Swift boats and war atrocities

[Rían]

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

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

And what do people think about the Swift Boat ads?

[Rían]

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

Proof, please.

[Mercutio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rían]

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

[Mercutio]

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

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

[Ben]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's some of the lies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out this Knight Ridder article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(note, this post made as a regular user)

[Tessar]

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

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

[Rían]

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

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

And I never said I supported Bush

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

[brownjenkins]

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

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

[Fenir_LacDanan]

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

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

[brownjenkins]

your first statement was essentially correct

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

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

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

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

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

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

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

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

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

[Rían]

Originally Posted by bmilder

With all due respect, Rian, I believe that question is not the correct one to ask.

Thank you for your respect, Bmilder, but it worries me that you suggest that I cannot ask a question. I am sincerely concerned about the atrocities claim, because I saw him say that he, personally, committed and watched atrocities being committed.

I respect your support for Bush, and I suspect that Bush partisans probably would like to believe these claims about Kerry and his medals, at least initially.

You misunderstand my motives (and I repeat, I never said I supported Bush!) Perhaps many "Bush partisans" (and of course, Kerry partisans) ARE like that, but that's not the way I operate.

What brought my attention to the whole thing was the Cambodia issue. Kerry had made a point out of being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve (from what I can tell, in an attempt to gain sympathy in a kind of "poor lonely soldier boy away from home on Christmas" type thing). And he was NOT in Cambodia on Christmas Eve! Plain and simple truth. That just really, really concerned me, because to me it indicated a possibility of him tending to exaggerate/lie to make points for himself. So given that knowledge, when the whole atrocities/swiftboat thing came up, and I saw that it was NOT just a few guys in this, but about 60 involved in the book, and over 200 vets supporting the organization, it made me think that it was an appropriate question to ask. And I think I was right. I'm fully willing to be shown that the claims aren't true, but given what I said, I think that I must consider them.

Now to follow up on the Cambodia issue, from what I researched, it is indeed true that he was NOT in Cambodia on Christmas Eve (sad violin music playing ), but he was fairly CLOSE. And also, a short while later, he WAS in Cambodia. So given that, I am completely willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this situation, even tho he used such very strong words (it was "seared" into his mind that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve).

These are unfounded smears, plain and simple.

Again, given what I described above, IMO they are worth researching.

All analysis of the claims by prominent news sources have shown multiple instances of lying and hypocrisy by the Swift Boat Vets.

Define "prominent" I disagree, and am still looking into it.

Some other veterans, who were in different boats are making these claims based on their memories alone, from far distances.

Not all from "far distances".

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

LA Times? I got that paper for years, and finally cancelled in disgust over their opinionated presentation of the news. IMO, most of that paper should be in the "Opinion" section. I'm REALLY disappointed with the LA Times - they use emotional, subjective words in headlines and in the body of the articles. I'll consider other sources that aren't so obviously biased.

... and one of the co-authors of the book, O'Neill, was Nixon's choice to debate Kerry in 1971 after he testified at the Senate.

But what does this have to do with if the claims are true or not? Let both sides present their evidence, and people decide.

Larry Thurlow is one of the vets who appears in the ads. He claims that there was no gunfire when John Kerry pulled Jim Rassmann out of the water, resulting in a medal. However, Thurlow himself received a medal that day, and the citation referenced the enemy fire that day!! I encourage Mr. Thurlow to return his apparently fraudelent medal . Not only that, but his boat had bullet holes!

The explanation is that Thurlow's citation was based on the written report by Kerry. This is a reasonable explanation, IMO, and reason enough to not withdraw my questions yet. And they said the bullet holes were from the previous day.

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

This one I agree with you. Letson could have treated Kerry, but I just can't take his word for it since there's no documentation, and only the word of one person (if there were a few assistants that also remembered Letson treating Kerry, that would be a different matter).

Dole's wound which led to the Purple Heart was minor, and yet no one assailed his status as a war hero.

Just an aside - this whole thing has totally cheapened the term "war hero". You now see the press saying EVERYONE that served is a war hero. Well, that just means no one is. McCain is, IMO, because he could have got out of prison camp because of his connections, but didn't.

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

IMO, they're not debunked yet, I'm still researching. And I weep for this country if people say that people can't ask questions and/or and put out something that they claim is true for people to evaluate.

And the whole complaint about it being "political" is silly! Of course it's political! He's up for political office! And if he makes claims, then people should be able to investigate them! Same goes for Bush!

(note, this post made as a regular user)

And I will weep for Entmoot if you feel you can't post just because you're the Eru of Entmoot! You're also "one of the guys", IMO, and fun to talk with.

[Ben]

Tesseract, I think you interpreted my message the wrong way. When there is a legitimate debate, of course I respect the opinions of those on the other side. In instances where all evidence points to one conclusion and people still cling to an opposite opinion, that's when I start to get annoyed. But that's not an issue in this thread. Gaffer is correct that I am passionate about this. And let me clarify that any anger in the post was not intended to be directed at anyone at Entmoot. I had actually intended to write something about the Swift Vets on Entmoot, and then when Rian posted, it prompted me to finally compile my research.

The point of my post was not to discredit Rian, or try to "win" a debate with her or anyone else. I am posting these messages for the benefit of Entmoot users, so they can see the claims of the Swift Vets along with analyses of the claims' validity, all in one place. I spent many hours gathering together all this information.

Rian, I knew you were an American conservative so I assumed you were supporting Bush. I apologize for the error. Out of curiosity, if you plan on voting this year, are you supporting Bush, Badnarik, or Peroutka? I think that inserting "Republican" or "Kerry opponent" in place of "Bush supporter" into my statements still make them valid, though.

I have time to discuss the Thurlow issue right now:

Originally Posted by Rian

The explanation is that Thurlow's citation was based on the written report by Kerry. This is a reasonable explanation, IMO, and reason enough to not withdraw my questions yet. And they said the bullet holes were from the previous day.

Let's review for a moment... Thurlow, as quoted in the Washington Post, originally said, "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting." Thurlow went on to say that if the medal were for enemy fire, he'd consider it "fraudulent," and that Kerry may have been the source of the information in the report. Is this the version of events that you are leaning toward?

Thurlow "believes" he got his Bronze Star for a particular reason that is contradicted by official Navy records. In other words, he never checked his citation ever, in the past 3 decades. That doesn't sound right.

But wait: those quotes were from last week. Thurlow changed his story yet again. He was interviewed by Lisa Myer, and here's some of that transcript:

What's more, Thurlow also received a Bronze Star for heroism that day and his own citation repeatedly refers to "enemy bullets flying about him."
Thurlow says if being under enemy fire is required to earn the medal, he will give it back.

"I knew it was false. But nobody else was going to see it. I accepted it because I felt at the time I'd been given the thing because I'd saved the wounded on the boat and saved the boat," [Thurlow] says.

So now he knew the medal was given for the enemy fire? Before, he was insisting that he had no idea what was in the report. At least one of these stories thus has to be a lie, and worse, a FlipFlop (TM). In other interviews, he now acknowledges that his memories may be colored by his anger over Kerry's post-war activities.

Out of curiosity, which version of the events are you leaning towards right now? A) Thurlow's original claim B) Thurlow's current claim or C) What John Kerry has been saying, what Jim Rassmann and Kerry's crewmates have been saying, and what's in the official Navy records

Regarding newspapers: The newspaper corroboration is just to give legitimacy to my arguments, to show I'm not just pulling them out from where-the-sun-don't-shine. Often in internet discussions, some people may make points without sources, and they might have remembered the information inaccurately or just made things up. FWIW, I also feel that they do not report the news fairly. (From my perspective, though, the media has been toeing the GOP line for years now.) Unfortunately, we don't have the ability to call up these people ourselves and interview them. I don't trust the media to accurately show the big picture of issues, but I think they can generally transcribe interviews and provide quotes. We can have a discussion about the media in some other thread, sometime.

I like to post in the debates when I have the time. I've gotten involved in a few in the past couple months, but then as I'm composing a response, hours and days go by and other replies come in, moving the discussion to new places. You guys are just too quick to keep up with . I actually have 3 or 4 half-finished replies to recent debates, and 1 half-finished PM to Rian . This issue is particularly important to me, so I'm making a point of finishing my posts.

Tonight, I will post about the Cambodia question and Bush's Vietnam-era record, but for now I have to head out.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by bmilder

Rian, I knew you were an American conservative so I assumed you were supporting Bush. I apologize for the error. Out of curiosity, if you plan on voting this year, are you supporting Bush, Badnarik, or Peroutka?

I'm definitely planning on voting, and as of right now, I'm planning on voting for Bush

(It's a HUGE pet peeve of mine to have people speak for me if I haven't said anything, so I was just tweeking you! Thank you for your kind apology, and please be careful to not assume things People sometimes think they have me pegged, and they've been wrong! I blasted your brother on this one before, when he said I said something that I didn't, and I actually believed the exact opposite.)

(It's silly, but whenever I vote, I always get tears in my eyes - I think our system is the fairest on the planet and I really, really appreciate it. We even make a point of taking our kids with us, and they always look at me funny when I get tears in my eyes.)

I'll look forward to your info and will respond later.

[Ben]

I'm not going to be able to make that Cambodia post tonight (I have limited online time this week because I'm working at band camp) but I wanted to quickly address your "aside."

I think we can all agree that our troops are brave men that should be supported. I think you're saying that "war hero" is a title which ought to be reserved for those who showed exceptional courage. I don't know who's the judge of that, but Kerry certainly qualifies in my book. Are you suggesting that Kerry specifically should not be labeled a "war hero" or is this more of a general lament at a perceived cheapening of extraordinary battlefield courage? He turned his boat around and saved a man from certain death in the water. You've probably heard the rest of his exploits, so I won't repeat them here.

Not only is he a war hero, he's just a hero in general (this is even more of an aside). One day in 1988, Republican Sen. Chic Hecht was choking on an apple. He stumbled out of a meeting, thinking he needed to vomit. A senator hit his back to no avail and others didn't realize what was happening. All of sudden, Kerry arrives, and immediately performs the Heimlich maneuever, 4 times. Dr. Heimlich noted that had just 30 more seconds elapsed, Hecht would've been braindead. That's the kind of quick thinking I'm looking for in a leader. (Check out this amazing story in the Las Vegas Sun for more details) And those of you who watched the Democratic Convention heard the heartwarming tale of how he rescued his daughters' hamster from drowning and then administered CPR.

I agree that McCain is a war hero in that he showed an unimaginable amount of resolve in that prison camp. He's not a traditional battlefield hero lauded for his military deeds, though. I think that's just as legitimate, but it's something else altogether.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by bmilder

I'm not going to be able to make that Cambodia post tonight (I have limited online time this week because I'm working at band camp) but I wanted to quickly address your "aside."

From all accounts I've heard, band camps are a blast! Have fun!

I think you're saying that "war hero" is a title which ought to be reserved for those who showed exceptional courage. I don't know who's the judge of that ....

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's just very obvious that in ANY large group, you're gonna get people of all types. And to say ALL people that served in Vietnam are war heroes just cheapens the term, IMO. And of course no one will judge accurately 100% of the time, but I think it's good to at least TRY to make distinctions and to commend courage and bravery above the common call of duty. And to hear the silly TV commentators go on about "EVERYONE that served is a hero, of course!" - well, I just get frustrated, because it cheapens things like what McCain did.

I don't know that I'd call Kerry a "hero" for the apple incident (IOW, I don't think it was heroic to help, because there was no hardship to overcome in order to help), but I certainly commend his quick thinking and good execution.

*rereads the story*

Well, actually, because the guy he helped was a Republican, perhaps he WAS a hero to help ... (joke! joke! )