Swift boats and war atrocities

[Rían]

So what's up with the war atrocities that Kerry claimed to have seen and participated in? Apparently the latest line from the Kerry camp is that Kerry "was embittered over the war and regrets some things that he said about the atrocities" (approximate quote, not exact)

SO - did he lie, or not? Come on, it's a simple question! Answer it, please.

And what do people think about the Swift Boat ads?

[Rían]

And I just saw that Kerry put out a new ad saying specifically that the Bush campaign is behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad.

Proof, please.

[Mercutio]

Rian-- I'm digging up some articles online.

This one from Radio Nederlands briefly mentions Kerry's time in Vietnam, his record after he returned to the U.S., and other veterans who disagree with his side of the story.

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/usa040823.html

Here is a website titled "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" which is attempting to explain the "real" story about Kerry in Vietnam and his views of the war and his fellow veterans when he returned (false claims and exaggerations). They (fellow Vietnam vets) want to "set the record straight." They also have out a tv ad, which Rian mentioned.

http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php

From a USA Today article: 'Bush-Cheney '04 spokesman Steve Schmidt said the campaign had nothing to do with the group and "has never and will never question Sen. Kerry's service in Vietnam."' (Referring to the SBVfT tv ad)

[Rían]

Thanks, Merc -I'm usually too lazy to dig up links ...

[Mercutio]

Here is the AP article posted 31 minutes ago titled "Bush assails anti-Kerry ad; Democrats say 'too little, too late.'"

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/236/..._ad_Dem:.shtml

[Ben]

SO - did he lie, or not? Come on, it's a simple question! Answer it, please.

With all due respect, Rian, I believe that question is not the correct one to ask. I respect your support for Bush, and I suspect that Bush partisans probably would like to believe these claims about Kerry and his medals, at least initially. When claims come up that are negative toward Bush, yes, I would be predisposed toward believing them. However, this transcends partisanship. These are unfounded smears, plain and simple. All analysis of the claims by prominent news sources have shown multiple instances of lying and hypocrisy by the Swift Boat Vets.

Personally, I find this whole episode shameful. I am absolutely livid over these ads. I encourage everyone to read my entire post and then think carefully about what kind of claims they are supporting. If you do not read this entire post, you will be doing a disservice to all veterans.

Here is the deal. All official Navy records support Kerry's version of events. The men who served on Kerry's boat support Kerry's version of events. Some other veterans, who were in different boats are making these claims based on their memories alone, from far distances. Again, the documents exist to support all of Kerry's claims. Visit johnkerry.com to see ALL of Kerry's military records (cough). These Vets offer no proof but their own "memories", and some of them have changed their story over the years - some people multiple times.

Don't take my word for it? I'll cut and paste from Tuesday's LA Times:

What military documentation exists and has been made public generally supports the view put forth by Kerry and most of his crewmates — that he acted courageously and came by his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts honestly. This view of Kerry as war hero is supported by all but one of the surviving veterans who served with him on the two boats he commanded.

None of the critics quoted in the ad actually served on the boats with Kerry. Some of them also have given contradictory accounts and offered conflicting recollections.

The veterans are angry at Kerry for various reasons, none involving his medals. Some who previously supported Kerry were angry at how they were portrayed in Douglas Brinkley's Kerry bio, "Tour of Duty." Many have never forgiven him for his anti-war activites once he returned, and one of the co-authors of the book, O'Neill, was Nixon's choice to debate Kerry in 1971 after he testified at the Senate. One of the vets Larry Thurlow, even makes clear in this August 21 Washington Post article that the reason that he's involved in this group is because of Kerry's antiwar activities, not his medals. They're entitled to their opinion about that, but then they should've come right out and said that, rather than impugning Kerry's courage. If they came out with an honest critique of the 1971 testimony, then this group would be fine. Unfortunately, none of their ads have been honest.

Here's some of the lies:

Larry Thurlow is one of the vets who appears in the ads. He claims that there was no gunfire when John Kerry pulled Jim Rassmann out of the water, resulting in a medal. However, Thurlow himself received a medal that day, and the citation referenced the enemy fire that day!! I encourage Mr. Thurlow to return his apparently fraudelent medal . Not only that, but his boat had bullet holes! Paraphrasing Jon Stewart, I guess that the enemy were only firing at Thurlow's boat, right? The NY Times does a good job of summarizing the evidence against Thurlow's claims:

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."
Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

"I know John Kerry is lying about his first purple heart, because I treated him for that injury." -- Louis Letson

Letson wasn't the doctor who signed Kerry's Sick Call Sheet and Was NOT a Kerry Crewmate. Letson has no proof that he treated Kerry. Despite Letson's claims to have treated Kerry, he is not listed on any document as having treated Kerry after the 12/02/68 firefight. Another Doctor, J.C. Carreon, signed Kerry's Sick Call Sheet.

Furthermore, Letson didn't record his Vietnam memories until last year:
"Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time." [National Review Online, 5/4/04]

Answer this: if this wound were really just a scratch, why would Letson remember treating Kerry???

There's a lot more debunking of the individual claims, but there's not enough room in this post to list them all. If you want to hear more of the debunking, I'll post more when I get a chance.

You may have heard that Bob Dole has entered the fray. He implied that Kerry's medals were somehow undeserved because they were for "superficial wounds."

But look at how Dole describes how he won one of his Purple Hearts, in a 1988 official campaign biography:

As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart

Dole's wound which led to the Purple Heart was minor, and yet no one assailed his status as a war hero. In fact, it would have been ridiculous for Clinton, who didn't serve in combat, or his supporters to make an issue of Dole's minor wounds. So why isn't it ridiculous that the media is eating this story up, despite the fact that Kerry's opponent, George Bush, did not serve in combat?

We're not going to find an order from Bush to start the ads. Obviously it didn't work like that. But let's look at the connections between the Swift Vets and the Bush campaign. Remember, any coordination between the two is illegal.

Here's some evidence. Check out this interesting advertisment Well! The Bush-Cheney campaign of Florida was promoting the Swift Vets at an official rally.

Take a look at the Google archive of a page on the Bush campaign site. Ken Cordier, part of Bush's 2004 Steering Committee on Veterans, is involved with the Swift Vets and appeared in an SBV ad against Kerry.

And then moving beyond the official campaign's involvement with the SBV, the big funders of this group are big Bush fundraisers. Look at this NYT article. They are the same ones that bankrolled the attack ads against McCain in 2000, which Bush claimed he had nothing to do with. McCain laid the blame squarely on Bush's shoulders, though. Check out this debate footage from 2000: .

And I'll touch on the 1971 testimony. The Swift Ad clearly implies that Kerry witnessed certain events himself. In fact, he was just reporting what others had said.

Check out this Knight Ridder article:

Kerry's testimony before the committee that day 33 years ago put him in the national spotlight. Though the ad makes it appear as if Kerry is recounting atrocities he witnessed, he was in fact reciting claims made by soldiers earlier that year during an anti-war gathering in Detroit. "They had personally raped, cut off heads, cut off ears," he told senators.

The ad quotes him out of context, by not making clear he's referring to reports.

Have you ever heard of My Lai? Obviously, the atrocities took place in Vietnam. Gen. Tommy Franks recently agreed that the atrocities took place.

Kerry never said that all soldiers took part in the atrocities. He didn't name names.

We now know that the Vietnam War was built on a number of administrations' lies. Kerry was primarily protesting the Nixon Administration and its policies, for the benefit of the soldiers sent off to die for lies. So Kerry was right!

I'll quote Bob Dole, from an 8/12/1976 NYT article:

In his legion speech Mr. Dole recalled that four wars in this century had been fought under Democratic Presidents.

"We know that wars become self justifying once they've begun," he said, "but once the harsh light of histroy reveals that they rarely begin for reasons that are self justifying, but rather because of weakness, wishful thinking and bad leadership.

"No one hates war more than those who have had to fight. And none have a greater right to insist upon leadership that understands how to prevent war, to protect liberty, and to preserve peace, than those who have had to fight."

And in the 10/26/1976 edition of the paper, Dole had this to say:

"American weakness contributed to World War II and American indecision gave us the nightmare that was Vietnam."

Bbbut wait? Vietnam, a nightmare? And he fought in World War II, how could have any problem with the policy behind it???

The vets claim that Kerry may have somehow gamed the system to get his medals. But if Kerry could do it, why couldn't someone else? This puts every veteran's medals in doubt, and they are shaming all veterans with these claims.

I have read more evidence for claims that Bush paid for his girlfriend's abortion pre-Roe, and yet you don't see any ads about that. Let's talk about that, shall we?

Let's review: these Swift Vets have been proven to be liars. The people on Kerry's boat - the ones who were the closest to the incident - support Kerry's version of events. The official Navy documents support Kerry's version of the events. And yet we should believe the Swift Vets? Why, besides desiring Bush to be re-elected?

Again, I respect anyone's right to support any candidate. But if you still believe all of the Swift Vets' claims after it's been debunked, then I weep for this country.

(note, this post made as a regular user)

[Tessar]

Ben, your underlying theme through your entire post was that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and an idiot.

I have no problem with putting the facts forward as you did, but many of your comments were rather inappropriate.

[Rían]

Thank you for the info, Ben. I'll continue to research it, and I appreciate input.

My main concern was over the atrocities, and from what I have heard and seen, he claimed to have committed atrocities HIMSELF, and PERSONALLY to have seen others do it. Your post said "they"; I heard him say "I" in the clip I saw. So my question is still valid. I'll try to dig up a link for the quotes so you can evaluate it, too.

And I never said I supported Bush

The Cambodia issue worried me, tho, and made me think he's perhaps making some things up. That's why I want to investigate things.

[brownjenkins]

the events of american soldiers who committed atrocities during vietnam are too numerous to mention... there are literally hundreds of books out there... and due to the extreme emotions involved, you very often get multiple accounts of the same event from different people... it's a testimony to the sheer horror of the situation, not the honesty or integrity of those involved

luckily we don't get many of those ads in massachusetts, since this state is not exactly a toss-up... but true or untrue, i find using attacks of this nature pathetic and deplorable... you spoke of nobility before... in my eyes this kind of thing is about as far from noble as one can get

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Just off the cuff a little, but what exactly was George W Bush's war service?
Didn't he just draft dodge with all the other rich kids and senator's son's by pulling a tour in the National Guard?

No really. Did Bush jr serve in an active theatre of warfare? I actually want an answer. I really don't know.

[brownjenkins]

your first statement was essentially correct

[The Gaffer]

I totally disagree with you, Tessar. I think Ben's post was very comprehensive. Maybe he's also passionate: where's your response to the information in his post?

The view from this side of the Atlantic is one of incredulity.

I, and everyone I know, finds it incredible that Bush, who clearly dodged military service, is being cast as a military strongman against a man who clearly served his country with distinction in a terrible war.

The story we're getting is basically what Ben said: that these ads were funded by some mysterious cabal of Texan millionaires who also fund Bush's campaign. So, Bush claiming he had nothing to do with them is like the sheepdog claiming he's got nothing to do with the shepherd.

The other aspect to this is that it exposes the lie to the "liberal media" hypothesis. Even in the UK, where the media is pretty right-wing, this kind of tactic would be laughed off the front page.

I suspect that this will backfire: "floating voters" will be disgusted by this kind of smear.

[Lizra]

I'm ignoring the ads, typical election crappola. I don't want to waste my time thinking about Vietnam then, when Iraq is happening now.

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Just off the cuff a little, but what exactly was George W Bush's war service?
Didn't he just draft dodge with all the other rich kids and senator's son's by pulling a tour in the National Guard?

No really. Did Bush jr serve in an active theatre of warfare? I actually want an answer. I really don't know.

It is my understanding that he flew fighter jets between bases within the United States. He did not see combat. (He doesn't claim to) There is also some confusion about his service record being incomplete for about a year while he was supposed to be stationed in Alabama.

[sun-star]

Something that I've often wondered about:

Why is a presidential candidate's military record so important in the US? Is someone who's been in the army seen as more qualified to lead the country?

[brownjenkins]

because we're warmongers, of course

actually, it's 'typical election crappola' as lizra says... clinton was elected twice and spent the vietnam days at school over in england

anything which can be portrayed in a negative light seems to be the most important thing in our elections these days... and maybe this is true everywhere, i don't know... but it does seem to me to be getting worse and worse

as far as i'm concerned, if there is a person who has never lied and done a few stupid things in their life, the last thing he/she should be is president since they would have little in common with 99.9% of the population

i never trust a person who says they've never made a mistake

[Mercutio]

I was thinking the exact same thing. There have been many former U.S. presidents who had no military experience. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example, never served in the military. Look what he ended up doing.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I was thinking the exact same thing. There have been many former U.S. presidents who had no military experience. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example, never served in the military. Look what he ended up doing.

Here is a list of US presidents and their respective service, or lack there of:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Lis...litary_service


The reason I mention about bush's service in the airforce guard is simple. This advert campaign against Kerry, (be it sponsored by Bush or not, and you would be pretty naive to honestly think that the whole advertising campaign thing was a rampaging suprise to him...) calls into question Kerry's time in Viet nam.
Bush spent his time flying jets around AT HOME, in the RESERVE ARMY. Kerry was fighting with soldiers and watching them die around him, and getting wounded himself several times.

Now I dont really care either way, nor for who you favour in the coming election, but surely Bush and his camp should, before they call into question a decorated soldier with combat experience, consider that their own boy spend the war in the reserve, flying around planes thousands of miles from the action.

Eh?

[Earniel]

A question from an outsider: Is this how American presidential elections usually go?

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Just off the cuff a little, but what exactly was George W Bush's war service?
Didn't he just draft dodge with all the other rich kids and senator's son's by pulling a tour in the National Guard?

No really. Did Bush jr serve in an active theatre of warfare? I actually want an answer. I really don't know.

His daddy made sure Jr. got into the Texas Air National Guard so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam. If people want to bash Kerry for his past lets look at Bush's past...

Oh thats right! Bush Sr. made sure Jr. got into Yale, and while Bush was at Yale he was a fricken cokehead.