem was occurring on a day to day basis with the awareness of officers at all levels of command. On the Dick Cavett show in June 1971 I asked Kerry to itemize the specific atrocities that he had seen. He was unable to name any except generalizations. He lied to the United States Congress and to the world when he claimed that our policies in Vietnam were criminal policies and that our troops to the lowest levels were criminals carrying out murder and mayhem on a daily basis. It is one thing to be against the war in Vietnam, it is another to criminalize the kids that the country sent to fight it. Kerry did the second. That was wrong.

Fairfax, Va.: If you have all these issues with John Kerry, why wait 35 years to bring them public after he has served in the US Senate all these years? It seems that much of what we are hearing is literal gotcha that can easily be turned on anyone including yourself.

John E. O’Neill: First, when John Kerry made war crimes claims I debated him in June of 1971 after which he generally faded from public view. On many occasions his political opponents, democratic and Republican, contacted me and many other swifties for information to defeat him in political races. For more than 30 years we refused because we wanted the past to over and who Massachusetts picks does not affect the nation. It because apparent to all of us when John Kerry?s name became to be considered with the office of Commander and Chief that we were now talking about a very serious matter that would affect our children, our grandchildren and the future of the entire nation. Under the circumstances more than 260 of us felt we had no alternative but to come forward. In addition as a matter of basic integrity and honor we could not allow Kerry?s current misrepresentations in his biography Tour of Duty and at the Democratic Convention where he made his service the centerpiece of his campaign to continue without rebuttal. We owe that to our friends living and dead beyond politics.

Dayton, Ohio: Mr. O’Neill, I recently heard a portion of the White House audio tape of your meeting with President Nixon. I heard you tell President Nixon that you had gone to Cambodia on your swift boat.

I also heard you tell a reporter recently(on tape) that you had never been in Cambodia.

Did you lie to President Nixon or did you lie to the reporter?

Have you ever been in Cambodia, and if so, when did you go and did you go more than once?

If you have never been in Cambodia, how close did you ever get to the Cambodian border (in feet or miles)?

John E. O’Neill: I lied to no one. You quote the first half of the statement but ignore the following sentence. I clearly said that I was on the Cambodian border. I was on a canal system known as Bernique?s Creek located about 100 yards south of the Cambodian border from which it would have been very difficult to get into Cambodia at least from a boat.

I never went to Cambodia. Unlike the Kerry story you are defensive about I don?t believe I can ever fairly be interpreted as saying anything different. John Kerry on many different occasions said that the turning point of his life was being in Cambodia illegally for Christmas Eve and Christmas in 1968. This was in a different area than I was in and close approach to Cambodia was not possible for him in that area. In fact he was more than 50 miles away. How many people invent the turning point of their life and repeat it on the senate floor, in articles and more than 50 times in 35 years?

Washington, D.C.: Do you think George W. Bush honorably served his country during the Vietnam War?

John E. O’Neill: Our group has agreed we will take no position with respect to George Bush not because we don?t have individual opinion on him but because we have no knowledge about him different than you have. In our letter of May 4, 2004 we called upon {President Bush to release all military records along with Kerry and called upon Bush?s comrades to come forward with any information they have about his service. We are still in favor of that. We have no special information however about George Bush. We do have very first hand information about John Kerry which may be found at swiftvets.com and in Unfit for Command.

Warren, Mich.: Mr. O’Neill, were you ever on the same boat as John Kerry? Were you on the boat at the same time and day as Mr. Rood, who has first hand eyewitness knowledge of the events of that day? Have you read Mr. Rood’s response to the Swift Boat ads?

John E. O’Neill: I was never on the same boat at the same time with either John Kerry or Bill Rood. Bill Rood was present only one event discussed in the book relating to John Kerry. This was the silver star incident. The account in our book is very similar to Bill Roods article except that Bill Rood?s article makes the Vietcong killed by John Kerry into an adult clothed in pajamas whereas our book describes him as a young Vietcong in a loincloth. This is exactly the same description that the Boston Globe biographers of John Kerry reached on page 101 of their recent biography by Michael Kranish. In addition Mr. Larry Lee on Bill Rood?s boat confirmed our description. More than 60 different factual eyewitnesses to the Kerry events participated in the book as described. Read Unfit for Command.

John E. O’Neill: Bill Rood is one of four officers at Anthoi who believe that John Kerry is fit to be president. 17 of 24 believe he is unfit to be president and have joined our group. We respect Mr. Rood?s opinion but it is clearly a small minority opinion among those who served with John Kerry.

Essex, Conn.: You are accepting money from Bush supporters. You have personally donated money to the Republicans. You voted in a Republican primary. How can you claim, with a straight face, to be any sort of apolitical organization?

John E. O’Neill: Addressing your questions one by one. We will accept money from anyone except a political campaign who gives it to us. The vast majority of our money ? some 32,000 individual donations totaling $2.2 million ? have come from the public generally in one of the largest genuine outbursts of public support in political history. We are happy to take money form George Sorros. Whoever donates money to us does not control our message. The message is ours.

Second, I have donated relatively small amounts of money to Republican candidates but I have donate much greater amounts to Democratic candidates including $20,000 in 2003 to Democratic candidates Bill White and Ron Green. This does not make me a Democrat or a Republican. I tend to vote for the person.

Third, I did and have on occasion voted in Republican and Democratic primaries but most of the time I have not. Sadly Texas has become a one party state and often the only genuine choice is in the republican state. I would much rather prefer for Texas to have a two party system. Understand that my votes are for people and not for parties.

Finally I am one of 260 people. Most of them are retired sailors. They have little or no political affiliation with anyone. I have never run for any office nor managed anyone?s campaign or played any serious role in politics for over 30 years. It took John Kerry running for Commander and Chief to bring us all out.

Arlington, Va.: Since there is no written record, produced to date, backing any of your group?s claims and ample written evidence to the contrary, why should the American people continue listening to you? Aside from the affidavits you hold, which as a lawyer you know are worth no more than the paper they are written on, can you produce any documentation to back your claims?

John E. O’Neill: To the contrary the problem for the Kerry campaign is that the written records back us and not him. Numerous written records show that he was not in Cambodia on Christmas or Christmas Eve in 1968 including his authorized his biography Tour of Duty. With respect to the Sampan incident on January 20, 1969, Kerry describes the incident in the book Tour of Duty notwithstanding the fact that Kerry in tour says that there was a family of four in the boat, his written report to the United States Navy describes a nonexistent Vietnam squad and omits the small child he said he killed. With respect to Kerry?s first Purple Heart, the causality report and the hostile fire report required for a Purple Heart are both missing because there was no casualty and there was no hostile fire. With respect to Kerry?s third Purple Heart, the records show he reported shrapnel wound in his hip to the Navy as coming from an underwater mine. However his own book at page 313 and 317 makes clear that he wounded himself with a grenade. The single most powerful witness against John Kerry is John Kerry?s through contrasting his own written accounts with what he reported to the Navy. See the book for a more complete answer since space here makes it difficult to go on.

Washington, D.C.: Earlier this week George W. Bush denounced your ad as well as the ads of all 527 groups. How do you react to the President?s remarks? In light of his rebuke, will you pull these ads? Why or why not?

John E. O’Neill: The answer of Adm. Hoffman our leader was ?full speed ahead.? George Bush was not a part of our unit nor is he a part of our story. This is a matter deeply between Kerry and ourselves. It goes beyond politics and deeply involved the honor of our unit, the damage done by his false charges and his wild exaggeration of his service with our unit. We will continue through though the election with the last dollar we raise and the last energy we raise to bring the truth to the American public about the falsehood about Kerry?s charges and the exaggeration of his service to the attention of the American people. We will do that not as a matter of politics but because we know he is unfit to command our children, our relatives and other American soldiers or sailors in a dangerous time in our nation.

Fortunately, the First Amendment and the commitment of the American public to fairness will assist us in doing so. We will let the chips fall where they may.

Albany, N.Y.: “I have donated relatively small amounts of money to Republican candidates but I have donate much greater amounts to Democratic candidates including $20,000 in 2003 to Democratic candidates Bill White and Ron Green. This does not make me a Democrat or a Republican. I tend to vote for the person.”

Where can we find this information? A local publication couldn’t. This is what they had to say:

'“I’ve given more to Democrats than Republicans,” John O’Neill claimed on Fox but FEC records do not show a single contribution from John E. O’Neill to any Democratic candidates. When pressed, he said he gave to Democrats “at the local level” and Republicans “at the national level.”

However, a search of records with the Texas Ethics Commission, keeper of contribution records, finds no contributions listed for John E. O’Neill.’

Well?

John E. O’Neill: Yes, you have looked at the wrong place. Check the City of Houston contribution records for 2003. In addition you are ignoring Democratic contributions that I have made in other elections to Democratic offices such as Ilene O?Neill and Kathy Stone.

John E. O’Neill: Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this chat. I urge people to visit our Web site at swiftvets.com or to read the book Unfit for Command. I am satisfied that when the truth comes out the American People will reach a wise decision as they always have. Thank you.

86

Trolling are we?

87

Why are your panties in such a tight bunch over Corsi and Regnery, Lumpy?

The first anti-smoking Naziis were…Naziis. You can look it up in a back issue of the very ‘reactionary’ New Republic. Isn’t the war against Big Tobacco a big Democratic to-do, Lumpy?

“Sheets” Byrd, never one to apologize for past sins, belonged to what organization with three K’s in it and now belongs to what party, Lumpy?

What pillar of the Democratic Party has a long history of discrimation against not only blacks but women, Lumpy? Look for the union label.

What are Yellow Dog Democrats, Lumpy?

Why was the Republican Party founded anyway, Lumpy?

Whose votes did LBJ need to pass the Civl Rights Act because too many of his own party absolutely refused to do so, Lumpy?

The Party that nominated John Kerry has in the long run a lot more to answer for than the party of George Bush.

As for your burden of proof, Lumpy, show me the photos of Bush at which bar when. If we look at the same kind of documentation that you claim supports Kerry and makes “liars” out of his opponents, then you are calling yourself a liar. Byron York makes the case and you make an ass out of yourself yet again.

Discuss that which you know, which is to say shut up, unless you want to stick around for general amusement.

88

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
If we are to believe these Swift Boat clowns, the Navy are a bunch of pussies who award themselves medals every time they scrape a knee.

[/quote]

Yup exactly what Kerry did.

89

You realize you tarnish the military in your attempt to attack Kerry? Do you even care?

90

[quote]vroom wrote:
You realize you tarnish the military in your attempt to attack Kerry? Do you even care?[/quote]

To whom are you addressing your question?

If to me: I’m not attacking Kerry - I haven’t leveled a single accusation at Kerry, and don’t think anything is proved other than Kerry misrepresented himself as being in Cambodia.

I’m more defending myself against your attacks, defending logic against your faulty reasoning, and sticking to my original position that these accusations have not been disproved or proved, and saying that Kerry is witholding information that he promised to release and that is pertinent to the question.

By the way, to the extent this is an attempt to resolve factual matters concerning what happened in the military 30 years ago, I don’t think it really reflects at all on today’s military. How many people in today’s military do you know who feel they’re represented by John Kerry circa 1971?

As far as history goes, Viet Nam was a time of vitriolic attack on all things military, mostly by the left. The military at the time was much more harmed by Mr. Kerry’s broad accusations of war crimes than anything going on now.

91

[quote]vroom wrote:
You realize you tarnish the military in your attempt to attack Kerry? Do you even care?[/quote]

BTW, pursuant to my point above, I would think that all the unproved accusations concerning Abu Ghraib (meaning the extent of involvement, and accusations of how culpability for the torture went up the chain of command), or the accusations of the targeting of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be much more troubling to someone who is worried about maintaining the integrity of the military today, don’t you?

92

If true, this is rather bad for Kerry. The political problem from all this is that it is bringing Kerry’s credibility into question. He wouldn’t have nearly as much of a problem without that campaign book he had published.

Swift boat interview
Robert Novak (archive)

August 27, 2004

NEW YORK – Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the Swift boat veterans dispute that “I was absolutely in the skimmer” in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident which led to his first Purple Heart.

“Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 (grenade launcher),” Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, “Kerry requested a Purple Heart.”

Schachte, who also was then a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man whose name Schachte did not remember.

Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Sen. Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present. Schachte said it “was not possible” for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the Swift boat command in late November of 1968.

Kerry supporters say that no critics of the Democratic presidential candidate ever were aboard a boat with him in combat. Washington lawyer Lanny Davis has contended that Schachte was not aboard the Boston whaler, and the statement in “Unfit for Command” that he was aboard undermines that critical book’s credibility.

Schachte until now has refused to speak out publicly on this question and agreed to give only two interviews. One was a television interview with Lisa Myers of NBC News. The second was a print interview with me.

Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of Mekong River so that the larger Swift boats could move in. At about 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer – code-named “Batman” – fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry’s M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and “I heard a ‘thunk.’ There was no fire from the enemy,” he said.

Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston whaler for these missions.

Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte’s superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and “I don’t think he (Kerry) was alone” on his first assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to “forget it” when he asked for a Purple Heart.

Ted Peck, another Swift boat commander, said, “I remember Bill (Schachte) telling me it didn’t happen” – that is, Kerry getting an enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be “impossible” for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte.

“I was astonished by Kerry’s version” (in his book, “Tour of Duty”) of what happened Dec. 2, Schachte said Thursday. When asked to support the Kerry critics in the Swift boat controversy, Schachte said, “I didn’t want to get involved.” But he said he gradually began to change his mind when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged, starting with Lanny Davis on CNN’s “Crossfire” Aug. 12.

The next time he saw Kerry after the first Purple Heart incident, Schachte said, was “about 20 years” later on the U.S. Senate subway in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building. “I called, ‘Hey, John.’ He replied, ‘Batman.’ I was absolutely amazed by his memory.” He said they “talked about having lunch” but never did.

Schachte said he has never been contacted by or talked to anybody in the Bush-Cheney campaign or any Republican organization. He said he is a political independent who has voted for candidates of both parties.

�2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

93

BTW, vroom,

I wouldn’t be nearly as interested in this issue if you had not called my personal credibility into question, or tried to buttress that position by claiming all this stuff was disproved, so I understand where Retired Rear Admiral Schachte is coming from. One of the consequences of Kerry’s defenders going ad hominem, I guess.

As far as it goes, I think that to the extent the activities from 30 years ago are important at all, it’s Kerry’s post-combat activities on the protest circuit - including his accusations of war crimes - that are much more important.

94

Hmmm. Just saw this – which actually dovetails nicely with my previous post. Perhaps the Swiftboat Vets had other, more personal motivation here, as opposed to being “partisan hacks”:

http://www.hayekcenter.org/prestopunditarchive/003996.html

August 27, 2004

DID DOUGLAS BRINKLEY single-handedly create John Kerry’s Swift Boat nightmare? It appears so.

First Douglas Brinkley inspired the founding of “Swift Boat Vets for Truth” with his book “Tour of Duty”. Quotable:

"Retired since 1978 as a two-star rear admiral, [Roy] Hoffmann comes under particular criticism in the Kerry biography. Brinkley wrote that Kerry saw him as approving cowboy tactics and holding a cavalier attitude toward civilian casualties. Hoffmann said was stunned to find what he termed "gross exaggerations" and "distortions of fact" attributed to Kerry in the Brinkley book. That motivated him to contact other veterans and ask if they'd seen the book. Before long, he said, he had "80 to 100 people solidly lined up" to cooperate in the production of a new book - "Unfit for Command" by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi - that outlines their challenge to Kerry."

Then he provoked John Kerry’s most potent Swift Boat accuser – shipmate Steve Gardner – with a viciously unfair hit piece in TIME magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,599034,00.html

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40177

Quotable:

[Gardner’s] first public statement came unintentionally, he said, when Douglas Brinkley, author of the authorized Kerry war biography “Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War” talked to him in a phone conversation he thought was off the record.

Brinkley put Gardner's thoughts in a March 9 article for Time magazine online, "The Tenth Brother" in which he got a story "sharply different from what the other nine crew members have had to say." Gardner said he thought Brinkley, who spoke with him for two hours, simply was checking facts he had gathered in compiling his book, which relied heavily on Kerry's personal war journals.

Brinkley claims he had tried hard to track down Gardner during his research for the book, but Gardner is skeptical, noting the Globe's Kranish was able to reach him easily. In the Time story, Brinkley writes: "A disappointed Wasser gave me Gardner's telephone numbers, reminding me that PCF-44 gunner's mate was nicknamed 'The Wild Man' by his crewmates for his hair-trigger penchant for firing M-60s into the mangrove thicket. 'Let me know what you find out,' Wasser told me. 'I'm having trouble understanding where he's coming from."

After that article, Gardner said he felt "trashed" and vulnerable, until he got a call from Adm. Roy Hoffman, the organizer of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ..

Now Gardner appears in the new swiftboat vets' television ad, accusing Kerry of falsely claiming to have spent Christmas in Cambodia in 1968. "If I had been by my lonesome, I would have been history six months ago," he said. "Nobody would have listened to me as a gunner's mates, until officers stepped forward and said, 'This has got to stop.'"

Good work Doug. Can’t wait to read your New Yorker piece.

95

An excellent analysis of the media coverage of this story by John O’Sullivan, British expatriate and opinion columnist, and former head of the UPI.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul24.html

Why those swift boaters want Kerry to sink

August 24, 2004

BY JOHN O’SULLIVAN

Vladimir Bukovsky, the great anti-Soviet dissident, once reproved me for quoting the old joke about the two main official Soviet newspapers: ‘‘There’s no truth in Pravda [Truth] and no news in Izvestia [News].’’ He pointed out that you could learn a great deal of truthful news from both papers if you read them with proper care.

They often denounced ‘‘anti-Soviet lies.’’ These lies had never been reported by them. Nor were they lies. And their exposure was the first that readers had been told of them. By reading the denunciation carefully, however, intelligent readers could decipher what the original story must have been.

That is exactly how intelligent readers now have to read most of the establishment media – at least when they are reporting on the ‘‘anti-Kerry lies’’ of the swift boat veterans. Two weeks ago I pointed out that the main media outlets were ignoring the story that 254 swift boat veterans were accusing Sen. John Kerry of being, in effect, a liar and a blowhard. I doubted that this suppression could be sustained for long since free-lance journalists on the Internet were examining it – and uncovering what seemed like damaging evidence that at least some of the charges had substance.

It was sustained for exactly one week. Then the Kerry campaign quietly withdrew the senator’s claim – a claim he had made repeatedly in speeches and articles for 20 years – that he had been on an illegal secret mission inside Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. Kerry’s admission was not reported the next day in either the New York Times or the Washington Post. True, the Post did carry an editorial supporting Kerry against the Swift Boat for Truth veterans. But it ignored the only new piece of news since that would have undermined the editorial’s argument.

A handful of other newspapers joined the Post in writing editorials or columns supporting Kerry. Still the New York Times maintained a dignified silence. Then Kerry delivered a major speech last Thursday denouncing the Bush campaign for secretly (and illegally) orchestrating the veterans’ charges. At which point the Times reported the speech and its own analysis that not only supported the Kerry charge that Bush was orchestrating the swift boat veterans but that also sought to disprove their accusations. Here then were the denunciations of the “anti-Kerry lies” that would finally enable Times readers to get the news. At long last they could be told what 57 percent of Americans (according to a poll) had already learned from the Internet, talk radio, a handful of conservative papers and magazines, and other samizdat outlets.

In order to get an accurate picture, however, the reader had to interpret the Times. For instance, toward the end of its analysis the Times conceded the existence of the Cambodia story, stating that this was the one accusation that Kerry had “not laid to rest.” In fact, it was the one accusation that the senator had laid to rest by admitting that his claims were false. All the other accusations remained in the limbo of charges still disputed by both sides.

In seeking to demonstrate links between the swift boat veterans and Bush, the Times produced no evidence of orchestration, nor did Kerry, but pointed out that some of the Texan Republicans helping the veterans knew other Texas Republicans who knew political consultants who knew people in the Bush campaign who knew Karl Rove. It illustrated these sinister connections with a chart and linking diagrams.

If the Bush campaign could be convicted of secretly ‘‘coordinating’’ with the swift boaters on evidence like that, the Kerry campaign might end up being held responsible for the vastly larger $60 million ad campaigns organized by independent organizations against Bush – and for the publication and distribution of the New York Times itself! After all, the timing of its Bush conspiracy theory – just the day after the Kerry campaign unveiled that very conspiracy – was distinctly fishy.

Yet all this solicitousness by the establishment media may have ended up harming Kerry. For when the Sunday Washington Post published a full and fair-minded account of one disputed incident for which Kerry received a medal, the net effect was favorable to the Democratic candidate. The accounts of both the Kerry veterans and their opponents were examined and fairly weighed. Some of the swift boat veterans’ memories were upheld. But the final cautious verdict was that Kerry’s claim of war heroism on this occasion had not been disproved. He probably deserved that medal.

The force of this verdict came from the fact that – unlike almost all the other establishment media stories – it was plainly not a “whitewash.” It did not dismiss the veterans’ claims as utterly unfounded – merely unproven. It criticized the Kerry campaign (and a swift boat veteran) for not releasing his full medical records when these might settle the dispute once and for all. And it effectively routed the idea that the swift boat veterans were Republican stooges – their campaign, said the Post, was inspired by their anger at what Kerry had said when he returned from Vietnam.

That is the albatross around Kerry’s neck: There are no disputes over what he then said – namely, that U.S. armed forces were daily carrying out the most horrendous war crimes in Vietnam with the knowledge of their senior military commanders. He is captured on film saying it to the Congress. Excerpts from it are shown on the second veterans’ TV ad, interspersed with comments from Vietnam POWs who complain that they were tortured by the North Vietnamese to get them to say what Kerry said for nothing.

Well, not for nothing exactly. Kerry’s testimony, given at a time when the Democrats were fiercely anti-war, was a large stepping stone to his present eminence. But the contradictions of being a war hero and an anti-war hero have finally caught up with him. That is why the swift boat veterans will ignore pleas from Bush or anyone else to halt their campaign. And why that campaign will dominate the election for some time yet – whatever the papers say. Or don’t say.

96

Lot of information to skim through/read.

Boston Barrister - Consistently strong factual arguement without the personal attacks on either the topic at hand or the blogger. Your replies are an enjoyable, informative read.

Lumpy - Lol! Your are so outclassed!

97

Factual? Why don’t you simply go read the articles… nothing is being added or considered here… except for perhaps some misinterpretation of the items discussed.

98

Sorry vroom,

But the facts distinctly agree with my interpretation.

Let me update this for you, to account for some of the new developments (note that none of my original positions has changed):

  1. The Swiftboat Vets have made claims, based on eyewitness accounts of people who are willing to stand by their memories of what happened;
  2. Those claims have neither been proved nor disproved by the Kerry campaign, with the exception of their claim concerning Kerry and Cambodia, which appears to have been proved;
  3. On balance, people should be able to decide for themselves, based on available information;
  4. Kerry is witholding information on the subject that he has previously said he would release, namely his Naval records and personal war journals (his journals, at least, having been previously made available to Douglas Brinkley for the purpose of authoring Kerry’s campaign book about his Viet Nam service);
  5. The Swiftvets seem to be an independent group, not coordinated with the RNC or the Bush campaign - all allegations to the contrary, by themselves, are bunk (if anyone had actual proof, not only would we have seen it already, but charges would be filed by the FEC and Justice Dept (as opposed to complaints filed by the Kerry campaign and dismissed by the FEC);
  6. The allegations put forth by the Republicans concerning coordination of the Democrats and Democratic 527s are equally unpersuasive by themselves;
  7. The motivation of the Swiftvets group seems to stem from malice toward Kerry for claims in his campaign book that individual members thought disparaged them, as well as lingering resentment from Kerry’s testimony to the Senate on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Against War (VVAW) after he returned from the war;
  8. The Bush campaign has gone out of its way to praise Kerry’s war record - (to delve into speculation, I would hazard a guess that most opponents would not spend a lot of airtime talking up their opponents);
  9. Kerry called on Bush to denounce the ads; The Bush campaign has denounced all 527s and called for all 527s to be curtailed, which Kerry refuses to join. [This disturbs, me, as I find all these calls to muzzle the 527s to be calls to restrict the core protections of the 1st Amendment].
99

BB,

Memory is a tricky thing. After thirty years of malice it is very unlikely that the memories of those people will align with reality.

The closer you get to Kerry, and the actions disputed, the more aligned with Kerry’s interpretation of events the witnesses are.

There is no reason in the world Kerry should release his personal notes and memoirs and calling for it is unfair. I’m sure he was sad, afraid, angry or whatever and probably noted his feelings and issues at the time. The world doesn’t need to get that kind of a look at any man. The world won’t respect a man when it can see in his head and realize the emotions, issues or doubts he faces.

Given the navy records and fact that eyewitnesses also support both Kerry and those records, the burden of proof belongs on the dissenters. Kerry does not have to prove anything here. He is innocent until proven guilty is he not?

Similarly, whether or not Bush did cocaine is in dispute. The burden of proof would be on those claiming he did. And, as you know, they need a lot more than some “witnesses” coming forward to claim that he did so, especially if those coming forward could be shown to be motivated by malice.

Perhaps if the motivations of those pressing Kerry were less tainted their words would carry more weight.

Simply claiming that where there is smoke there is fire and maligning Kerry because he has detractors is simplistic and biased. Surely you can do a better job than that – and that is why I am so disappointed.

100

On what vroom wrote:

Ah, now this is more like it. Calm, reasoned discussion.

Anyway, I agree with you that memory is a tricky thing, and that especially memories of events such as these, with high stress situations, are tough.

I also agree that the burden of proof, such as it is, with respect to people making their decisions, should rest with the Swiftvets, since they are the ones making allegations that differ from what is in the official naval records of the time. As of now, I think that it’s fair to say that the balance of information w/r/t the medals tends to favor Kerry – BUT, that said, the allegations are not disproved, and there is evidence in their favor as well.

Now, one quibble with your “closer to Kerry” theory: One person on his actual boat, Steve Gardiner, is a member of Swiftboat Vets for Truth. Still, though, by and large, the accusers were on other boats - still eyewitness to the events, but not on his boat. Perhaps there was something they missed due to distance - or perhaps their distance gave them better perspective on the entire situation. Hard to say – and, as has been my position from the get go, probably not something we are going to be able to finally resolve here and now.

On Kerry’s journals, generally I would agree with you, and I will agree that there is a stronger case to be made for the release of the Naval medical records that he has thusfar witheld.

However, I wouldn’t take it as far as you do to say there’s no case. The case would be: 1) He gave access to the journals to Doug Brinkley to write his campaign biography, thereby putting his version of events out there as an issue; and 2) To the best of my understanding, he promised he would release them the same time he promised to release his medical records (neither being thusfar released).

Now, another aspect of the “case”: if you want to use an “innocent until proven guilty” standard (one really only applicable in criminal trials), then one might suggest that the accusers need to be given a chance to prove him guilty, which means full access to the evidence, which would be required in a court proceeding.

As to the Bush/cocaine stuff, there are some similarities. However, 1) All the accusations I’ve seen are from “nameless” people who claim to have “known” Bush previously, but are unwilling to stand up and be scrutinized. That fact clearly distinguishes the Swiftvets accusations, and would seem to speak to how strong are the relative cases to be made. The Swiftvets wrote a book - from what I understand, though I haven’t read it, it attempts to build a case, cite to evidence, and put names and credibility on the line. The Bush/cocaine stuff, in comparison, is rumors or hearsay “I used to hear he liked to do this stuff” sort of things.

So, while they appear similar, it seems to me the Swiftvets have the stronger case. This is just me weighing the available facts (and not even really looking into it, given I haven’t even read the Swiftvet book).

As far as motivations go - for the Swiftvets that is, given its hard to guage the motives of “anonymous sources” - I would think their motivation - seemingly that they hate Kerry for his post-war testimony and protest activities - would make one examine their claims more thoroughly and not give them the benefit of the doubt, but it is not proper logic to dismiss them out of hand.