Patterico's Pontifications

4/5/2007

ABC NEWS Smears Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with Slanderous News Article

Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 3:10 pm

Amazing. The canard that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a “smear campaign” is so well accepted by Big Media that ABC NEWS feels comfortable in portraying the Swifties’ ad campaign as “slanderous” and “smear ads.” These characterizations appear in a “straight” news story about the recess appointment of an ambassador who gave money to the group, and had his nomination nixed by a petty group of Retaliacrats bent on extracting some pathetic, small revenge.

(The first link above is to National Review’s Media Blog. The headline on the actual story has been changed, but the word “slanderous” remains in the body of the article.)

Meanwhile, I have yet to see anyone meet Beldar’s challenge to name a single specific and material statement of fact by the Swift Boaters that has been fully debunked, or shown to be fully unsubstantiated.

Wouldn’t stating material falsehoods be a critical component of a “slanderous” campaign of “smear ads”?

In fact, as I have previously observed, the media often has a worse track record of inaccuracies on this issue than do the Swifties.

By the way, if you are disqualified from government service because you once gave money to an organization that has engaged in slander and smears, that lets out anyone who ever subscribed to the Los Angeles Times.

199 Responses to “ABC NEWS Smears Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with Slanderous News Article”

  1. Just curious, Patterico… back when Senator John Kerry was activist John Kerry and he gave false testimony to Congress regarding war crimes committed by our armed forces in Vietnam… was Kerry under oath?

    DubiousD (b660ec)

  2. Let me just say I am delighted that you are calling ABC on this vile lie. The Swift Vote Veterans for Truth deserve high praise and the gratitude of our nation for not only their service in Vietnam, but rising again in service of the best interest of our country in 2004.

    They rocked the false claims of the Kerry Campaign back on its heels, including the undeniable lie that Kerry said was “seared into his memory” — that Nixon sent him to Cambodia before Nixon was even in office.

    The major media have become little more than advocacy tools for liberalism in the country. Our best approach is to keep hammering them with the facts and exposing them as the propaganda machines they have become.

    DaMav (afe020)

  3. Unlike mainstream reporting that uses unnamed and anonymous sources to destroy Republicans and Conservatives, Unfit for Command had dozens, if not over a hundred affidavits supporting its claims. Consequently, Kerry then made the dubious claim that even though these Swift Boat veterans served in the same unit as Kerry, even though they served 52 weeks compared to Kerry’s 16 weeks and even though they went on the same missions as Kerry, their criticisms could be dismissed because they did not serve on Kerry’s boat. This was pretty contorted reasoning because Kerry embraced the critics of George Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service even though Bush’s MSM critics never served on Bush’s fighter plane.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  4. Excellent. And you too DaMav for mentioning the Christmas in Cambodia fiction.

    R (7f4665)

  5. I suppose Michael Moore’s films are entertainment, not smear.

    Mike C (6df49a)

  6. swiftboat (v) – to tell the truth about a Democrat.

    Mahon (f1b909)

  7. Pat – I cancelled my subscription in 88 – am I past the Statute of Limitaions on contributing to slander?

    For you youngsters the LAT was a great paper before the Commie shot puter from the Farm took over.

    Rodney A Stanton (eb998b)

  8. Now we see John Kerry for the petty, self-absorbed sad little man that he is – thank God he was not elected president.

    Ken McNamara (b6c546)

  9. I don’t know if its been nominated for inclusion in Webster’s Dictionary, but I have seen the word “swiftboated” used several times in the little bit of newspaper and blog reading that i do. To “swiftboat” someone is to slander and attack with false statements according to those who use the word. I imagine those are the same people who thought abandoning Southeast Asia to mass slaughter was a “victory for peace”.

    Perhaps we should coin another phrase, “kerry”, as to kerry, was kerried, etc. “To kerry” is synonymous with “pull the wool over your eyes”, but with a malicious rather than mischieveous bent. The term originted in the actions of Sen. John Kerry of the U.S., who after being an outspoken critic of the Vietnam war, was photographed throwing his “medals”* over the White House fence, and accused the US military of widespread war crimes in print and live testimony; portrayed himself as a proud US veteran and decorated combat veteran.
    Ex. #1: “Most news outlets in the United States cooperated in the attempt to kerry the American public before the 2004 presidential election.”
    Ex. #2: “The US Congress is attempting to kerry the American public by saying “we support the troops, but not the war”.

    To quote the Professor in the Chronicles of Narnia, “What do they teach children in school these days!?!”

    *Exactly what are “medals” vs. ribbons or bars or who knows what is still a matter of debate, probably another example of an attempted kerry.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  10. [...] News slanders the Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth. As Patterico asks, name a fact that the Swifties got wrong. ABC should [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Nightcaps (d4224a)

  11. Am I not remembering correctly? Wasn’t it John Kerry, not the swifties, who had to change his BS story about being in Cambodia on Christmas 1968? Wasn’t it John Kerry, not the swifties, who had to change his BS story that his first purple heart was from enemy fire? I know Kerry didn’t have to change his BS story about what he did with his medals, because he has told so many BS stories about that he has one for every occasion.

    Ken Berwitz (299c33)

  12. I’m shocked that LA or Levi aren’t here yet having a stroke over the insinuation that the Swiftboat vets might not be eeeeeevil liars

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  13. Drive By Media smears honorable veterans…

    Patterico has a post relating ABC News latest smear of the Swift Boat veterans. The Drive By Media has been studiously ignoring the original charges made by the Swift Boat veterans, while assisting John eFing Kerry by ignoring the fact that he has neve…

    The Drive By Review (4730dd)

  14. Smearing the Swift Boat Vets…

    ABC NEWS Smears Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with Slanderous News ArticlePatterico (H/T: Michelle) Amazing. The canard that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a “smear campaign” is so well accepted by Big Media that ABC NEWS feels comfortable…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  15. Bill’s Nibbles // Open Post — 2007.04.05 …

    Please feel free to use this post for comments and trackbacks not related to other posts on the site. If you leave a trackback your post must include a link to this one and, as always, comments claiming the sun…

    Old War Dogs (72c8fd)

  16. We are after all discussing people who agree that “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” is a legitimate question.

    nk (37b8ef)

  17. As I recall, Kerry claimed to have debunked the Swiftboat Vets’ claims that he did not deserve his medals. How? By pointing to the Navy’s records, which indicated that he deserved them (not surprising since you can’t get a medal unless a sufficient reason is documented in official records). But, of course, the Swiftboat Vets’ point was that the records contained errors — i.e., were wrong — and he should never have been awarded the medals.

    Erik (ea632d)

  18. How many months has it been since he stated he would sign the SF180 on National TV? Many, many months and no one has saw the SF180 or his Navy records in they’re entirety. Just another reason to never watch, much less believe anything that comes from the antique MSM. Has ABC caught up with the Ass ociated (with terrorists) Press in the number of outright lies they get caught in? Just wondered. Vietnam Vet 70-71. The seaside resort in the Bay.

    Scrapiron (273e95)

  19. fer crying out loud,,are you people saying j f Kerry was lieing,,,,he is a democrat you know…..

    t.whatley (ec8345)

  20. i too served in nam. i stayed 16 m0s was wounded and never once asked to come hom early. john kerry on the other hand scratched his arm ( probably intentionally) to save his ass and get 3 purple hearts. in his case they should be black hearts. he is such an ass.

    paul bernard (5f99f7)

  21. Kerry simply put is a pathetic liar and of course he got medals as the CO of that boat he put himself in for them? Everyone who was in the Navy for awhile knows this, he needs to be brought back on active duty and stripped of any benefits for his lying treason. Give him a BCD for his actions!

    mrdick (ccdbf7)

  22. Meanwhile, I have yet to see anyone meet Beldar’s challenge to name a single specific and material statement of fact by the Swift Boaters that has been fully debunked, or shown to be fully unsubstantiated.

    Hmm… Interesting approach. Let’s try it out.

    BREAKING NEWS: Patterico is into bestiality and has had a secret menage a trois with a French poodle and a Shetland pony! Can anyone here “fully debunk” this story? No? Then obviously this is in no way a slanderous accusation or a smear campaign.

    The burden of proof, after all, is on the person being talked about rather than on the person who’s doing the talking… right?

    Oregonian (d3e04d)

  23. Can’t they strip his medals even now?

    Gods I would pay money to see that…

    SOmeone get me a SH180, a portable DVD player with his offer to sign one on it, a digital camera, and a ride out there…

    We’ll ge the press there and we’ll see what we see, eh?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  24. Theeeeeeeeeeeere’s Oregonian…

    O, you are failing one key point here…

    The Swiftboaters offered evidence, not mere innuendo. That evidence has not been fully refuted (or even partially refuted).

    You just spew idiocy.

    Try again, my silly, silly “scientist”…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  25. Oregonian,

    Nobody is saying that about me. Nobody has signed an affidavit saying that about me.

    Many, many Swift Boaters stood behind their allegations — and Kerry ended up having to admit that they were right on the “Christmas in Cambodia” issue.

    Patterico (0c666d)

  26. Corsi on Islam: “a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion”
    Corsi on Catholicism: “Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal press”
    Corsi on Muslims: “RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters — it all goes together”
    Corsi on “John F*ing Commie Kerry”: “After he married TerRAHsa, didn’t John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?”
    Corsi on Senator “FAT HOG” Clinton: “Anybody ask why HELLary couldn’t keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?”

    “>great bunch a’ guys

    AF (c319c8)

  27. Oregonian,

    It’s not difficult to prove your BREAKING NEWS is false. First, you need to provide some dates and times this menage a trois took place. Some documentation would be helpful. Pictures even better. The Swiftboat Veterans were very specific in their claims. Kerry himself spoke of his mission in Cambodia as seared in to his mind–he gave the date and time, and lo and behold, he wasn’t there. Then Kerry went before Congress and specifically mentioned atrocities committed by the armed forces. It was shown that he could not have known these claims to be true or false–meaning he lied before congress.

    So as soon as you give specifics about Patterico’s preference for ponies and poodles we can get down to proving it true or false.

    That’s what the original post meant, that the Swiftboaters were specific and that no one has shown their specific claims to be false. The key is the specifics.

    I might be repeating the point too much, but it seems as though I might need to, after reading your logic.

    naftali (b6ed23)

  28. I appreciate the link, Patterico, and I’m flattered that you remember that post from 2004.

    Some of your commenters here, like many who commented on my original post, may not have quite understood the nature of the challenge.

    In lawsuits, one side or the other frequently moves for “summary judgment.” That’s a procedural device by which the moving side asks the judge to declare that there is no genuine issue of material fact — and hence there’s no reason to hold a full-scale trial, precisely because there are no factual disputes that need to be resolved.

    The classic (but not only) means for defeating a motion for summary judgment is to show that on some factual issue that’s important to the outcome of the case (i.e., a “material fact”), there is indeed a “genuine dispute.” When that happens, the judge isn’t supposed to make, or even permitted to make, decisions about the weight or credibility of evidence — he’s just supposed to determine whether there is any conflicting evidence that could require a trial to sort out. If there’s conflicting evidence, then there has to be a trial to resolve the conflict.

    I believed — and continue to believe, after sorting through the hundreds of comments my post inspired back in 2004 — that the SwiftVets raised at least a “genuine issue” as to all of the facts that were material to each of the SwiftVets’ major claims. There was no major contention on which they had zero probative evidence; rather, on every one of their major claims, they had at least some supporting evidence.

    The SwiftVets, in other words, would have survived a summary judgment motion if this dispute had played out in court. Looking at everything that had been gathered so far by either the SwiftVets or Kerry’s defenders, a judge would have been obliged to conclude that there were indeed “genuine disputes” that could only be sorted out through a full trial. That’s because it’s only after a full trial that the fact-finder — typically a jury, but sometimes by the judge performing a jury’s normal function by “sitting as fact-finder” in a bench trial — can make decisions on things like “Who, as between these two witnesses whose testimony is exactly contrary to each other, is more credible?”

    This latest example you’ve linked from ABC News is, indeed, yet another of many in which mainstream media have pretended — assumed, asserted, declared to be a closed subject — that some or all of the SwiftVets’ claims were thoroughly “debunked.” I think that’s essentially equivalent to saying, “The SwiftVets’ claims would never have made it to trial if this had been a court proceeding — the judge would have thrown those claims out on summary judgment.”

    And that’s just preposterous. There was at least some credible evidence to support every one of the SwiftVets’ major claims.

    It’s entirely possible to say, “Well, I’ve looked at everything everyone’s gathered so far, and I believe Witness X is more believable than Witness Y.” But that’s not the same as saying, “Witness Y’s statements have therefore been ‘debunked’ and we can simply ignore them and permanently assess them as having zero value.” You can say, “In the conflict of testimony, I choose to believe this testimony, and to not believe that testimony.” But that’s not the same as saying, “There’s only testimony to support one position” — and that’s the essence of what the MSM said, and MSM organs like ABC News continue to say, about the SwiftVets.

    It’s a damned shame that the political processes never allowed for any kind of close approximation to a trial on the merits. Remember the blustering threats that the Kerry camp made when the SwiftVets first came on the scene, to the effect that Kerry was about to sue them for defamation? I wrote at the time that those threats were completely bogus and that no such lawsuit would ever, ever be filed. First, truth is a defense; and second, there was no way in hell that John F. Kerry was going to give the SwiftVets the power to compel him to testify and fork over documentary evidence (e.g., his still hidden to this good day secret diaries that his pet biographer reviewed, and the portions of his military records that are concededly still hidden to this good day).

    The SwiftVets, however, can take lasting comfort despite the outrageous use of the term “swift-boating” as an offensive phrase that is “generally understood to mean” engaging in unfair character assassination. I’d rather that term unfairly enter the venacular than that John F. Kerry have become the 44th POTUS — and their efforts did make a huge difference in that outcome.

    Beldar (4c0976)

  29. ummmm

    AF, you seem to have lost any ability to count…

    Your quotes for “great bunch of guys” seems to be just one person…

    I’m starting to worry about you.

    And yeah, Mediamatters… REALLY reliable source… DEAD ON! No bias there, nope nope!

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  30. The most extreme right-wing zealots and wingnuts are the only ones who don’t recognize that the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” were just a smear campaign initiated by old friends of Bush. This is standard a standard Republican dirty tricks move. Have some “independent” group put together a baseless smear and it will hurt your opponent, regardless of its lack of truth.

    But you guys hate Democrats so much that you’ll believe any smear against them.

    Sally (113146)

  31. John Kerry continues to prove he has no common sense. Instead of allowing GWB to nominate someone for an Ambassadorship for which they appear to be qualified, he stops the nomination because of his personal vendetta against the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth and anyone who agrees with them, only to have GWB make the appointment anyway during a recess of Congress.
    One would think Kerry, of all people, would never in his lifetime want the Swiftees brought before the public eye once again.
    Well, one would think that, but then we’re talking about John Kerry, whose megalomania knows no bounds.

    Charles A. Noyes (8fce58)

  32. Beldar # 29,

    I would say that the Swift Boat Vets prevailed by a preponderance of the evidence on the questions of 1) whether Kerry was merely a medal-scavenger who not having been able to avoid the draft enlisted in what was then the safest branch of service in VietNam and manufactured enough medals to get himself out as soon as he could; and 2) that he was a lying piece of crap accusing men better than he will ever be of war crimes which were merely the lies he was trying to sell in order to further his political career in Massachusetts.

    nk (37b8ef)

  33. Sally,

    It should be child’s play for you to take up Beldar on his challenge if what you say is true.

    His e-mail address is on his blog.

    But you won’t follow up on it.

    Guaranteed.

    Patterico (7af3b5)

  34. Sorry, Sally. I had no great love of Bush and would have happily voted for Lieberman if the Democrats could have been bothered to nominate him. I will never vote for Kerry, regardless of what anyone else says for or against him; he condemned himself out of his own mouth many years ago.

    htom (412a17)

  35. The most extreme right-wing zealots and wingnuts are the only ones who don’t recognize that the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” were just a smear campaign initiated by old friends of Bush. This is standard a standard Republican dirty tricks move. Have some “independent” group put together a baseless smear and it will hurt your opponent, regardless of its lack of truth.

    But you guys hate Democrats so much that you’ll believe any smear against them.

    Right. Over 200 Former shipmates of Kerry, to include a Medal of Honor winner and a retired Admiral, of all political parties, were all just evil Rethuglican smear merchants and liars.

    But Sally knows that John Kerry, caught in a bald faced stupid lie about secret missions in Cambodia is telling the TRVTH!!11!one! about everything else.

    Because he’s John Kerry, reporting for duty!

    SGT Ted (adc577)

  36. Shorter liberals:

    It is wrong to question the veracity of war veterans. This is what the war veterans from the Swift Boat group did — and I question their veracity.

    Patterico (fca392)

  37. nk (#33): “Preponderance of the evidence” might have been the standard used in a trial, if there had been one. In a sense, the election may have approximated that (preponderance of the electoral votes, which in turn were affected by the SwiftVets).

    But I was really intending to make a different point.

    Oregonian (#22): Let’s put your allegations about Patterico and the goat into the same context as my challenge. That’s easy enough to do with just one additional assumption: You owned the poodle and the pony, and he’s damaged your property, so you’ve sued him.

    Patterico files for summary judgment. The material fact is whether he had sex with the pony and the poodle. He tells the judge that there’s not really any genuine dispute over that fact. He offers his own say-so (in affidavit form).

    You’re the one who initiated the claim, and you’re the one who would have the burden of proving the facts you’ve alleged at your trial to recover damages for the harm to your pony and poodle. Patterico says his version of facts is true, and there’s not really any dispute, and he’s offered up evidence that’s competent on its face. Legal procedure would therefore require you to “raise a fact question” — that is, to come up with at least some probative evidence to support your version of the facts.

    Variant one: You offer your own affidavit, which says, “I live in Oregon, and I’ve never met Patterico, but I believe he had sex with my pony and my poodle.” And that’s all you offer. In that variation of the hypothetical, the judge grants summary judgment against you, and your case gets thrown out without a trial: Your attempt to controvert Patterico’s affidavit fails because you haven’t shown that you’d be in a position at trial to give any kind of competent evidence based on first-hand knowledge.

    Varient two: You offer your own affidavit. You say in that affidavit, under oath: I went to California last March 12th, and I took my pony and my poodle with me, and while we were out on a walk at 12:30pm, I saw Patterico sneak up behind us, and then I watched as he had sex with my pony and my poodle.

    Patterico is livid. He knows that no such thing happened on March 12th. He gets affidavits from fourteen Catholic nuns, each with 20/20 vision, each of whom swears under oath that they were at Mass with him in another part of California at 12:30pm on March 12th.

    Doesn’t matter. In this variant, the judge won’t grant summary judgment. The judge may think to himself, “Gee, this Oregonian guy is probably a liar, that’s probably a perjured affidavit, and the jury is almost certain to believe Patterico and the nuns.” But your affidavit — if the judge accepts it at face value, as he’s required to do at this stage, since it’s too early for him to start weighing evidence and making credibility determinations — is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact.

    Patterico is Kerry in this analogy. You’re the SwiftVets. My point is that the SwiftVets always had at least something as good as your second-variation affidavit for every one of their major claims.

    To carry the ultimate burden of proof if there had been a full “trial,” they would have been entitled to “discovery” — for example, to subpoena Kerry, put him under oath, and cross-examine him thoroughly; to similarly compel testimony from other witnesses who refused to say anything or only spoke out on selected subjects (e.g., Bill Rood, and if you don’t know who he is, you shouldn’t even be posting on this subject); and to compel the production of documents, including diaries and military records. Would the SwiftVets have won at the ultimate trial if they’d had the chance to do those things? Maybe, maybe not. I think so. We’ll never know, because Kerry’s stonewall was ultimately effective.

    But regardless of how it would have come out at trial, the SwiftVets met their burden (yes it’s theirs, just as in the hypo above it was yours) to present competent evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact on every one of their major claims.

    If you disagree, then fine: Get specific, tell me precisely what claim you think they failed on, and I’ll point you to the evidence to show you’re wrong.

    Beldar (4c0976)

  38. (Said goat once when I meant to say poodle and pony. Must have been thinking about that other time, Patterico — sorry.)

    Beldar (4c0976)

  39. Noone has debunked some SBVT lies. Except Media Matters, that is.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050007

    It’s pretty hysterical how you lowlifes attack Senator Kerry’s record and call him a coward while your courageous warrior-in-chief was too chickenshit to even go to Vietnam. Then when his father pulled string to get him in the Guard, he couldn’t even fulfill his duty there. I wonder why he missed that physical?

    SilentPatriot (ee9539)

  40. It’s impossle for Patterico to have had a secret menage a trois with a French poodle and a Shetland pony…

    Everyone knows he prefers Llamas and Westies…

    Lies I say!

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  41. Question,
    I can respect a vet that’s pissed at another vet talking about unproven atrocities, It must have been hard enough being there without having to deal with that. (Thank you vets, I cannot possibly begin to imagine what it was like.)

    But what are your opinions about Bush’s military service? I’m curious.

    Thanks
    Jim

    Jim Ironheart (bb39cf)

  42. Silent, I’m going to ask you one simple question, and the answer doesn’t start to shed some light of why GWB wasn’t sent to Vietnam, I’ll ask a follow-up question…

    “What was GWB’s father’s job when he was ‘set’ to go to Vietnam?”

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  43. SilentPatriot,

    I see your MediaMatters link and raise you one Beldar.

    You pick out a statement that you think is specific and material that the Swifties made, that you feel has been fully debunked or unsubstantiated. You can see Beldar is monitoring this thread. Pick your fact and he’ll refute you.

    If you try this, my money is on Beldar.

    But the smart money says you won’t even try — that you’re just another pathetic drive-by commenter who can’t back up what he says. At best, you’ll whine that you “already gave the link!” No *way* you’ll ever man up and debate the facts with Beldar, because you know you’d lose.

    You know it and I know it.

    Patterico (b7719d)

  44. [...] the meantime, related to the renewed talk about the Swift Boat Vets, since Fox contributed to them, Patterico catches ABC News smearing the Swift Boat Vets in an article that has been presented as straight [...]

    Sister Toldjah » More ‘outrage’ over Fox recess appointment - this time from Biden, Obama, and Edwards (1466f5)

  45. Let’s say it didn’t take me long with Google to find cases where persons (other than Kerry) made statements completely contradicting the SBVT version. I can’t say this “proves” them wrong, but then short of a libel prosecution I don’t see how one would do that.

    Case in point. In August the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth charged that John Kerry had lied about the events that led to his Silver Star. In order to figure out if the SBVT account was true, Nightline sent a crew to Vietnam, where they visited the hamlets of Tran Thoi and Nha Vi and interviewed the local villagers to get their recollections of what really happened 35 years ago. You can read the resulting story yourself, but it’s summarized pretty easily: Kerry was right and SBVT honcho John O’Neill wasn’t.

    Here’s another one.

    The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade. But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. ”Me and Bill aren’t the smartest, but we can count to three,” Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (d79866)

  46. In August the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth charged that John Kerry had lied about the events that led to his Silver Star.

    Whoah! Stop the presses! Hold the lettuce! Heavy on the Mayo!

    The Swiftvet allegation relating to the Silver Star was that Kerry’ action that day didn’t rise to Silver Star levels of Valor, not that he “lied”. In fact, that allegation was based on information gleaned from KERRY SOURCES!

    Frankly Scarlett, your “fact” needs fact-checking.

    Bingo (747f20)

  47. Mr. Lazarus (#46): One of the very, very common tactics of the SwiftVets’ opponents (Kerry defenders) was to overgeneralize and misrepresent what the SwiftVets actually said. In your first “example,” for example, that’s not an accurate or complete or fair summary of what the SwiftVets claimed with respect to the Silver Star incident. (To pick a fairly trivial but obvious example: Although he was among the SwiftVets’ leaders, John O’Neill claimed no first-hand knowledge of anything Kerry did in the Swift Boats service; although O’Neill took over Kerry’s boat, their time in Vietnam never overlapped.) They didn’t make just a general claim that “Kerry lied about the events.” Instead, they had a number of very specific arguments about very specific facts pertaining to that event.

    But leave that aside. What that link does is summarize evidence (loosely defined) that’s contrary to the SwiftVets’ contentions (again, very loosely defined). You might find that evidence persuasive; others might not (and there are certainly good arguments to be made about why that Nightline report wasn’t very reliable or probative). That still does not establish that the SwiftVets were without evidence to support their claims. And in fact, the SwiftVets’ specific allegations about that incident are supported by sworn eye-witness accounts of other people who were also there. You may choose to reject their evidence, or find that it lacks credibility, or that other competing evidence is more credible. That doesn’t make their evidence non-existent, however.

    The same is true of the skimmer incident with the first Purple Heart. There again, there are competing versions of what happened — including not just what happened in the skimmer, but as to who was there, and as to what happened afterwards as Kerry put in for the medal — and you or the NYT may decide to believe one version over the other. We can argue about which versions are or aren’t more credible, about who had what opportunity to observe, over who has what motive to lie, and so forth. But you can’t just decree that there’s no competing evidence. Because there is.

    You’re using “debunked” to mean, “I believe this side, I don’t believe that other side, therefore that other side has been ‘debunked.’” That’s not debunking; that’s making an argument, or drawing a conclusion.

    You concede: “I can’t say this ‘proves’ them wrong, but then short of a libel prosecution I don’t see how one would do that.” We agree. The mechanisms that the legal system uses for digging out the truth, for testing two sides’ claims against one another, never took place. Neither John Kerry nor John O’Neill was ever cross-examined under oath; no subpoenas were served; no jury was ever impaneled and instructed, and no jury verdict was returned.

    Since there was no trial — since neither side had the chance to thoroughly hash things out using the means that the legal system provides to ensure a fair and conclusive and reliable result — then the only “debunking” could come if one side was standing there empty-handed.

    The SwiftVets weren’t empty-handed on any of their claims.

    Beldar (4c0976)

  48. The Democrats and MSM are furious `I say FURIOUS` ~ that a Swift Boat Contributor got appointed as ambassador. And it makes me feel good!

    Expect the DEMS and MSM to lie and distort, especially when snookered by the BUSH. Sit back and enjoy. Like watching Tazmanian Devils!

    So Be Happy! We won. They lost. And they’re FURIOUS

    Tomy (4db1c4)

  49. The mechanisms that the legal system uses for digging out the truth, for testing two sides’ claims against one another, never took place.

    May I hasten to add that, with precious few exceptions, neither did journalistic interrogatory or investigation.

    Little wonder that Michael Dobbs of the WaPo, who came about as close as any MSM rep came to maintaining credibility, was left off the list of the “chosen 3″ recipients of Kerry’s SF 180 largesse.

    Bingo (747f20)

  50. It occurs to me that when I’m faulting others for being inspecific, I need to be specific myself. Instead of simply asserting that the SwiftVets made specific assertions about specific events with respect to the Silver Star, for instance, I should quote at least one contention and then deal with it as a specific example.

    Kerry’s Silver Star citation (quoted at p. 82 of “Unfit for Command” asserts that “[t]he extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission.” Among the very specific contentions of the SwiftVets, as summarized in “Unfit for Command” (quoting from page 84), was that “the citation statement that Kerry attacked ‘a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire’ is simply false.” Let’s look at this specific contention — and let’s ask “Has this specific major contention been ‘debunked’ or not?”

    To do that, let’s ignore the specific eyewitness accounts contained in “Unfit for Command” itself. Instead, let’s look at the eyewitness account of another officer who was present — Bill Rood. I discussed Mr. Rood’s Chicago Tribune first person account at considerable length and in excruciating detail on my own blog on the same day it came out. It was an important development in the debate, and got widespread attention in the MSM.

    Mr. Rood’s memoir actually supported many of the SwiftVets main contentions, including, specifically, the contention quoted above regarding the citation language. He quibbled over some details — for example, whether the single Viet Cong soldier that Kerry killed was a boy or a grown man, and whether he was in a loincloth or not. And Mr. Rood provided some contrary information that was too substantive to be called a mere quibble — whether there “were [also other attackers] who fled” during the second encounter that day, and whether there “was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well.”

    But read Rood’s full account, and look for any facts to support the proposition that there was ever a “numerically superior force” that Kerry confronted that day, or that Kerry attacked “in the face of intense fire.” Rood’s account shows that in both encounters that day, the VC were in fact outnumbered, and that the intense fire came only from the Americans and their South Vietnamese allies.

    Now, that’s an example of there being competent, eye-witness evidence to support one of the SwiftVets’ specific factual allegation about the Silver Star incident. So if the question is asked: “Has this claim by the SwiftVets — specifically, the claim that this specific language in the citation for Kerry’s Silver Star was false — been “debunked?” the answer has to be “No!” It not only hasn’t been debunked, it’s been demonstrably supported by someone who hadn’t spoken on the record one way or the other when the SwiftVets’ allegations were first made, who isn’t affiliated with the SwiftVets in any way, and who is generally portrayed in the media as being a Kerry supporter!

    If you want to pick any other specific, major SwiftVet allegation — whether from “Unfit for Command” or their website or their press conferences or wherever — then I believe I can likewise direct you to at least some competent evidence (from someone who demonstrably was there and in a position to provide testimony, or in some instances from contemporaneous documentary evidence) to support that allegation. That was the whole point of my original challenge. And it’s still open.

    Beldar (4c0976)

  51. The responses here, including from Beldar, make some things pretty clear. There is raging Kerry Derangement Syndrome at work amongst Republicans in general, and those who have been emotionally unable to come to grips with the tragic mistakes we made in Vietnam, in particular.

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing that could ever be said, shown, or demonstrated that will change that gut level hatred of Kerry and everything he represents, in their minds. And thus there are enormous emotional barriers to coming to any sort of a reasonable judgement on the evidence of these cases.

    Beldar makes an absolutely absurd argument. That for someone to claim that the SBVT charges were “debunked”, they can only be saying that there was no evidence whatsoever to support them. And since, in his mind, the mere assertion of the charges is, by itself, evidence, then obviously the charges will never be able to be labled “debunked”.

    First off, it is not unusual in the least for charges to be leveled, found to have at least theoretical plausability (no summary dismissal), then when examined closely (a trial) found to be false – and then labled “debunked”. That is, in fact, the most normal use of the word.

    The emotionally committed mind will utilize endless creativity to escape the admission that any of their charges were wrong. The Silver Star incident is only one example. If you have this existential need to believe the charges true, then no evidence could possibly change your mind. Read Beldar’s response, above, for a vivid example of that.

    The United States government, in a noble and well-meaning attempt to beat back what was viewed as a Soviet advance, stumbled its way into what was, in reality, a decades long anti-colonial war. We basically found ourselves replacing the French (who replaced the Japanese, who replaced the French) in the line of foreign powers trying to control the fate of Vietnam. As the origninal anti-colonialist nation, this was an absurd position to find ourselves in. And there was no way to win that war, because the Vietnamese would still be fighting today, for their country, for freedom from foreign influence, just as we would do if foreign troops were here.

    Most all Americans came to understand all this, but some – amongst them some of the soldiers who fought there – were never able to come to grips with it. The “lost cause” syndrome seems to be present in all countries whenever a military mission goes wrong. Clearly that is what is going on here, with these emotionally damaged SBVT. They hated Kerry because he was able to understand this, and they have never been able to. They will go to their graves, no doubt, holding to their illusions and hatreds. Such is the way of the world.

    johDon (04010c)

  52. johDon (#51): You write of me that I claim that “the mere assertion of the charges is, by itself, evidence, then obviously the charges will never be able to be labled ‘debunked.’”

    That’s not what I’ve said at all. You write well; it’s hard for me to believe that you can read so poorly.

    I have said, instead, that there is at least some credible evidence to support each of the SwiftVets’ major assertions.

    Let’s talk Silver Star, and let’s be very damned specific, mm-kay?

    Kerry’s Silver Star citation (quoted at p. 82 of “Unfit for Command” asserts that “[t]he extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission.” Among the very specific contentions of the SwiftVets, as summarized in “Unfit for Command” (quoting from page 84), was that “the citation statement that Kerry attacked ‘a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire’ is simply false.”

    Let’s use this as an example to test whether this specific SwiftVets’ claim has been “debunked,” or whether instead it is in genuine dispute.

    Someone — we know not exactly who, although some suspect it may have been Kerry himself — provided the command authorities with the language contained in the citation. Let us be generous, and let us assume that it constitutes some evidence that there was a “numerically superior force” and that Kerry attacked “in the face of intense fire.” We now have something to place in one pan of the scales of justice (disregarding, for now, how much it actually weighs).

    What can go in the other pan? Well, let’s take the eyewitness account of another officer who was present — one whom the press and the Kerry campaign trumpeted as “supporting” Kerry and the version of events recounted in the Silver Star citation, Bill Rood. I discussed Mr. Rood’s Chicago Tribune first person account at considerable length and in excruciating detail on my own blog on the same day it came out.

    if you will trouble to read Mr. Rood’s entire description of the second encounter that day, you’ll see that while he quibbles over some details (whether the single Viet Cong soldier that Kerry killed was a boy or a grown man, and whether he was in a loincloth or not), and while he provides other information that is too substantive to be called a mere quibble (whether there “were [also other attackers] who fled” and whether there “was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well”), Rood’s personal account supports the gist of the SwiftVets’ allegation quoted above: Rood’s account tends to show that the statement in the citation that Kerry attacked a “numerically superior force” in the face of “intense enemy fire” is indeed false.

    So has this claim of the SwiftVets’ been “debunked”? I’m willing to talk evidence with you; I’m willing to quote line for line. I’ve got links and page references.

    Whatcha got, friend, besides misstatements of my positions and lofty generalities? Let’s be really damned specific, ‘k?

    Beldar (4c0976)

  53. Can’t seem to get any further comments to post properly. (Or they’ll all clump up at once at about 4am. Sigh.)

    Beldar (4c0976)

  54. Well damn. Small bites then.

    Kerry’s Silver Star citation (quoted at p. 82 of “Unfit for Command” asserts that “[t]he extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission.” Among the very specific contentions of the SwiftVets, as summarized in “Unfit for Command” (quoting from page 84), was that “the citation statement that Kerry attacked ‘a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire’ is simply false.” Let’s talk about this specific allegation, mm-kay?

    Beldar (4c0976)

  55. Let’s ignore the eyewitnesses to this incident discussed in “Unfit for Command.” Let’s look instead at the eyewitness account of another officer who was present — one whom the press and the Kerry campaign trumpeted as “supporting” Kerry and the version of events recounted in the Silver Star citation, Bill Rood. I discussed Mr. Rood’s Chicago Tribune first person account at considerable length and in excruciating detail on my own blog on the same day it came out.

    Beldar (4c0976)

  56. Let’s ignore the eyewitnesses to this incident discussed in “Unfit for Command.” Let’s look instead at the eyewitness account of another officer who was present — one whom the press and the Kerry campaign trumpeted as “supporting” Kerry and the version of events recounted in the Silver Star citation, Bill Rood. I discussed Mr. Rood’s Chicago Tribune first person account at considerable length and in excruciating detail on my own blog on the same day it came out.

    Beldar (4c0976)

  57. For those who actually paid close attention to what the SwiftVets actually alleged, Mr. Rood’s memoir actually supported the SwiftVets main contentions regarding Kerry’s fitness for the Silver Star, because they show that Kerry was not charging alone, through overwhelming enemy fire, into a dense concentration of the enemy when he hopped off PCF-94 that day.

    Beldar (4c0976)

  58. Now, that’s an example of there being competent, eye-witness evidence to support a specific factual allegation about the Silver Star incident. So if the question is asked: “Has this claim by the SwiftVets — specifically, the claim that this specific language in the citation for Kerry’s Silver Star was false — been “debunked?” the answer has to be “No!” It not only hasn’t been debunked, it’s been demonstrably supported by someone who hadn’t spoken on the record one way or the other when the SwiftVets’ allegations were first made, who isn’t affiliated with the SwiftVets in any way, and who is generally portrayed in the media as being a Kerry supporter!

    Beldar (4c0976)

  59. The clumping prediction is coming true. I’m repeating my posts, sometimes with working links, sometimes not.

    Patterico, you’re right — this is another reason I need to post on my own blog instead of in your comments.

    When will I ever learn?

    Beldar (4c0976)

  60. Beldar,

    Your comments are getting caught in my aggressive spam filter, but be assured that all will be rescued eventually. There is a search box that makes it easy. Keep posting.

    Patterico (767e32)

  61. Yes Beldar, let’s get specific.

    The original citation for the Silver Star, the one that was written by George Elliott and signed by Elmo Zumwalt – and the one that indicates the basis upon which the Navy made the award – says nothing at all about a “numerically superior force.” It in fact reflects almost exactly what was in the after action report for the incident.

    That stock phrase was inserted in the second version of the citation, the one edited to regulation one page length and signed at Pacific Fleet headquarters by Admiral Hyland, who had the proper authority to sign a Silver Star citation.

    There is nothing that appears in the original citation that is not supported by the after action report and the testimony of every eyewitness to the event. In fact, there isn’t a single eyewitness – including SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee – that disputes what happened that day.

    The original citation, and the after action report, actually contain just about everything that John O’Neill claims that Elliott and Hoffmann didn’t know about the incident

    And by the way, there are plenty of eyewitnesses besides Rood who say there was fire coming from multiple VC at the scene. Just read the Brinkley and Boston Globe accounts.

    Itsmeee (794760)

  62. #

    For those who actually paid close attention to what the SwiftVets actually alleged, Mr. Rood’s memoir actually supported the SwiftVets main contentions regarding Kerry’s fitness for the Silver Star, because they show that Kerry was not charging alone, through overwhelming enemy fire, into a dense concentration of the enemy when he hopped off PCF-94 that day.

    Comment by Beldar — 4/6/2007 @ 12:01 am

    —————————————

    Well, except that Kerry never claimed any of those things. He and his crewmen haven’t really claimed anything that doesn’t appear in the after action report or in the original citation based on the after action report.

    And Elliott and Hoffmann and Lonsdale and Zumwalt all thought that what was contained in the after action report was plenty sufficient to support a Silver Star.

    The SBVTers keep forgetting to mention that.

    Itsmeee (794760)

  63. Beldar,

    You write in that column:
    “But neither it, nor the companion news article by Rood’s Chicago Tribune colleague Tim Jones, directly contradicts the SwiftVets’ principle allegations of fact.”

    Whereas Rood actually wrote:
    “Kerry’s critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. …It’s gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.”

    Hmm. Funny, but that strikes me as a “direct contradiction” at least at a general level, wouldnt you agree?

    As to your specifics.
    You and the Swifties seem to take issue with the line in the medal citation that refers to a “numerically superior force”, and “overwhelming firepower”. And since the eyewitness did not provide an exact count of the enemy, therefore you conclude that the charge is not debunked.

    You do acknoweldge that Rood mentions that some enemy fled, and that others were firing from the tree line. So what does that add up to? Compared to the number on the boats?

    This is the kind of crap that you people wasted a great nation’s time with. The utter pettiness of it is mind-numbing. But beyond that, you have the following situation. The eyewitness makes an explicit claim that the SBVT were making charges that he knew to be untrue. He also specifically refuted the charge made by O’Niell regarding the sodier killed by Kerry – that he was some boy in a loincloth. And he discussed, using plural terms, the number of enemy, while not giving an exact count.

    Reasonable people can conclude from this that the SBVT were liars, about the “boy”, and, given Rood’s characterizations, about a lot more, including the issue of the turning-in strategy. But you – you focus on the fact that there is no definitive evidence for the level of firing – whether “overwhelming” or not, and therefore we must continue to grant credibility to the charges.

    This is totally irrational. And it is the standard type of response that the right offered to all of the responses from Kerry.

    I am not experienced in combat, but when I read Rood’s account, I am convinced that Kerry acted bravely and honorably, and was deserving of the recognition that he recieved. I find Rood’s testimony to be a decisive underming of the credibility of the SBVT. When some number of specific charges are clearly shown to be false, then those making the charges lose the benefit of the doubt. Not that they should have much benefit of the doubt in the first place.

    “Swiftboating” will go down in history as a term associated with the lowest form of character assasination. That some of the charges cannot be totally debunked because of the lack of definitive evidence, the passage of time, or the fog of war, is seen by some as support for those charges. I see it as further proof of the dishonorable nature of the charges.

    johDon (04010c)

  64. When some number of specific charges are clearly shown to be false, then those making the charges lose the benefit of the doubt.

    That number, for johDon, was exactly one: the immaterial “boy wearing a loincloth” claim was the only specific charge that Rood’s account refutes. johDon packages this together with Rood’s generalized “they’re saying things that aren’t true” statement, while completely ignoring the ways in which Rood’s account corroborates what the SVBT have claimed, and declares that “reasonable people can conclude from this that the SBVT were liars” about, well, just about everything.

    “Reasonable people”, for sufficiently ridiculous definitions of “reasonable”, one supposes.

    What’s particularly precious about johDon’s drivel is that he accuses the SVBT of “pettiness” and “wasting a great nation’s time”, when it was Kerry who made his Vietnam service an important predicate of his campaign (to the point where it became a punchline). Evidently, when a Democrat justifies his presidential run substantially on his credentials as a war hero (as opposed to his undistinguished Senate career), it’s bush league to actually take a hard look at those credentials.

    (On the other hand, when Dan Rather promulgates pathetic forgeries purporting to show that a Republican might not have been entirely diligent in meeting his National Guard obligations, the provenance of the documents is far less important than the larger truths. Fake but accurate, and all that.)

    Get yourself fitted for clown shoes, johDon.

    BC (4f0bcf)

  65. All I know is, I’d rather get a Lewinsky than be swiftboated.

    Wayno (bd7227)

  66. The True Believers certainly have come out to defend Senator Kerry.
    And their defense is indefensible.
    Should Senator Kerry ever sign a true SF 180, and allow unfettered access to his entire collection of military documents, we would be in a much better position to know what is and what is not true. To reveal selected bits to the Boston Globe is hardly going to persuade everyone. To have three separate Silver Star citiations certainly is curious, if nothing more.
    A policeman I once spoke to, in response to my question: “how do you know to go after someone”, told me, “if he runs, you got him.”
    That is the situation here. Senator Kerry ran from the request that he do what politicians are normally asked to do: disclose everything. Did President Clinton ever release all of his medical records? No. Has Representative Murtha (he fought in Korea) ever release his SF 180? No. The only reason to hide is if you have something worth hiding.
    Now Senator Kerry is ON TAPE alleging that he personally witnessed atrocities in Vietnam. There is no record of his going up the chain of command to report these atrocities, as he was required to do by the UCMJ. He was out of uniform on that tape, as the fatigues which he wore do not admit the wearing of medals or ribbons.
    Senator Kerry is ON TAPE stating that he went to meet with the Vietcong, while still in the Navy. That makes him a negotiator with a foreign power with which we were at war. That is a crime. He even had the chutzpah to bring the demands of the Vietcong back to the US and present them.

    It seems to me that Senator Kerry is allowed a free pass to flaunt our common sense, the UCMJ, and the laws against setting up one’s own government, just because he is a MA Democrat in the mold of John F. Kennedy, who is revered.

    So show me the signed SF 180 (I point out that Kerry brought the whole thing up in his acceptance speech). Show me the prosecution of Lt. Kerry for not reporting the atrocities as he was required to do. Show me the prosecution of Lt. Kerry for violating the Logan act.

    But do not come out and accuse me of Kerry Derangement Syndrome just because I ask for facts. The Swift Boat Veterans made use of our common (until abridged by McCain-Feingold) rights of freedom of speech. And the only reason that Democrats use swiftboated as a synonym for slandered is that they are unable to deal with the facts that one of their own is on record as playing fast and loose with the truth.

    mathman (c7d039)

  67. From johDon:
    “There is raging Kerry Derangement Syndrome …
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing that could ever be said, shown, or demonstrated that will change that gut level hatred of Kerry and everything he represents, in their minds.”

    ***** Apart from the grace of God empowering Vietnam vets, their families, and others concerned, you are at least in part correct. There is little else that would change hatred for the man who returned from Vietnam and slandered the average soldier who risked his life in defense of “Liberty” for the people of SE Asia and ultimately the United States, lies which to this day have received more legitimazation in the MSM than coverage of the hypocrisy of Sen. Kerry.

    More from johDon:
    “And thus there are enormous emotional barriers to coming to any sort of a reasonable judgement on the evidence of these cases.”

    ***** And why is the picture of piles of skulls in Cambodia not evidence to the Left that abondoning SE Asia was a bad idea?

    Yet more:
    “I am not experienced in combat, but when I read Rood’s account, … I see it as further proof of the dishonorable nature of the charges.”

    ***** I haven’t been in combat either, but by my reading of accounts shooting at people when they are shooting at you is part of being a soldier. Compared to other accounts I’ve read of what many do it doesn’t seem Silver Star material. To the point that the “numbers” issue came in later, perhaps that was added to try to justify why it was given in the first place.
    ***** As far as “dishonorable”, that may have been Kerry’s original discharge status as he met with enemies of the United States while still a US Navy officer. But until he releases his records to other than hand-picked journalists, we won’t know.

    Also from above:
    “Question,
    I can respect a vet that’s pissed at another vet talking about unproven atrocities, It must have been hard enough being there without having to deal with that. (Thank you vets, I cannot possibly begin to imagine what it was like.)
    But what are your opinions about Bush’s military service? I’m curious.
    Thanks
    Jim Comment by Jim Ironheart — 4/5/2007

    Silent, I’m going to ask you one simple question, and the answer doesn’t start to shed some light of why GWB wasn’t sent to Vietnam, I’ll ask a follow-up question…
    “What was GWB’s father’s job when he was ’set’ to go to Vietnam?”
    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 4/5/2007 @ 8:56 pm ”

    I’m not going to bother to look up the site for you, but there was a group of pilots who served with Bush who did respond to this request. Their claims were the following:
    1. What GW Bush did was not meaningless or “safe”. He was one of a number of pilots who routinely flew over the Gulf of Mexico in training and deterence of any bomber attacks from Cuba, an idea that seems far-fetched today, but only a few yrs after the missile crisis must have seemed a bit more serious.
    2. Of Bush and the 3 others in his group of 4 pilots, he and 2 others were good enough to be eligible to go to Vietnam, and they volunteered to go.
    3. They did not go because the plane they trained on and flew was specifically designed as an interceptor and was not being used in Vietnam. In addition, it was being phased out and their were enough pilots who had already been flying what was used in Vietnam.

    Some or all of that may not hold up to scrutiny, but that was the claim. On the other hand, I do have a friend who thinks it took political pull to get an assignment as a pilot in the Air National Guard (that was what he was in, correct?)
    at that time. Of course, my friend was mad he couldn’t get in as a fighter pilot then and doesn’t like Bush.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  68. mathman. Good point. I almost FAXed Kerry a blank SF180. Did you read the documents Kerry did release on the SVBT site. They are enough to bring into question his fitness alone. Just like a DNA test, if Kerry were to release all his fitness reports, the issue would be resolved. His “testimony” in congress was a smear to all who wore and wear the uniform. In my opinion, he is unfit to command, and the people supported that position in 2004.

    Chief RZ (6ef90d)

  69. Having served as a Hospital Corpsman in Vietnam at approximately the same time as Kerry, and having had to deal with documentation necessary for treatment of injuries or wounds, and having submitted my comments on Beldar‘s blog in 2004, I can tell you without a doubt, that Kerry is a Liar and obtained Purple Hearts that he did not deserve.

    Cap'n DOC (fd5995)

  70. Kerry’s exaggerations remind me of a soccer player who takes a flying, screaming dive and feigns serious injury simply because the ball has been fairly taken from him by an opposing defender.

    Good Lt (0c9c8a)

  71. And Beldar. BELDAR.

    Well. Done. Sir.

    Good Lt (0c9c8a)

  72. As a teenager I experienced three combat verterans in my family. Two uncles Army and Marine – Sgt. We buried an Army cousin. We are a family of Marines – father Korea and brother. I had three uncles serve in WWII – on my mothers side. Including Battle of the Bulge for one uncle. My Father in Law was an officer in Vietman. I was always amazed at thier lack of conversation on the matter. Those that see combat are changed forever.

    I believe Kerry’s sin was trying to capitalize on his exerience. For those family members living – to the man they respect that he went. They like Jim Webb / Joe Sistak – They feel we have people pulling the strings – like with Vietnam who do not understand war and combat.

    Joe Alexander (106734)

  73. I don’t hate Mr. Kerry; he slimed me in his testimony before Congress, and therefore I don’t think he has the character to be a President. The details of his service are not especially important, just as the details of Mr. Bush’s are not especially important.

    htom (412a17)

  74. Sally,

    The most extreme right-wing zealots and wingnuts are the only ones who don’t recognize that the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” were just a smear campaign initiated by old friends of Bush.

    And a damned fine smear campaign it was. They even had the foresight to have John O’Neil start publicly grinding an axe for Kerry 35 years ago.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  75. Kerry allows Navy release of military, medical records
    Show numerous commendations
    :
    SF 180

    This is silly. It’s not about Kerry it’s about the Vietnam war.

    AF (c319c8)

  76. I agree with Beldar, when he said (just before having fits with posting) “Let’s talk Silver Star, and let’s be very damned specific . . . ”

    OK, let’s be specific. Please point out where Unfit for Command ever referenced the after-action report.

    Please point out where Unfit for Command ever referenced the citation given to Kerry a few days after the incident occured.

    Please point out where, in either of those documents, “numerically superior” enemy force was mentioned.

    In fact, the after-action report, and the original citation, goes into detail as to how many local Vietnamese troops were onboard, in addition to the Swift Boat crews.

    I suggest to you that Unfit for Command ignored these two documents because they did not agree with (or even contain) their “numerically superior” enemy force claim.

    Instead, they used a document that contains language that was not found in original source material, nor was it anything that any of us there has claimed in the years since.

    Oh, and to say that Kerry was “facing a single, wounded young Viet Cong” . . . . . and that commander George Elliott “nor anyone else in the Silver Star process” that he knows of was aware of this this fact, well, boggles the mind. (page 85, Unfit for Command) That information was in the after-action report back then, and it’s still there today.

    While in fact there was more than just that one VC (this may come as a shock to you, but the VC don’t usually line up along the canal bank and allow you to do a head count), it was known that the VC Kerry shot appeared to be alone, and it was absolutely mentioned that he was wounded.

    Anyone who would care to nitpick things that have been said in the past by those who were there, can feel free to do so — and I will be happy to comment. . . . . But what you will not find is people who were there coming forward in agreement with what is in Unfit for Command — a skillfully written book that avoids the complete truth whenever possible, without lying. It ain’t easy — try it sometime.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  77. Do the networks ever refer to the Rather incident as a SMEAR campaign against Bush? Would ABC call that slanderous too?

    MayBee (eb1824)

  78. What’s worse? Getting “Swiftboated” (outed as a liar via inconvenient facts,) or getting “Macacaed” (being deliberately smeared by a zealously biased media on a word that doesn’t mean anything)?

    foxforce91 (b736b2)

  79. The ‘boy in the loincloth’ as people are terming it, is taken from a Boston Globe interview with John Kerry. It is not something that the SBVT made up.

    ABC (549bf4)

  80. The media double-standard is sickeningly biased against conservatives. What of Steve Bing, Soros and other hugely wealthy libtoids and their fundings of democrat-controlled 527 pacs? These groups were behind more egregious and dishonest ads by a factor of 10x but who do the exec dullards are ABC go after? ABC is a shill for the jackass party.

    Schratboy (9d6e65)

  81. It appears that there are several libtoid trolls among us. Hi, Libtoids! Are you having a hard time swallowing the truth or would you rather believe everything ABC and John Kerry are telling you? BTW, did you know John Kerry is worth close to a billion dollars?

    Schratboy (9d6e65)

  82. I see that MMFA tried to “debunk” the SBVT claims, here and here

    Dark Conservative (d83cb7)

  83. 67 Mathman:

    Murtha did not serve in Korea. He was in a training comand in the states during that period.

    He did serve in Vietnam as a MARINE battalion intelligence officer and apparently saw combat as he received a Bronze star with combat V, not the standard REMF bronze star for officers who were in theatre. But again, like Kerry, he hasn’t released his records or signed an SF-180, just posted selected records on his website.

    As distasteful as he has become, he was there.

    BigG (74b5b0)

  84. ABC said: “The ‘boy in the loincloth’ as people are terming it, is taken from a Boston Globe interview with John Kerry. It is not something that the SBVT made up.”

    Absolutely, 100% correct.

    And Unfit for Command went on to say (page 85), that they believe “Kerry committed no crime” in killing the VC that day.

    That’s as far as the book was concerned . . . .

    However, when on talk shows, John O’Neill used the talking point “shot that kid in the back” countless times.

    The problem with that is at least one officer on the scene that day — Charles Gibson — has stated that the VC was not shot in the back. Kerry has said that also.

    And I like how “boy”, or “teenager” (and we did think he was about 18-20) has morphed into “kid”. The fact is, even if 18-20 (he was, as it turns out, 27), he was the age of many of us there. I was 21 that day, and was far from being the youngest of the Americans.

    One of many examples as to how a person can avoid the complete truth without lying.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  85. 76 AF

    So if I send the Naval BuPER a FOIA asking for Sen. Kerry’s records, they’ll produce them? Or was this just a continuation of his slight of hand releases to complicit journalists only?

    Also, where are the Carter amnesty documents in this file? And his original DD214?

    BigG (74b5b0)

  86. Fox force writes

    “Macacaed” (being deliberately smeared by a zealously biased media on a word that doesn’t mean anything)?

    which I guess shows that Fox is a total crap-for-brains.(That’s one of my words that doesn’t mean anything, except when it does.)

    As far as the Silver Star incident, I’d say comment 77 says a lot. And I see no one has even bothered to defend the mysterious appearance of Adm. Schachte, who wasn’t remembered by anyone else on the crew. That should be simpler than reconciling the Rashomon story of the Silver Star (which seems to me to center around inaccuracies introduced considerably after the fact that weren’t Kerry’s responsibility).

    Andrew J. Lazarus (d79866)

  87. It’s beyond me how sincere people can fault the SBVFT. I’d have welcomed similar info from those who knew Bush in his early days, whether they called themselves “Texas Natl Guard vets for truth” or “Bush frat brothers for truth” or even “Bush elementary school classmates for truth”. You weigh what they say and put it in context. I’d like to know if and why dozens of your colleagues don’t like you, especially when buttressed with facts.

    Paul S. (088f4e)

  88. You can argue about specific elements of each issue from today until doomsday. But the fact remains that kerry was a swift boat commander for slightly more than four months, amassed three purple hearts for injuries that three year olds get bandages for and a kiss on the boo-boo, and then put in to go home fast. He lied about Cambodia on Christmas. He lied about the first purple heart being caused by enemy fire. He lied about what he did with his medals afterwards (he HAD to have lied, because he told so many different mutually exclusive stories about them).

    Since then, in almost a quarter of a century as senator, he has not sponsored and seen through to passage even one major bill. His attendance at public hearings for the committees he is on is abysmal. He conned Massachussets voters for something like 15 years into believing he was of Irish heritage (he isn’t, but there are more Irish voters in Massachussets than any other state). And he has repeatedly lied about making his full military record public.

    John kerry is a pathetic malingering barroom loudmouth, with a great hairdo and a talent for marrying rich women. The end.

    Ken Berwitz (299c33)

  89. The Swift Boaters were scum bags, every single one of them. Lying scum bags – FACT.

    RealityCheck (3428d8)

  90. I’m not a lawyer, but since Patterico is this can be a question for him: if ABC writes an accusation against an individual in knowing error, isn’t that libel? I suppose the Ambassdor-appointee may be a public figure, but all the other members of the Swift Boat Vets surely aren’t.

    MTF (ad446e)

  91. Reality Check

    What can I say? I am ovewhelmed by your tidal wave of convincing facts.

    Or……..

    You have now displaced Mr. kerry as the quintessential barroom loudmouth I was referring to.

    Try to figure out which of these two conclusions I’ve settled on.

    Ken Berwitz (299c33)

  92. If I remember correctly, Kerry scammed all those medals in LESS than 4 months. He spent part of that time training in Vietnam and actually was in combat for closer to three months. So, think about that performance: Five medals in three months. I mean the guy was more heroic than Audie Murphy and Chesty Puller, combined. Yeah.

    PC14 (4d50e6)

  93. Beldar is wrong!

    The central claim in the Bronze Star incident, in which Green Beret James Rassmann fell from the Swift Boat after a mine explosion, was that ALL the other Swift Boats fled the scene and ONLY Kerry returned to save him.

    The Kerry campaign admitted that NONE of the other boats left the scene.

    This article concedes the point. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/graphics/swiftboat_082104.html

    Then the MSM suddenly shifted to debating whether there was enemy fire from the riverbanks. Who cares? The central question was settled.

    CM Smith (843567)

  94. With regard to the Swift Boat veterans, people who were in combat together cut each other a lot of slack and they do it for a lifetime. Go to a military reunion and you’ll see what I mean. All I needed to know about Kerry is that the guys he fought with hated his guts. Case closed.

    I’m sure there were some, but I don’t know of any Vietnam vets who were in combat who voted for Kerry. Everybody there who got shot at got bumps and abrasions, cuts and bruises, but nobody I know ever applied for a Purple Heart for those kinds of injuries. People had more character than to make a mockery of a Purple Heart. Kerry never spent a day at sick call. And Kerry’s Silver Star medal is an obvious fraud. Supposedly, he was under heavy automatic weapons fire from 50 feet away, yet neither Kerry nor any of his men were killed or wounded and his 50 foot aluminum boat suffered no damage (yes, that would have been reported.) If Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, and the three blind mice were shooting AK 47s (600 rpm) from 50 feet away, somebody would have been shot and the aluminum boat would have been riddled with holes.

    higgins (5af493)

  95. higgins — I’d be curious to know where you got that Kerry “was under heavy automatic weapons fire from 50 feet away” . . . .

    It certainly wasn’t in the after-action report, nor was it in the citation given to him a few days later. Nor have any of us ever claimed such a thing.

    “Small arms” fire is what was in the AAR and the citation.

    No damage to the boat? Outside of the pilot house window being blown out by a B-40, yes, there was no damage.

    I apologize for none of us who were there being killed or wounded. Kerry DID have something to do with that, however. And for that, we thank him, and Bill Rood and Don Droz and their crews.

    Doug Reese

    PS. There were dozens of Swift Boat guys who received PHs for minor wounds that required no time off — thousands in the war overall

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  96. Someone who signed as RealityCheck wrote:

    The Swift Boaters were scum bags, every single one of them. Lying scum bags

    Sir, you are no one to me, and I’m no one to you, and neither of us mean anything to the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, but I will not allow your slander to stand unanswered. They were to a man brave in service, and some were heroes in the Delta.
    When they stood up as aging veterans many years later to risk their livelihood and expose themselves and their families to slander and scorn (as your outburst illustrates) they were once again brave in service to their country, and now all of them were heroes.
    Perhaps, like me, you’re jealous of their courage. Perhaps, like me, you were a peacenik marcher when they were in uniform. Perhaps, unlike me, you wished they had just remained silent instead of reopening an unhealed wound. They didn’t have to do that, but they did, and many voters heeded their voice.
    You, and I, sir, are not worthy of their sacrifice, or their service, given not once but twice. I pray that our country is yet worthy of these noble men.
    God Bless them, every one.

    John 8:47

    Peter Warner (989085)

  97. Doug Reese: source was Kerry’s Silver Star citation as quoted in Unfit For Command, page 81: says in part, “…all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less than fifty feet away.” It goes on to say that there were a “score” of VC – 20 of the worst shots you ever saw.

    By the way, I am not one of those who doubts Kerry’s physical courage – it takes courage to face the potentially fatal unknown, whether anything happens or not – I just think the guy scammed a system that relies on honor and trust and that reflects on his character and integrity.

    higgins (5af493)

  98. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460
    John Kerry saved my life. Now his heroism is being questioned.

    BY JIM RASSMANN
    Tuesday, August 10, 2004

    “…On March 13, 1969, John Kerry’s courage and leadership saved my life.

    While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John’s swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

    When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. …John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat,…, and pulled me aboard.” [emphasis mine]

    Compare to previously noted WaPo article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/graphics/swiftboat_082104.html

    Other questions in dispute, yet more concrete than whether there was fire form the banks:
    What wound did Kerry receive other than the earlier “self-inflicted” grenade wound?
    Were there one or two mine explosions, and if only one, how was Kerry wounded?

    CM Smith (843567)

  99. One point everyone seems to have missed about the comparison between Bush’s service and Kerry’s — they were in different decades. Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia “occurred” while LBJ was president. Bush’s TANG “leave” happened in Nixon’s second term. The Vietnam war was peaking while Kerry served but winding down while Bush served. It is in no way surprising that their tracks were different.

    Pythagoras (f709d9)

  100. higgins — Just my point, but thanks for the reply.

    That was in a subsequent citation, using language contained nowhere else. As I said earlier, that book avoided using the original citation and after-action report. The reason being is that they are detailed, and contain no such phrase.

    They do not contain the phrase “automatic weapons fire”, because the VC had no automatic weapons. And that is exactly why no such language is in the after-action report.

    But as to being less than 50 feet away, that is correct for some of the VC — at both ambush locations.

    You mention that citation talking about a “score” of VC, correct? Then it goes on to say Kerry faced a “numerically superior” enemy force. How could that be? (Kerry + 3 crews + all the local Vietnamese soldiers vs 20 VC = “numerically superior force”?) I’d say it’s because a clerk got carried away. There was some paperwork that mentioned 20 VC (a Navy PR piece written by Bill Rood), but you won’t find any of us saying there was a numerically superior force, because there wasn’t any such thing.

    The VC were probably as good a shots as any of us. Well, as for me, hopefully better for their sake :)

    But how is it they didn’t hit any of us? Were they such bad shots? Well, I’ll tell you why . . .

    Think about it — you’re a VC (they were 16 to about 35 years old) sitting along this canal, and you hear Swift Boats coming in the distance. You haven’t ever seen one before (they had never been up this particular canal), but you sure know about them as they have been in the general area for some months.

    You know that they have damn big guns, so you’d better be well-protected when they go by. And if you plan to shoot at them, well, watch out — they will fire back, but will keep on going. You can’t just stand behind a tree, as they will cut down the tree and you with it . . you need to be in a ditch, a hole, or a bunker . . .

    So, here come the Swifts, firing away with their twin-50s, and you get down, preparing to pop up and fire at them when they are going by and/or already past your position — either way, your heart is pounding as they get closer and closer . . . . .

    You begin to fire, but wait . . . . the boats turn and stop, and people are getting off — three really big guys to start with, and then a whole slew of Vietnamese soldiers, and then . . .

    . . . . and then your heart isn’t beating hard anymore . . .

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  101. You can argue about specific elements of each issue from today until doomsday. But the fact remains that kerry was a swift boat commander for slightly more than four months, amassed three purple hearts for injuries that three year olds get bandages for and a kiss on the boo-boo, and then put in to go home fast. He lied about Cambodia on Christmas. He lied about the first purple heart being caused by enemy fire. He lied about what he did with his medals afterwards (he HAD to have lied, because he told so many different mutually exclusive stories about them).

    Since then, in almost a quarter of a century as senator, he has not sponsored and seen through to passage even one major bill. His attendance at public hearings for the committees he is on is abysmal. He conned Massachussets voters for something like 15 years into believing he was of Irish heritage (he isn’t, but there are more Irish voters in Massachussets than any other state). And he has repeatedly lied about making his full military record public.

    You left out how he lied about seeing atrocities while in vietnam before Congress. The man is a habitual liar and I doubt what he says happened in Vietnam as a result.

    So Ken, cry all you want, but your hero has NO credibility.

    Hard Right (7900e3)

  102. Patterico, the Swift Boat claims about Kerry were unfair and unbalanced. If you don’t like the word “smear” how would you describe such claims?

    Your material falsehood requirement is ridiculous allowing for example numerous deliberate disparaging lies about minor details which if pointed out can be dismissed as immaterial.

    As for Beldar’s challenge, the specific claim that the initials KJW on certain after action reports prove they were written by Kerry has been debunked.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  103. My hero? What am I missing here?

    If what I wrote about kerry comes across as heroic to you, I would love to know your definition of negative.

    Ken Berwitz (299c33)

  104. Doug Reese: I’m assuming, but don’t know, that the VC in that incident had AK-47s which has an automatic mode. The VC and the NVA were both very good fighters – tough, determined and dedicated. I saw 20 of them die on a hill, some torn to shreds, rather than surrender. Of course, like us, they’re not all the same and disappearing back into the trees was common, too.

    My problem with Kerry is that I believe that he, even then, manipulated the system so as to play well in later political life. Self-aggrandizement through and through. The Kerry I see on TV looks a lot like the Kerry I saw in Unfit For Command. Connive, distort, outright lie and show no respect for other’s intelligence.

    To Detroit auto workers: I own three SUVs; to environmentalists a few weeks later: I don’t own any SUVs; To Bush: redeploy troops from Korea to the Mid-East; after Bush says “might be a good idea”, JK says it’s a dumb idea. He knows video tape exists, but he is so used to talking his way into getting what he wants – it’s worked all his life – that he doesn’t care. The dummies won’t notice. Hey, look where it’s gotten him.

    higgins (5af493)

  105. higgins — Actually, I do know what they had. Just spoke to one of the VC survivors a few days ago, as a matter of fact.

    The VC, as was usual for those in our area, had Chicom bolt action rifles that day. The sole exception was the guy Kerry killed, who had a B-40.

    The NVA pretty much never set foot in the province, and certainly not in that district, which was the southernmost in Vietnam.

    I’m limiting myself to the Silver Star incident, so won’t comment about anything else, as much as I’d like to . . .

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  106. Andrew J. Lazarus wrote: Fox force [wrote]:

    “Macacaed” (being deliberately smeared by a zealously biased media on a word that doesn’t mean anything)?

    which I guess shows that Fox is a total crap-for-brains.(That’s one of my words that doesn’t mean anything, except when it does.)

    Mr. Lazarus: Unless you are alleging that in addition to being part Jewish, George Allen is also descended from French colonialists in the Congo and knows the local lingo so well he could possibly know this, there is no reason to believe that this particular definition of “macaca” was meant by Allen.

    Allen, in his own defense, said he didn’t know what it meant. But neither did the MSM lynch mob that was doing its damndest to head off presidential hopeful Allen at the pass. The controversy was created before a reason for it was firmly established. As James Taranto noted shortly after it all began (mistakenly thinking the Washed-up Post wouldn’t breathe life into it every day for months) even an Indian-American activist couldn’t explain why he was offended:

    Steve Mukherjee, a spokesman for the Washington chapter of the Association of Indians in America, said Allen’s comments were “hurtful,” and he chided the senator for not being more sensitive.

    “The world is so volatile and so delicate,” Mukherjee said. “You have to be careful what you say and how you say it. The U.S. is no longer black and white.”

    Asked what macaca means, Mukherjee said: “What it means, I don’t know. But it’s going to cause him some grief.”

    Nice try.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  107. Mr. Lazarus: Here’s the link to the aforementioned Taranto comments.Opinion Journal – Best of The Web Today, August 16, 2006

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  108. AND ANOTHER THING: The above-linked Wikipedia page was created as a result of the Macaca kerfuffle, not before it. Read it and weep, creep.

    Yet another reason one should seek the assistance of the Morton Salt girl in obtaining enough grains of salt with which to take Wiki links.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  109. Smithee, you are ignorant. Allen’s mother is indeed a North African Francophone, Tunisian Jewish not Congolese. And Macaca is used as a racial slur there. Are you in the habit of muttering “random” syllables and just having them turn out to be a racial slur in your mother’s home country? Are you in the habit of calling out people with random meaningless phrases at all? Did Allen ever call another oppo-researcher some other phrase that truly didn’t mean anything, and just got unlucky this time? Yeah, right.

    The fact that and Indian-American didn’t know what it meant is utterly irrelevant, the sort of factoid that the lobotomized subset of the American right likes to present. I mean, I could cuss you out with racial slurs in a couple languages you don’t know, but the fact you don’t recognize what I’m saying doesn’t really matter, does it, you little putz?

    Andrew J. Lazarus (d79866)

  110. To James B. Shearer: Since Kerry, unlike George W. Bush, IS one to carry a grudge, why do you think he hasn’t yet taken up O’Neill and Corsi’s invitation to sue them, and get it over with? IMHO, there is an inconvenient truth (to coin a phrase) that must be awaiting discovery or cross-examination that would be even more ruinous to his heroic reputation than all the SwiftVets’ “lies.” I think the MSM suspects that is the case as well, and would rather pretend that a trial is not necessary to brand the SBVT as “slanderous” than to continue asking relevent questions Kerry won’t answer (similar to the manner in which Joe Wilson’s improved memory under oath before the Senate Intelligence Committee was studiously ignored by most of the drive-by guys).

    C’mon, JFK! Put your honey’s money where your mouth is!

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  111. 111

    I am not defending the word “slanderous” just the word “smear”.

    Public figures like Kerry have to meet a very high standard to successfully sue for libel which is why such suits are rarely filed. Similarly as far as I know Corsi and O’Neill haven’t sued for any of the nasty things said about them.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  112. Just for the record, “Page 1″ of Streuli’s Kerry fitrep, similar to Hilary’s Rose Law Firm records, magically reappeared in the SF 180 records dump to the “chosen 3″. To this day, it has not been made available for public examination. Just what that document reveals (or doesn’t, for that matter) is unclear with at least one major exception. It would definitively establish the period of John Kerry’s service with Coastal 13 at Cat Lo and his final re-assignment to Coastal 11 at An Thoi, a date which, thus far, eludes discovery.

    It is common knowledge by now that the Kerry campaign attempted to credit Kerry with PCF 94 combat activity prior to his actual assumption of command of PCF 94. It has been suggested that this may have been an attempt to add substance to the claims of a Kerry/Alston period of service together, claims which have proven to be overstated at best, fraudulent at worst.

    What IS clear is that John Kerry continually LIED during the course of the campaign when claiming that the totality of his military records had been made public. We KNOW that he withheld AT LEAST the document(s) revealing his sub-par academic performance and Page 1 of the Streuli fitness report.

    One other point regarding the missing Page 1. Not only was the document withheld, but the fitrep presentation that Kerry proffered as “complete” actually MIS-SEQUENCED the presentation of pages so that “Page 2″ of the Streuli fitrep was PRECEDED BY AN UNRELATED PAGE 1!

    Bingo (747f20)

  113. Here’s a question…

    If one were to, say, file a FoI request for Kerry’s service record, exactly sort sort of info would that person need, and what would I that person ask FOR in that request?

    Just wondering, is all… :)

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  114. I continue to be grateful to Patterico for the link and his gracious memory of my original post. The discussion here revives some fairly frustrating memories of mine from 2004, however.

    As with the comments to my original post, the discussion here has — I suppose inevitably — veered off into a shouting match that lacks any intellectual discipline.

    The debate always swoops down to the merits. People can’t resist arguing the ultimate issues. They can’t resist moving on to final conclusions. They can’t just stop at flagging an issue and then discussing whether there is any competent evidence to support both sides’ factual arguments on that issue. Instead, folks quite naturally insist upon leaping onward to attempt to finally resolve those issues (via their own marshalling of evidence and their own assessment of its credibility).

    What I was trying to propose was a different sort of discussion. I was trying to export into the broad public discussion of Kerry’s war record the civil-law concepts of summary judgment practice. I thought that would be useful because the mainstream media’s sweeping conclusions — like ABC News’ reference to the SwiftVets’ claims as having been “debunked,” or others’ insistence that those claims were “completely unsubstantiated” — sounded very like how courts speak when they’re deciding whether there is or is not a “genuinely disputed issue of material fact” in the summary judgment context.

    That’s why I defined the challenge as I did, that’s why I tried to explain some ground rules. Almost everyone ignored those in the comments to my original post, and almost everyone has here, too. By “almost everyone,” I mean both Kerry supporters and Kerry detractors.

    Very, very rarely has anyone tried to actually meet my challenge on its defined terms. One such attempt above merits a response: Mr. Shearer (#103 above), whose initials were or weren’t on particular reports doesn’t meet the “materiality” test. It’s in the same category as whether the VC whom Kerry shot was in a loin cloth or not. Those who suggested that Kerry had authored those reports were admittedly speculating — wondering, as part of a subsidiary curiosity, whether those initials might indeed indicate that Kerry had been the author. But none of the SwiftVets’ major factual assertions depended on that speculation. It’s trivial. So, with due respect to you for at least trying, I can’t agree that your suggestion fits the challenge’s parameters, much less that you’ve overcome the challenge.

    Beldar (4c0976)

  115. However, when on talk shows, John O’Neill used the talking point “shot that kid in the back” countless times.

    The problem with that is at least one officer on the scene that day — Charles Gibson — has stated that the VC was not shot in the back. Kerry has said that also.

    And I like how “boy”, or “teenager” (and we did think he was about 18-20) has morphed into “kid”. The fact is, even if 18-20 (he was, as it turns out, 27), he was the age of many of us there. I was 21 that day, and was far from being the youngest of the Americans.

    One of many examples as to how a person can avoid the complete truth without lying.

    Doug Reese

    veteran (a9493a)

  116. However, when on talk shows, John O’Neill used the talking point “shot that kid in the back” countless times.
    Doug Reese

    If you are concerned about what is said on TV Doug, what do you have to say about what Kerry said in his televised testimony before Congress? Remember? The atrocities and Gengis Khan?

    veteran (a9493a)

  117. 115

    Beldar, IIRC Corsi and O’Neill in their book did not speculate that the initials meant that Kerry had written the report, they stated it as a fact. In general the SBVT did not “admittedly speculate”, they just chose the worst possible interpretation of the evidence of Kerry’s actions and then stated it as inconvertible fact.

    As for “materiality” you seem to be using it with a different meaning than in your discussion of the Libby conviction.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  118. If one were to, say, file a FoI request for Kerry’s service record, exactly sort sort of info would that person need, and what would I that person ask FOR in that request?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 4/6/2007 @ 4:29 pm

    “Jug” Burkett could certainly do this. He has filed many FOIA’s for service records in his exposure of phony veterans, and written a book called Stolen Valor.
    I believe full name and SSN is all that is needed to request a full and complete copy of his record.
    It would be interesting to see what was provided.

    veteran (a9493a)

  119. #80

    The ‘boy in the loincloth’ as people are terming it, is taken from a Boston Globe interview with John Kerry. It is not something that the SBVT made up.

    Comment by ABC — 4/6/2007 @ 6:24 am

    It’s taken from a Boston Globe article (and subsequent book) that included an interview with Kerry. It also contained information from interviews with the other crewmen. It didn’t say who the description came from.

    Itsmeee (ebf803)

  120. As you can see, what I wrote was: “Unless you are alleging that in addition to being part Jewish, George Allen is also descended from French colonialists in the Congo and knows the local lingo so well he could possibly know this, there is no reason to believe that this particular definition of “macaca” was meant by Allen.”

    From the Wiki link YOU provided: “Macaca[1] is a dismissive epithet used by francophone colonials in Central Africa’s Belgian Congo for the native population.” In the section subtitled “Related Words,” there are references to the various ways Belgians have used the word, and how the leader of the newly freed Congo state cast off the phrase.

    So tell me, Mr. Lazarus: What part of the Belgian Congo is Tunisia in?

    While you ponder that, consider this as well: You called me “little putz,” which isn’t surprising coming from a BDS sufferer — maybe after Hillary fully funds embroyic stem cell research, we’ll find a cousin of drugs used to control Tourette’s to help y’all out. But I digress — think about the first time you called someone a “putz.” Or the second time. Or the third. Or the hundredth. Did you know what the word “putz” actually meant? Or did you actually mean to demean someone by calling him/her a phallus?

    For that matter, think of the first time you used the phrase “F— you” — did you really mean to say “I hope you get lucky tonight?” When you have used the phrase “Kiss my a–,” did you really mean you would like the targeted fellow to meet you in a leather bar, where you would be waiting wearing nothing but chaps and a smile? I doubt it. But when Allen calls someone “macaca,” it is assumed by agendized journalists that he was working with full second-generation knowledge of colonial Belgian slang even though his mother isn’t even tangientially Belgian.

    Think Allen’s a liar? Fine, think so, based on that “evidence.” On the other hand, we have John Kerry, who was famous for throwing his Vietnam medals over the fence at the Capitol building in a world-famous protest. But he insisted when running for President that it wasn’t really his medals he so disrespectfully disposed of — it was someone else’s. After an ABC interviewer asked him where his were, he blew a gasket. He’s got them, he insisted, but he wasn’t going to show them to anybody. He then accused the interviewer of doing the bidding of the RNC.

    Uh huh.

    When Kerry spoke of the atrocities that he witnessed in Vietnam, he didn’t name names, and no investigation produced any evidence of most of the incidents he described, which should have gotten somebody — anybody — put behind bars for a long, long, time. On top of that, some of his compatriates in the so-called Winter Soldier media events turned out to be total fakes. Apparently, this was of little import to Kerry, who rarely speaks of that testimony now that he got almost everything he wanted out of it — a secure Senate seat and billions of bucks. What he didn’t get out of it is the White House. Oh, well (snicker…)

    You are willing to connect far-flung dots about Allen and his mother’s ancestry to make the case that he is a bigot, and that he lies when denying the charge. But to anyone who is willing to be intellectually honest, John Kerry has an infinitely more serious credibility problem. If the Swift Vets had any part in bringing this to the fore, it is not, IMHO, because people chose to believe their “lies,” it is because Kerry had the wherewithal and the opportunity to issue a death blow to Unfit For Command by revealing everything in his arsenal, and he didn’t. And he still won’t. Why not? All the evidence points to “Because even with his billions, he can’t afford it.”

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  121. Well Beldar, if you thought I was trying to participate in your “challenge” I’m sorry you got that impression.

    You made a pretty long argument about the Silver Star incident that was based on wrong information. More than one person has pointed that out. On that matter you are strangely silent.

    Or am I missing your response in this thread?

    Itsmeee (ebf803)

  122. Beldar, my problem with your post (I assume you are referring to #51), is that it is based on a citation that no one ever saw back when the award was given to Kerry.

    Elliott never heard, nor did he see in any paperwork, that Kerry faced a numerically superior force.

    In fact, the numbers of Americans and SVN soldiers were spelled out in detail in the after-action-report.

    The fact that there was one VC with a B-40 (the guy Kerry killed) was mentioned.

    The fact that there were two ambush locations was mentioned.

    The fact that Kerry got off at the second location (not the first) was mentioned, and was by no stretch of the imagination, a big revelation as the drudge report (Aug ’04) or Unfit for Command (page 84) would have you believe.

    However, the after-action report was ignored in Unfit for Command. The original citation was ignored in Unfit for Command. What I told the private investigator hired by John O’Neill (I never spoke to O’Neill about that day) was ignored in Unfit for Command.

    I appreciate the position O’Neill was in. Afterall, he didn’t have anyone present that day (including one of his own members) to come forward and bad-mouth Kerry about what happened that day.

    So, conveniently ignoring the AAR and original citation, he went to work with what was available — a citation that didn’t even exist until long after that day — a smokescreen about the landing being preplanned (neglecting to mention that it was “preplanned” with the Navy), etc — another false assertion that Kerry shot the VC in the back — Roy Hoffmann saying he “discovered” in 2004 what had “actually occurred” (apparently he was unable to read in 1969) — total nonsense about Elliott not being “aware of the actual facts” surrounding Kerry’s involvement in this incident — and then the statement, showing, I suppose, how reasonable O’Neill, Elliott and others were, when the book says that they believe “Kerry committed no crime in killing the fleeing, wounded enemy . . . ”

    The paperwork was there. O’Neill ignored it in 2004. Others seem to have followed his lead and acted as it they never saw it in 1969.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  123. And as for Bill Rood pointing out minor discrepancies, well, I don’t blame him — there are quite a few out there. And some pop up later as the basis for some crazy claims (“Kerry followed the mortally wounded VC behind a hootch and administered a coup de grace”) here and there on the internet and other places.

    So, when he had his say, he pointed a few out. I can hardly blame him, as I do it all the time.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  124. … why do you think he hasn’t yet taken up O’Neill and Corsi’s invitation to sue them, and get it over with?

    oney where your mouth is!

    Comment by L.N. Smithee — 4/6/2007 @ 3:20 pm

    I dunno, why hasn’t GWB sued Kitty Kelley? Probably has too much to hide. Proof positive he was snorting coke at Camp David.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Itsmeee (ebf803)

  125. Smithee, if I told you that I just accidentally typed “putz”, that I didn’t have the slightest idea it meant something, I don’t think you would believe me. But you seem to be a rather credulous person, so maybe you would: after all, you’re claiming that George Allen uses random syllables he doesn’t think mean anything in referring to a dark-skinned spectator, but by sheer accident his mouth somehow came up with a word that’s recognizable as a racial slur. )You missed this part of the wikipedia article: The word… is occasionally used in Belgium (both in Flanders and in Wallonia) as a racial slur, referring not to Congolese but to Moroccan or other North African immigrants or their descendants [e.g. Tunisians like Etty Allen–AJL].

    Actually, the Wiki is a too generous to Allen: the French North African colons apparently used it as a slur against Arabs. And American white-supremacists are familiar with it too.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (d79866)

  126. Itsmeee:

    I dunno, why hasn’t GWB sued Kitty Kelley? Probably has too much to hide. Proof positive he was snorting coke at Camp David.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Check out post 111.

    Nobody with any shred of credibility has ever come forward to say Bush was snorting coke at Camp David. And remember, George W. Bush was elected President twice. He’s already got the job. He’s not simmering over not getting what he thinks was his birthright, as Kerry seems to be doing. Just like Grover Cleveland, John F. Kennedy, and even Bill Clinton before him, Bush’s reputation for posterity will be determined by history’s judgment of his performance in office, not by what a scandal scooper says.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  127. While I have no interest in taking up Beldar’s “challenge,” being, IMO, an exercise in futility along the lines of proving that leprechauns don’t exist, I will set out a few of the more obvious questionable assumptions, innuendoes, distortions, misrepresentations, and fallacies (not to mention incomplete information, unsupported opinion, and lousy writing) contained in the UFC version of the Silver Star incident that Beldar evidently relies on. Let others decide the relevance for themselves.

    P. 80: He has chosen to utilize his thirty-five-year-old Silver Star as the basis for every political campaign he has waged. In each campaign, a new participant in Kerry’s medal stories is discovered, as was Jim Rassmann, the comrade “left behind” whom Kerry did fish out of the water but about whom he invented an exaggerated story during the 2004 presidential primary in Iowa. Each Kerry campaign ends with Kerry
    embracing his comrades while faulting his opponents for their less meritorious service.

    I’d be interested in seeing some proof that he did so when he ran as an antiwar candidate in 1970 and 1972.

    Pp 80-81: Kerry’s Star would never have been awarded had his actions been reviewed through normal channels. In his case, he was awarded the medal two days after the incident with no review.

    Actually, he was awarded the medal on March 6, six days after the incident. Elliott, Lonsdale, Hoffmann, and Zumwalt insisted in 1996 that it was thoroughly reviewed.

    P. 81: The medal was arranged to boost the morale of Coastal Division 11, but it was based on false and incomplete information provided by Kerry himself.

    It was based on the after action report, which as we will see is not false or incomplete at all.

    P. 81: The following is the Silver Star citation based on Kerry’s account:

    “The following” was the second citation, written at Pacific Fleet Headquarters after Kerry left Vietnam. It contains wording that is found nowhere in the after action report. The original citation, however, contains most of the salient information from the after action report.

    P. 82: Larry Lee, a crewman and gunner, recalls the agreement as Medeiros recounts it and further recalls a prior discussion of probable medals for those participating. Bronze Stars for selected landers were contemplated and Navy commendation for others.

    They forget to tell you the rest of what Larry Lee said: “Lee said he and other crew members talked the night before the operation that if Kerry’s tactic worked, the sailors involved could be eligible to receive commendations and Bronze Stars.

    Kerry was not involved in those discussions, he said.” (Louisville Courier-Journal, Aug. 26, 2004)

    ——————————————
    Part 2 follows

    Itsmeee (e38685)

  128. Andrew J. Lazarus:

    But you seem to be a rather credulous person, so maybe you would: after all, you’re claiming that George Allen uses random syllables he doesn’t think mean anything in referring to a dark-skinned spectator, but by sheer accident his mouth somehow came up with a word that’s recognizable as a racial slur. )

    How many blacks were at that event cheering Allen on? Do you have any idea?

    You are making a presumption that the Webb gadfly assigned to shadow Allen was the only “dark-skinned spectator” in the crowd, and was targeted by Allen because of his skin.

    You missed this part of the wikipedia article: The word… is occasionally used in Belgium (both in Flanders and in Wallonia) as a racial slur, referring not to Congolese but to Moroccan or other North African immigrants or their descendants [e.g. Tunisians like Etty Allen–AJL].

    Actually, I did notice that, and almost included it in my last post, but didn’t mention it because I was wondering if you would, in response, dare suggest that Allen would use a slur against someone else that could have applied to his own mother. And you did. How about that?

    I also viewed the Webb campaign’s YouTube video that was shot by S.R. Sidarth, “Macaca” himself. I watched it, and Allen says “Macaca or whatever his name is.” He didn’t say, “This macaca is following me around,” or anything of that nature. It doesn’t seem to me that he was using it in the spirit that the Belgians would have if he meant it in the context of a slur.

    After watching that, I selected one of the adjacent vids showing Allen defending himself alongside Webb on Meet the Press. Ironically, Sidarth’s video gave the full context to the incident, as opposed to the truncated one shown by Tim Russert, and Russert — who either hadn’t seen Sidarth’s video in context or pretended he didn’t — asked “What did you specifically mean by the words, ‘Welcome to America and the real Virginia?’ Why did you use those words toward a dark-skinned American?” (bold mine)

    It seems that Russert, you, and others accept the idea that he wouldn’t have said this of a white person who had been tagging along with a camera. But when it comes to Republicans, the tried-and-true strategy is “Find the racism even if there is none.”

    It’s similar to the ridiculous charge of racism against the RNC when it created an attack ad against light-skinned black Democrat Harold Ford Jr. with a white blonde actress saying “I met Harold at the Playboy party!” The suggestion was a blonde was chosen to highlight his presence at a Playboy-sponsored event because it would make white voters disgusted at the notion of a black man getting it on with a white woman. The implication is that nobody would have had an objection to it at all if the actress herself was black. I don’t read Playboy, but I don’t remember the last time I saw a black woman on a cover.

    Of course, the king of all the quasi-racist GOP ads is the Willie Horton one. Oooooh, Willie’s black face was scary to white people! Willie turned nice, normal people into KKK members by seeing his mugshot! Couldn’t the guys behind that ad have described how a lifer in for murder brutally attacked and raped again while out on a weekend pass without showing the picture of his black face? Waaaaaah!

    For the record: I am an African-American and haven’t any problem with the Confederate flag. The flag itself means nothing — it can be used, abused or misused, just like the Stars & Stripes. If anyone’s panties are in a knot over the Stars & Bars, that person is looking backward instead of forward. Backward-looking people went back to Africa rather than stay in segregated America. Now America’s desegregated, and their descendents are still in Africa. Oops.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  129. Has any or all of you taken the time to read the transcript of John Kerry’s testimony before the senate panel in 1971? Kerry only reported what was being told to him and accused no one of anything. Those swift boaters who made accusation about Kerry were lies as they did not serve with him and were only in the same theater. That is a fact, look it up.

    You people who follow and support the swift boat traitors and people like Michelle Malkin just can’t handle the truth.

    For God sake read the transcript.

    Bob Lloyd (de5a83)

  130. Part 2:

    It looks like Doug Reese has already addressed the parts of the UFC account dealing with him.

    Okay, there is one outrageously false bit I’ll point out:

    P 82: Indeed, most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action.

    Just the opposite. All Americans except the UDT guys received medals that day. Doug Reese can correct me if I’m wrong.

    Moving along:

    P. 83: There is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched.

    You mean an after action report isn’t an “indication”?

    AAR 1
    AAR 2

    Pp 83-84: Likewise, the citation simply ignores the presence of the soldiers and advisors who actually “ captured the many enemy weapons” and routed the Viet Cong.

    Not the original citation. In fact, it’s pretty specific on that point.

    Elliot/Zumwalt citation

    So was the after action report and the press release for the incident (linked above).

    Pp 83-84:Further, the citation ignores the preplanned nature of the tactic and the fact that Kerry’s boat did not beach first.

    The original citation and after action report make it clear Kerry’s boat didn’t beach first. Hey wait, so does the edited citation used in UFC. The attack was only “preplanned” in that they discussed the tactic beforehand, just as with every good command. It is the coordination of the attack that is praised in the original citation, press release, and congratulations from Hoffmann.

    P. 84: Finally, the citation statement that Kerry attacked “a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire” is simply false. There was little or no fire after Kerry followed the plan (and the earlier move of the first boat toward the beach). The lone, wounded, fleeing young Viet Cong in a loincloth was hardly a force superior to the heavily armed Swift boat and its crew and the soldiers carried aboard.

    Oh, but they knew very well the original citation said no such thing. And “little or no fire”? Not according to the guys who were actually there.

    P. 84: Hoffmann had been told that Kerry had spontaneously beached next to the bunker and almost single-handedly routed a bunkered force of Viet Cong.

    Wow, who told him that? Not the after action report, or didn’t he read it? Kerry has never said such a thing. Neither have any of the eyewitnesses.

    Pp 84-85: The planned nature of the action also calls Kerry’s judgment into doubt. … From a military viewpoint, the tactic displays stupidity, not courage—a point that has made it so hard for Vietnam Navy veterans (sometimes called “brown-water sailors” after the color of the water in the muddy Vietnamese delta), from vice admirals to seamen, to believe it.

    Fair enough. I guess that makes Hoffmann a royal idiot for praising the “superb coordination and aggressive tactics” and claiming that “this devastating application of the firepower of the Swifts may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers.” Hmmm, looking for where he says it’s supposed to be spontaneous, not preplanned, because preplanned is stupid. Well, he does say the tactic “thoroughly surprised the enemy.” Does that count?

    P. 85:Commander George Elliott, who wrote up the initial draft of Kerry’s Silver Star citation, confirms that neither he nor anyone else in the Silver Star process that he knows realized before 1996 that Kerry was facing a single, wounded young Viet Cong fleeing in a loincloth.

    Well, they do admit that Elliott wrote the original version – they just won’t tell you what it said. They also don’t mind making him look like a fool who never read the after action report.

    Pp 85:A more appropriate award for Kerry, if any, would have been the much lower Army Commendation Medal given to Doug Reese.

    No doubt Doug Reese deserved far more than a commendation medal. But these people would have you believe that all of the men who earned Bronze Stars that day for doing pretty much the same thing Kerry did, didn’t deserve anything more than a commendation medal either.

    Itsmeee (e38685)

  131. #
    Itsmeee:

    I dunno, why hasn’t GWB sued Kitty Kelley? Probably has too much to hide. Proof positive he was snorting coke at Camp David.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Check out post 111.

    Nobody with any shred of credibility has ever come forward to say Bush was snorting coke at Camp David. And remember, George W. Bush was elected President twice. He’s already got the job. He’s not simmering over not getting what he thinks was his birthright, as Kerry seems to be doing. Just like Grover Cleveland, John F. Kennedy, and even Bill Clinton before him, Bush’s reputation for posterity will be determined by history’s judgment of his performance in office, not by what a scandal scooper says.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee — 4/6/2007 @ 6:42 pm

    Then you agree that the simple fact of not suing someone for making a claim amounts to an admission that the claim is true.

    And I agree with you that Kerry will be judged for posterity by his own performance, not what some “scandal scoopers” say. Couldn’t agree more.

    Itsmeee (e38685)

  132. Bob Lloyd:

    Has any or all of you taken the time to read the transcript of John Kerry’s testimony before the senate panel in 1971?

    Yeah. Heeeeere’s Johnny! (bold mine)

    I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

    It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

    They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

    We call this investigation the “Winter Soldier Investigation.” The term “Winter Soldier” is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

    We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

    You’re right, Bob. Kerry just “reported what was being told to him and accused no one of anything.” It wasn’t like he did an “investigation” or something like that.

    In the words of Marshal Sam Gerard…

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  133. Bob Lloyd Said: Those swift boaters who made accusation about Kerry were lies as they did not serve with him and were only in the same theater.”

    The Swiftboats only had a few men to each boat. It’s sort of like saying that the guys who all work and live together in a firehouse, say a three engine company, don’t know what’s going on cause they didn’t drive to the fire in the same fire engine. They slept together, ate together and knew damn well what was going on beyond just their boat.

    The “they didn’t serve in the same boat” BS defense was the way the MSM carried Kerry’s water when the MSM, finally covered the allegations of the Swifities around August 2004, after ignoring the Swifties initial press conference in May 04.

    I sincerely thank those Swiftvets for helping to deny that Skerry SOB the Presidency.

    PC14 (4d50e6)

  134. Itsmeee, stop being coy. You read post 111. I know you did — in quoting my post, you specifically excised what I wrote about Bush not being one to hold a grudge and that Kerry IS one to hold a grudge, evidenced by his petulant display regarding the Fox ambassadorship to Belgium (What? Belgium again???)

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  135. #

    Bob Lloyd Said: Those swift boaters who made accusation about Kerry were lies as they did not serve with him and were only in the same theater.”

    The Swiftboats only had a few men to each boat. It’s sort of like saying that the guys who all work and live together in a firehouse, say a three engine company, don’t know what’s going on cause they didn’t drive to the fire in the same fire engine. They slept together, ate together and knew damn well what was going on beyond just their boat.

    The “they didn’t serve in the same boat” BS defense was the way the MSM carried Kerry’s water when the MSM, finally covered the allegations of the Swifities around August 2004, after ignoring the Swifties initial press conference in May 04.

    I sincerely thank those Swiftvets for helping to deny that Skerry SOB the Presidency.

    Comment by PC14 — 4/6/2007 @ 8:13 pm

    I don’t see where he said they didn’t serve with him because they weren’t on the same boat. He said they were only in the same theater.

    And that is pretty much true. If you look at the list of signers, you will see very few who actually served at the same time and place as Kerry, much less who crossed paths with him.

    Itsmeee (e38685)

  136. #

    Itsmeee, stop being coy. You read post 111. I know you did — in quoting my post, you specifically excised what I wrote about Bush not being one to hold a grudge and that Kerry IS one to hold a grudge, evidenced by his petulant display regarding the Fox ambassadorship to Belgium (What? Belgium again???)

    Comment by L.N. Smithee — 4/6/2007 @ 8:16 pm

    I think plenty of people would disagree with you about George Bush being able to hold a grudge and/or being petulant.

    But your post also claimed that Kerry had reasons for not suing that implied guilt on his part. I was happy to point out the logical fallacy of that argument.

    Itsmeee (e38685)

  137. Am I missing something? In the opening article, it’s mentioned that no one has met Beldar’s challenge to show existence of documented proof of slanderous activity. Yet, when looking at that piece, it appears that Beldar closed the challenge in Oct. because he didn’t have enough time to rebutt the submissions. Visiting Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth), there seems to be more than enough documented sources, including from the Navy itself, to justify that a good deal of the information dispensed from the organization was incorrect, suspect, and indeed slanderous. Additionally, it certainly calls into question the motives of the organization, which is why Fox is now dragged into this. Many Veterans have good reason to be angry with Kerry’s position following the war, or even with his political career, but I’m not sure that that alone justifies drinking the Kool-aid proffered by this group without question.

    jhoh (16c7c1)

  138. Hopefully Beldar will have the time to comment on the submissions here.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  139. Smithee, post after post and you still haven’t explained how out of maybe a million three-syllable sounds you can make with English-language phonemes, George Allen picked one that seems like a slur in his mother’s native land. Heck, the odds, if you really were just muttering random nonsense, that it would even be a word in any of the world’s major languages isn’t that high.

    Now, Sidarth had introduced himself to Allen, and I’d say the “Welcome to Virginia” was based upon the likelihood that Sidarth’s family were much more recent arrivals to the United States than the largely all-white crowd that Allen was addressing. (Given the racial composition of Allen supporters and the location of the rally in rural SW VA, there weren’t a lot of black faces in that crowd, but since you have watched the video, why don’t you tell me.)

    Instead of confusing the issue with Harold Ford and Willie Horton, let’s get back to the question at hand. On your construction, Allen just happened to string together three syllables that would almost certainly have been known to his mother as a slur against darker people, and that are used by white supremacists as a slur against people of color, and subsequently welcomed to America a native-born American of obvious South Asian ancestry—but not with any racist intent.And we also have to believe that the fact that an Indian-American didn’t know immediately what macaca meant implies that a French-speaking American couldn’t have knowingly used as a slur. When someone advances an argument as obviously silly as that, I wonder if they’re just trolling. I don’t mind arguments I don’t agree with that at least follow the rules of logic. Yours don’t. A shande on the kushim, that’s what you are.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (3d032d)

  140. — a smokescreen about the landing being preplanned (neglecting to mention that it was “preplanned” with the Navy), etc —
    Doug Reese

    Comment by Doug Reese — 4/6/2007 @ 5:55 pm

    I guess Hoffmann actually wanted Swift boat crews to start “preplanning” such a tactic, if he said it might be one of the most “efficiacious” ways of dealing with those kinds of ambushes.

    Or do you think he meant they should just do it but not plan it out? Because according to SBVT, planning it ahead of time shows it’s really really stupid.

    It’s SO confusing trying to figure out what they mean!

    Itsmeee (a74b4e)

  141. For those of you into searching records, look up what the Swift Boats did on February 27, 1969.

    You will see that three Swifts — PCFs-23, 43 and 94 visited the village of Cai Nuoc. That’s actually the village of Dong Cung, where I and the other advisors, along with the Regional Force and Popular soldiers lived.

    You will also see that the Swifts were fired upon as they went back out to the gulf.

    The February 28, 1969 operation was indeed preplanned. The tactic was indeed preplanned. Having the Vietnamese onboard was indeed preplanned. A number of options were preplanned.

    That planning (with us), that final planning, was done in our village, Feb 27, with discussions between the Navy folks (Kerry, Droz, Rood and whoever their higher-ups were) having been done before that.

    The next day, Feb 28, they had some UDT guys with the Swifts, to check out the location of the ambush site the night before. They found it, blew some bunkers etc. Then they continued on to our village to pick us up, and then we all proceeded up the adjacent canal — the Dong Cung Canal.

    Unfit for Command, either in ignorance, or with malice (perish the thought), manages to spin that preplanning into some sort of vague “prior discussion of medals”, and then goes on to say “Some crewmen dispute this, but none deny that the landing had been calculated the night before.”

    Of course they are careful not to quote anyone (a frequent tactic of Unfit for Command), as it’s so much easier to spin and misrepresent if one doesn’t go to the trouble of quoting . . . .

    Anyway, when the book says (page 82) “According to Kerry’s crewman Michael Medeiros, Kerry had an agreement with him to turn the boat in and onto the beach if fired upon.” . . . . I say, “So what?”

    Does Mr. O’Neill think such a decision should have been made, say, when the s_ _t hit the fan?

    Is that what they taught at Annapolis?

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  142. It’s SO confusing trying to figure out what they mean!

    I have the same problem with pretty much everything Liberals say…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  143. And that is pretty much true. If you look at the list of signers, you will see very few who actually served at the same time and place as Kerry, much less who crossed paths with him.

    This, of course, ignores the fact that all were witnesses to Kerry’s post-Vietnam slander, sedition and/or treason which was the major focus of the Swiftvet charges against him. It was only because Kerry chose to sell a “War Hero” image as opposed to “Anti-war” hero (which he all but buried) that media focus centered on the Swiftvet allegations relating to his Vietnam service.

    Bingo (747f20)

  144. The swift boat veterans for “truth” can’t really complain about being slandered: they put out complete and total BULLSHIT about Kerry in 04. And with the right wing radiosphere, blogosphere, and assholes-on-TV-o-sphere (Hannity, O’Reilly, etc.) dutifully parroting the fake news, the Swift Boat Liars effectively slandered a well respected war hero with three purple hearts.
    If you read ANY analysis of what the Swift Boat Vets did (other than those by conservatives), it will tell you that the Swift Boat Liars’ accounts are incomplete, and are completely, totally a lie. If you want to pretend otherwise, fine, but don’t wet yourself and go bitch when these assholes are called for being the assholes and liars they are.
    First of all, the Swift Boat Vets weren’t even there when Kerry performed the actions meriting his awards. But people still pay attention to their BS.
    Secondly, all of the people who served with Kerry, commanded Kerry, and treated Kerry all agreed with his story.
    Also, the Vietnamese, a group with almost zero interest in US politics AGREED WITH KERRY’S ACCOUNTS.
    Nobody but you pathetic bunch who support our failingly retarded prez (35% or so of Americans) believe this bullshit. The civilized world has seen the lying bastards (Swift boat vets) for what they are, and saw them even before the debunking of the bullshit was complete.

    As for ABC, well, I don’t support them lying about the Swift Boat Liars; I’m just saying that a) the Swift Boat Vets for “Truth” are lying assholes, determined to destroy well-respected members of the political scene by planting vicious, unfounded lies against any who they feel doesn’t agree with them.
    and b) shut the fuck up and stop treating the “Vets” as though they were telling the truth, or even that they’re a group with a remote amount of credibility.

    GDAYmate (a98be3)

  145. “It’s bullshit because I say so! And EVERYONE who isn’t an idiot agrees with me! Because if you don’t, you’re an idiot! Take THAT, Bud Day!”

    The civilized world has seen the lying bastards (Swift boat vets) for what they are, and saw them even before the debunking of the bullshit was complete.

    Say “G’day” to President Kerry for me when you see him, would you? Oh, wait a minute…

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  146. GAYDmate spews:

    “…If you read ANY analysis of what the Swift Boat Vets did (other than those by conservatives), it will tell you that the Swift Boat Liars’ accounts are incomplete, and are completely, totally a lie. If you want to pretend otherwise, fine, but don’t wet yourself and go bitch when these assholes are called for being the assholes and liars they are.
    First of all, the Swift Boat Vets weren’t even there when Kerry performed the actions meriting his awards. But people still pay attention to their BS…”

    refer to post #29, you blowhard dolt

    Chesterfield (3a8c43)

  147. Having tools like GDAY come on and spew, makes the work of the Swifties almost as gratifying as the day they helped deprive Kerry of ever becoming POTUS.

    Now I’m certainly not mocking Mr GDAY, cause he certainly makes excellent points, especially this sweeping observation:

    Also, the Vietnamese, a group with almost zero interest in US politics AGREED WITH KERRY’S ACCOUNTS.

    G’DAY, Sir!

    PC14 (4d50e6)

  148. Actually, the VC who survived the Silver Star incident agree with what was said in the after-action report and the citation Kerry received several days later.

    That would be the AAR and citation that were totally ignored in Unfit for Command.

    Oh, and to say those guys don’t care about US politics is an understatement. All they care about is raising shrimp, which is what the people who live in that area do these days.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  149. I stumbled on this article via Michelle Malkin. The link to Beldar is truly hilarious. Beldar’s blog entry is two years old and comments are closed, which is why I’m posting this here.

    Beldar writes:
    “I can think of one major SwiftVets allegation on which they’ve arguably failed to offer more than circumstantial evidence — that Kerry “gamed the system” to get his medals.”

    Translation: The Swifties didn’t unfairly smear Kerry if you except when they unfairly smeared Kerry.

    If Beldar, cherry-picker extraordinaire, were vacationing on Phuket Island on December 26, 2005, we might have seen a diary entry something like this:

    “Another fine day in paradise. We spent a lovely morning on the beach, soaking up the rays. Except for that pesky little tsunami.”

    exerpted from:
    Michelle Malkin, Serial Delusionist

    Grif (3e5fb2)

  150. Shorter Grif:

    Providing circumstantial evidence of something is the same as a smear.

    Patterico (c47a3d)

  151. “This, of course, ignores the fact that all were witnesses to Kerry’s post-Vietnam slander, sedition and/or treason which was the major focus of the Swiftvet charges against him. ”

    And that’s what this is about: Kerry’s actions when he got back from the war, not his actions while he waas there.
    So why not talk about the ‘treason’ itself?
    Because the logic of that doesn’t hold up either. Resentment justifies itself.

    AF (c319c8)

  152. “And that’s what this is about: Kerry’s actions when he got back from the war, not his actions while he waas there.”

    Oh, this isn’t about Kerry’s actions while he was in Vietnam?

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Patterico and Beldar said earlier.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  153. Doug Reese, What is your opinion regarding Kerry’s Purple Hearts? Do you feel that evidence exists that would support the position that Mr. Kerry tweaked or worked the system (Navy instruction 1300.39) in order to receive an early transfer out of combat duty?

    John Kerry serves in combat for 3 months or so, is “awarded” five medals and then leaves his unit because he has booboos. In other words, one of the most highly decorated Naval officers in the history of the United States Navy decides to take his heroism and go home. Forget the devil and the details stuff, that’s just plain whack.

    PC14 (4d50e6)

  154. #

    And that is pretty much true. If you look at the list of signers, you will see very few who actually served at the same time and place as Kerry, much less who crossed paths with him.

    This, of course, ignores the fact that all were witnesses to Kerry’s post-Vietnam slander, sedition and/or treason which was the major focus of the Swiftvet charges against him. It was only because Kerry chose to sell a “War Hero” image as opposed to “Anti-war” hero (which he all but buried) that media focus centered on the Swiftvet allegations relating to his Vietnam service.

    Comment by Bingo — 4/7/2007 @ 2:25 am

    Oh, is someone claiming they all “served with” Kerry too?

    Itsmeee (e9eaf1)

  155. And that is pretty much true. If you look at the list of signers, you will see very few who actually served at the same time and place as Kerry, much less who crossed paths with him.

    This, of course, ignores the fact that all were witnesses to Kerry’s post-Vietnam slander, sedition and/or treason which was the major focus of the Swiftvet charges against him. It was only because Kerry chose to sell a “War Hero” image as opposed to “Anti-war” hero (which he all but buried) that media focus centered on the Swiftvet allegations relating to his Vietnam service.

    Comment by Bingo — 4/7/2007 @ 2:25 am

    Oh, is someone claiming they all “served with” Kerry too?

    Itsmeee (e9eaf1)

  156. Correction to #132 to L.N. Smithee:

    “Then you agree that the simple fact of not suing someone for making a claim does not amount to an admission that the claim is true.”

    Sorry.

    Itsmeee (e9eaf1)

  157. PC14 — I have said I’m sticking to the Silver Star incident, not all-things-Kerry.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  158. #150. Actually, the VC who survived the Silver Star incident agree with what was said in the after-action report and the citation Kerry received several days later.

    Doug Reese

    Do you mean the “Nightline” story? The Vietnamese statements reported by “Nightline” conflict with the Kerry books – which was the basis of the UFC analysis – and with Rood’s article.

    To paraphrase O’Neill in that appearance, ABC wasn’t calling O’Neill a liar, they were calling Kerry a liar.

    O’Neill said the Silver Star incident was a minor part of the SBVT critique. Give it away and the “Christmas in Cambodia” and Bronze star incidents are still damning.

    CM Smith (c35b34)

  159. CM Smith — Please read some of the comments I and another person made earlier. In general, they were that Unfit for Command totally ignored the original source document — namely, the after-action report for the Silver Star incident.

    They based their claims on a document (a subsequent citation) written years after the incident occured, with language that was not used in the earlier document.

    Of course John O’Neill would say the SS incident was a minor part of their critique. After all, not a single person out of 25 present, including one of his members, disputed what was in that after-action report.

    Yes, I am talking about the Nightline story, and what they told me personally prior to that.

    By the way, are you saying the Vietnamese statements conflicted with Rood’s article? If you are, I don’t agree.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  160. #160: #
    Do you mean the “Nightline” story? The Vietnamese statements reported by “Nightline” conflict with the Kerry books – which was the basis of the UFC analysis – and with Rood’s article.

    To paraphrase O’Neill in that appearance, ABC wasn’t calling O’Neill a liar, they were calling Kerry a liar.

    O’Neill said the Silver Star incident was a minor part of the SBVT critique. Give it away and the “Christmas in Cambodia” and Bronze star incidents are still damning.

    Comment by CM Smith — 4/8/2007 @ 7:25 am

    Actually, the Vietnamese accounts don’t conflict with either of the “Kerry books” and I suspect that John O’Neill knew that very well when he was brandishing them at Ted Koppel. He ignored the fact that Brinkley’s book notes that there were multiple VC at the scene and the Kranish book quotes Fred Short as saying they were being fired on from both sides of the river.

    And to the extent that O’Neill claimed that Kerry faced nothing but a “single kid in a loincloth” they most certainly are calling him a liar.

    But it seems that every SBVT claim that is shown to be “erroneous” is only a minor part of the SBVT “critique.”

    Of course SBVT never proved that Kerry did not cross the border into Cambodia on Christmas Eve. They did confuse the issue, though, by repeatedly accusing him of claiming to have been sent on a “secret mission” that night when he actually claimed no such thing. As far as I know, they’ve never bothered to correct their claim that Kerry “spent a pleasant night” at Sa Dec on Christmas Eve, when eyewitness accounts, supported by Elliott’s own documentation, say otherwise.

    Bronze Star incident? You mean where six SBVT members are contradicted in their personal opinions by at least 11 other eyewitnesses? And the documentation, including a summary from Hoffmann sent to all the officers who evidently saw nothing wrong with it at the time? (Before you get into the whole SBVT “Kerry wrote the after action report meme, I suggest you consider how many different ways the SBVT “evidence” has been shown to be BS. For instance: http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/part1.html#bronze)

    Itsmeee (580082)

  161. #161 …They based their claims on a document (a subsequent citation) written years after the incident occured, with language that was not used in the earlier document.

    Do you think the edited citation signed by Hyland was written years later? I was thinking months later, definitely after Kerry had left Vietnam and maybe even after he had left the Navy, but not years later. The reason being that Hyland as Cmdr of the Pacific Fleet was the one who would usually sign a Silver Star citation. Also, he was gone by December of 1970. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Pacific_Fleet)

    Itsmeee (580082)

  162. #139

    Am I missing something? In the opening article, it’s mentioned that no one has met Beldar’s challenge to show existence of documented proof of slanderous activity. Yet, when looking at that piece, it appears that Beldar closed the challenge in Oct. because he didn’t have enough time to rebutt the submissions. Visiting Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth), there seems to be more than enough documented sources, including from the Navy itself, to justify that a good deal of the information dispensed from the organization was incorrect, suspect, and indeed slanderous. Additionally, it certainly calls into question the motives of the organization, which is why Fox is now dragged into this. Many Veterans have good reason to be angry with Kerry’s position following the war, or even with his political career, but I’m not sure that that alone justifies drinking the Kool-aid proffered by this group without question.

    Comment by jhoh — 4/6/2007 @ 9:20 pm

    Jhoh, you can find a lot more detail and links to original sources at this Wiki article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy

    Itsmeee (580082)

  163. I promise that I will stop flogging this horse…

    re: #162

    Of course SBVT never proved that Kerry did not cross the border into Cambodia on Christmas Eve.

    Kerry’s diary. The Kerry campaign admitted it was a mistake but claimed other Cambodian missions – e.g., the CIA hat. Douglas Brinkley stated on C-SPAN that Kerry was not in Cambodia on Christmas. Brinkley also claimed other Cambodian missions, but none are in his book or the diary upon which the book is based.

    Bronze Star incident? You mean where six SBVT members are contradicted in their personal opinions by at least 11 other eyewitnesses?

    see #94 & 99. Do 11 other eyewitnesses say that all the other Swift Boats left the scene?

    What was Kerry’s wound – for which he received the 3rd Purple Heart?

    CM Smith (843567)

  164. > Providing circumstantial evidence of something
    > is the same as a smear.

    Patterico, I urge you to acquaint yourself with the facts. A good starting point is the lies told by Larry Thurlow, star SBVT witness:
    http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/larry-thurlow.html

    You should also be aware of the ever-changing story of George Elliott, who praised Kerry’s actions for which he was awarded the silver star in 1996:
    http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/george-elliott.html
    Elliott retracted his first affadavit because it wasn’t truthful.

    Another swiftie who flat-out lied on his affidavit was Al French:
    http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/alfred-french.html

    Grif (3e5fb2)

  165. Another swiftie who flat-out lied on his affidavit was Al French:
    http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/alfred-french.html

    Apparently the Oregon State Bar Association disagrees with your assessment. We’ll look forward to your website update.

    “The state bar rejected claims that French lied in his anti-Kerry affidavit.”

    http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6135

    Bingo (747f20)

  166. Bingo: Sorry, no sale. I’m comfortable calling French a liar for the same reasom I’m comfortable calling OJ a murderer — because the facts are abundantly clear.

    French’s affidavit: “I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief”

    French in a press interview: “[b]I was not a witness to these events[/b] but my friends were.”

    (And of course one of these friends was Larry Thurlow, who is either an extraordinary liar or else a modern day Job.)

    Grif (3e5fb2)

  167. “I’m shocked that LA or Levi aren’t here yet having a stroke over the insinuation that the Swiftboat vets might not be eeeeeevil liars”

    -Scott Jacobs

    As I’ve said before (many, many times), I think John Kerry is a terrible politician; I have no respect for the man. If you weren’t a relative noobie with a penchant for shooting his mouth off, you’d know that.

    in re: the SVFT being “eeeeeevil liars”,

    I am willing to accept the fact that groups like the SVFT are a reality of the American political system. I can only lament the lack of a Texas Air National Guard Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election, and hope that an equivalent group welcomes whatever candidate the Republicans nominate in 2008.

    Leviticus (e87aad)

  168. Bingo: Sorry, no sale. I’m comfortable calling French a liar for the same reasom I’m comfortable calling OJ a murderer — because the facts are abundantly clear.

    French’s affidavit: “I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief”

    What’s abundantly clear is that you misquote the affidavit either willfully or in ignorance…

    French’s actual affidavit: “I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge or belief.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf (see exhibit 2)

    Bingo (747f20)

  169. Maybe the bottom line on all this is that if some of the responses by the Kerry fans have any validity at all, then Kerry is one huge fool.

    Kerry fans have provided better defense on this message string than Kerry and his peeps have done since the Swifties’ press conferenced in May 2004.

    At first, the MSM attempted to ignore the story. Then they tried to dismiss the story because they claimed the accusers didn’t ride in the same boat. SILLY. Later they simply took the unified position that the Swifties’ claims had been debunked.

    Meanwhile, Kerry, after reporting for duty at the DNC and playing every sport imaginable on various tarmacs throughout the campaign, pussed it out and provided no defense whatsoever. The only water carried for the Kerry defense was that provided by the Globe, Post, Times and the rest.

    And to this day, Kerry hasn’t released complete documentation to debunk the Swifties.

    If the Swifties were just a bunch of mean, inappropriately-gruff, old, war veterans with a 30 year hardon for Senator Kerry and Kerry truly had the documentation to dismiss all their claims and yet did nada, well then, he sure as hell is more of a wuss and a fool than than the image that his current identity supports.

    We did the right thing. The guy’s life ambition to be President of our country has been denied…forever. Thanks again Swifties.

    PC14 (4d50e6)

  170. Well, this “Kerry-fan” was present for one of the incidents the SBV”t” misrepresented. (And yes, Bingo, part of another)

    I also provided info for the SBV”t” hired private investigator regarding the Silver Star incident, which was then misrepresented in the book.

    Any documents Kerry does, or does not produce, or when he does/does not produce them will not change the fact — and yes, folks, despite claims to the contrary from some here, it is a fact — that this organized smear-group, led by two remarkably dishonest men, is looked on by most of the people who were actually present for the events (in my case, the event on 28 Feb, 1969) with well-deserved disgust.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  171. Well Mr Reese, your side of the story is simply just that, one man’s opinions and observations. And as you state, “is looked on by most of the people who were actually present for the events (in my case, the event on 28 Feb, 1969) with well-deserved disgust” sort of wraps up the position stated by Beldar. That is, there seems to be enough evidence and support by both sides to justify investigation into the facts but certainly the MSM is incorrect in stating that the claims of the Swifties have been debunked. They may have been strongly argued, but certainly not proven (by an independent fact checker) to be debunked.

    And although you claim numerical advantage by your use of the word “most” that still leaves others who were there who disagree with you and still firmly believe Mr Kerry is in fact a “remarkably dishonest” man.

    It’s just too bad that Kerry hasn’t allowed the release of all the required documentation to allow a look into the allegations of the Swifties.

    Meanwhile, no debunking going on here…

    PC14 (4d50e6)

  172. There a lot of people on this thread with more knowledge than I have, but I did note one inconsistency with respect to Purple Hearts.

    Have you ever heard Bob Dole talk about the first of his two Purple Hearts? Not the one that severely damaged his arm, but the first one. In Dole’s own words:

    He wrote, quote, “As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire”—this was, of course, in the mountains of Italy- “and 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.”

    It’s pretty hard for me not to conclude that by 2004 (Dole wrote that in 1996) GOP standards for Purple Hearts had changed considerably.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  173. I can only lament the lack of a Texas Air National Guard Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election…

    http://www.wingmenforbush.com/

    CM Smith (843567)

  174. PC 14 — I don’t know what else (in regards to Feb 28, 1969) you could possibly need.

    As I have pointed out earlier, all 24 of us there that day have no problem with Kerry’s description of events.

    In that case, it isn’t “most”, but ALL.

    And pray tell, what documentation could possibly exist that hasn’t already been shown that could change the facts of what happened on that day? I’ll tell you what — NONE.

    The Swift Boat Veterans for “truth” have been debunked again and again — and that includes right here in this thread.

    There aren’t two sides about what happened in the Silver Star incident. There is one side, and one side only — and it damn sure isn’t contained anywhere in the pages of Unfit for Command.

    Doug Reese

    Doug Reese (85f2fe)

  175. Sorry, there’s your side and the Swifvets’ side, a good debate, nothing more.

    Reread Beldar.

    PC14 (4d50e6)

  176. Bingo:
    >> What’s abundantly clear is that you misquote the
    >> affidavit either willfully or in ignorance

    Thanks for this information. I must plead ignorance, as the wording I quoted was derived from press reports…
    http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_082304_news_french_protest.a701071e.html

    That said, it doesn’t alter my opinion of the French affidavit much, other than to recognize that the use of “or” was incredibly weasely.

    Grif (3e5fb2)

  177. That said, it doesn’t alter my opinion of the French affidavit much…

    Whatever floats yer swiftboat truthseeker…

    other than to recognize that the use of “or” was incredibly weasely.

    …and incredibly exonerating. As to “weasely”, I think I’ll reserve that (and more) for the perpetrator of this journalistic obscenity.

    Bingo (747f20)

  178. #165.

    I promise that I will stop flogging this horse…

    re: #162

    Of course SBVT never proved that Kerry did not cross the border into Cambodia on Christmas Eve.

    Kerry’s diary. The Kerry campaign admitted it was a mistake but claimed other Cambodian missions – e.g., the CIA hat. Douglas Brinkley stated on C-SPAN that Kerry was not in Cambodia on Christmas. Brinkley also claimed other Cambodian missions, but none are in his book or the diary upon which the book is based.

    Kerry’s diary … what? His campaign admitted his diary was a mistake? Nope. Have you read the excerpts? They describe a patrol that started at Sa Dec and went up to the Cambodia border, an ambush, a firefight…and a sarcastic telegram to the command. Care to show where the campaign ever said that was a mistake? As far as I can tell they said that’s exactly what happened:

    Boston Globe

    Kerry’d said he thought he’d crossed the border during that patrol (see the Kranish biography), and still is definite they were patroling along the border (as are at least two of his crewmen), but never claimed he’d been sent on any kind of “secret mission” on Christmas Eve, another well-published fact SBVT manages to get wrong. While the campaign couldn’t say he went five miles over the border (they said that was later), the SBVT claim that Kerry was 55 miles away from the border snug in his bed at Sa Dec has been shown to be outright false.

    And yes, Brinkley does say that Kerry went on covert missions later, and that in fact they are mentioned in his journals. One February entry mentioning a trip to Cambodia was recently released as a matter of fact.


    Bronze Star incident? You mean where six SBVT members are contradicted in their personal opinions by at least 11 other eyewitnesses?

    see #94 & 99. Do 11 other eyewitnesses say that all the other Swift Boats left the scene?

    Nope, only one, once. He didn’t say they left “the scene” either. By the way, did he say which way they went?

    What was Kerry’s wound – for which he received the 3rd Purple Heart?

    Comment by CM Smith — 4/9/2007 @ 4:10 am

    His arm injury – the only injury mentioned in the recounting in the recommendation and citation for the Bronze Star – met the criteria for a Purple Heart.

    Itsmeee (576e42)

  179. #167.

    Another swiftie who flat-out lied on his affidavit was Al French:
    http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/alfred-french.html

    Apparently the Oregon State Bar Association disagrees with your assessment. We’ll look forward to your website update.

    “The state bar rejected claims that French lied in his anti-Kerry affidavit.”

    http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6135

    Comment by Bingo — 4/9/2007 @ 6:51 am

    The Oregon State Bar neither agreed nor disagreed with his assessment. They simply said they weren’t in a position to affirm or refute the veracity of his statements (The Oregonian, March 17, 2005).

    Talk about a ringing vindication !

    Itsmeee (576e42)

  180. #167.

    Another swiftie who flat-out lied on his affidavit was Al French:
    http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/alfred-french.html

    Apparently the Oregon State Bar Association disagrees with your assessment. We’ll look forward to your website update.

    “The state bar rejected claims that French lied in his anti-Kerry affidavit.”

    http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6135

    Comment by Bingo — 4/9/2007 @ 6:51 am

    The Oregon State Bar neither agreed nor disagreed with his assessment. They simply said they weren’t in a position to affirm or refute the veracity of his statements (The Oregonian, March 17, 2005).

    Talk about a ringing vindication !

    Itsmeee (576e42)

  181. # 168.#

    Bingo: Sorry, no sale. I’m comfortable calling French a liar for the same reasom I’m comfortable calling OJ a murderer — because the facts are abundantly clear.

    French’s affidavit: “I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief”

    French in a press interview: “[b]I was not a witness to these events[/b] but my friends were.”

    (And of course one of these friends was Larry Thurlow, who is either an extraordinary liar or else a modern day Job.)

    Comment by Grif — 4/9/2007 @ 8:04 am

    Well, he was just weasley enough to say “within my personal knowledge OR belief,” which while of questionable application gives him … well, weasle room.

    Just imagine swearing to an affidavit about your “personal belief” that Bingo eats Puppy Chow for lunch. You’re not lying.

    But if you went on TV and said “I served with Bingo and I know he eats Puppy Chow for lunch” because well, you heard it from someone who says so…well, you tell me whether you’d be a liar.

    Itsmeee (576e42)

  182. To PC14 re # 171:

    Of course people on message boards across the country have done a better job at examining the documentation and finding the facts than the SBVT ever did. Their expenditures are public… we know they spent millions on media, can you tell me how much they spent on research? I’m not talking about political research. Or hiring a PI to try to get people to bad mouth Kerry. I mean actual professionals who know how to search archives, obtain public documents, and heck, even how to read an official document.

    They didn’t seem so interested in the “truth” that way, did they?

    Itsmeee (576e42)

  183. #177

    Sorry, there’s your side and the Swifvets’ side, a good debate, nothing more.

    Reread Beldar.

    Comment by PC14 — 4/9/2007 @ 3:59 pm

    Sorry, there’s the side that says Leprechauns exist and all evidence to the contrary …a good debate, nothing more.

    Itsmeee (576e42)

  184. Itsmee, you just don’t have enough fingers to plug all the holes in the Kerryboat…

    The Oregon State Bar neither agreed nor disagreed with his assessment. They simply said they weren’t in a position to affirm or refute the veracity of his statements (The Oregonian, March 17, 2005).

    Talk about a ringing vindication !

    I’d say it rang significantly, perhaps exponentially, louder than the clunk of his accuser’s tripe hitting the hearing room trash bin. Perhaps you can apPEAL (snicker…and thanks for the almost-link)

    The Oregonian
    March 17, 2005

    [B]STATE BAR CLEARS PROSECUTOR OVER KERRY AD[/B]

    Summary: Alfred French is found not to have committed ethics violations over the Swift Boat Veterans’ claims…

    http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/

    Bingo (747f20)

  185. Well, he was just weasley enough to say “within my personal knowledge OR belief,” which while of questionable application gives him … well, weasle room.

    I believe it also gave him retention of the keys to the Executive Loo at the Clackamas County Office of the District Attorney.

    As to the rest of your ramblings, take it up with Judge Judy.

    Bingo (747f20)

  186. “see #94 & 99. Do 11 other eyewitnesses say that all the other Swift Boats left the scene?

    Nope, only one, once. He didn’t say they left “the scene” either. By the way, did he say which way they went?

    What was Kerry’s wound – for which he received the 3rd Purple Heart?

    Comment by CM Smith — 4/9/2007 @ 4:10 am

    His arm injury – the only injury mentioned in the recounting in the recommendation and citation for the Bronze Star – met the criteria for a Purple Heart.

    Comment by Itsmeee — 4/9/2007 @ 8:58 pm”

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460

    BY JIM RASSMANN Tuesday, August 10, 2004

    “When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left,..”

    Well, I guess Rassmann doesn’t say which way they went.

    I you agree that Rassmann was the only one to say that all the other boats left, and the other boats did not leave, where does that leave everything else written by Rassmann?

    “His arm injury…” OK, but what kind of injury?

    The nature of Kerry’s wound – to his arm or otherwise – is a simple question that would be resolved by the medical record, if it were to be released.

    Kerry was quoted in telling a couple of variations of the Rassmann story that did not include the second mine, i.e., Rassmann fell off when the boat turned. That raises a legitimate question: Without a second mine, how was Kerry injured?

    Thank you to Beldar for maintaining the link to that Rassmann article – which he is probably regretting …

    CM Smith (843567)

  187. Actually, if in fact all the accusation, documentation, etc. provided by the Swifties was bebunked, well then we still win the debate cause, hey, we, like Dan Rather, truly know it was fake but accurate.

    PC14 (4d50e6)

  188. #

    I’d say it rang significantly, perhaps exponentially, louder than the clunk of his accuser’s tripe hitting the hearing room trash bin. Comment by Bingo — 4/9/2007 @ 10:52 pm

    I’m sure you would, Bingo. But then you’d say the Slow Boaters are honest.

    By the way, it was an investigation, not a hearing.

    Get back to us with the actual quote from the state bar.

    Itsmeee (fd978e)

  189. #188
    I you agree that Rassmann was the only one to say that all the other boats left, and the other boats did not leave, where does that leave everything else written by Rassmann?

    Are you saying the other boats were all in the same place they were when Rassmann fell off the boat?

    “His arm injury…” OK, but what kind of injury?

    The nature of Kerry’s wound – to his arm or otherwise – is a simple question that would be resolved by the medical record, if it were to be released.

    The relevant “medical records” were released. Or didn’t you see the after action report and the personnel casualty report? Do you imagine he got a specialist consult phoned in from Boston?

    Kerry was quoted in telling a couple of variations of the Rassmann story that did not include the second mine, i.e., Rassmann fell off when the boat turned. That raises a legitimate question: Without a second mine, how was Kerry injured?

    Thank you to Beldar for maintaining the link to that Rassmann article – which he is probably regretting …

    Comment by CM Smith — 4/10/2007 @ 5:33 am

    Really? Maybe you could provide a link to Kerry telling a “couple of variation” that didn’t include a second explosion, because I have only seen the eulogy that he gave for Tommy Beladeau that fits that description. On the other hand, all contemporaneous accounts and documentation, Kerry’s own journal, his repeated interviews, the eyewitnesses on his boat (who separately told Brinkley the same story long before it was an issue), and two eyewitnesses on the boat behind his say there was an explosion.

    Itsmeee (fd978e)

  190. Correction to #191.

    Oops, I should have looked at the actual eulogy. Maybe you should have looked at it too. It seems Kerry DID say there was an explosion under their boat.

    Beldar Blog

    Thank you Beldar, indeed.

    Itsmeee (fd978e)

  191. # 189

    Actually, if in fact all the accusation, documentation, etc. provided by the Swifties ….

    Comment by PC14 — 4/10/2007 @ 10:09 am

    Exactly what documentation was provided by SBVT?

    Itsmeee (fd978e)

  192. About as much as Kerry has, or have you been allowed to see his full service jacket?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  193. 187
    #

    Well, he was just weasley enough to say “within my personal knowledge OR belief,” which while of questionable application gives him … well, weasle room.

    I believe it also gave him retention of the keys to the Executive Loo at the Clackamas County Office of the District Attorney.

    As to the rest of your ramblings, take it up with Judge Judy.

    Comment by Bingo — 4/9/2007 @ 11:04 pm

    Of course you believe that. But the State Bar didn’t say anything about that. They just said they weren’t in a position to determine the veracity of his statements.

    And that last equivalent of “talk to the hand” seems sadly typical of the SBVT followers when confronted with the blatant dishonesty of their heroes.

    Itsmeee (fd978e)

  194. #

    About as much as Kerry has, or have you been allowed to see his full service jacket?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 4/10/2007 @ 9:02 pm

    If you’re responding to my #193, please be specific. Exactly what documentation did SBVT provide?

    Itsmeee (fd978e)

  195. #140

    Hopefully Beldar will have the time to comment on the submissions here.

    Doug Reese

    Comment by Doug Reese — 4/6/2007 @ 9:27 pm

    Cue the crickets.

    Itsmeee (0c5ebf)

  196. How do you know when your talking to a Republican Nut Job? Answer: When they clain that the Swift Boat Liars have never been discredited!

    Dave Dunn (c88314)

  197. Mr. Dunn,

    You are not only a liar, you are an idiot. Do you realize this thread is over a year old? You are the nutjob troll that wandered in.

    PCD (5c49b0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6720 secs.