Swift boats and war atrocities

[Lizra]

IMO, since the last election was sort of won (popular vote), but lost (electorial college) this election might be a little crazier than usual. Also, each election comes with more rapid avenues of "media", which unfortunately translates to lots of potential manipulation and confusion...as I see it. Various ways of improving US election process have been discussed in threads past, but political division and bureaucracy seem to make doing the "smart" thing (making the election process fair and uncomplicated) a pipe dream.

[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.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Something that I've often wondered about:

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

Isn't it due to the connection between the President and being the leader of the Army? I think it's a little different in Canada.

Though I don't support George Bush, the fact that he didn't serve in combat is not one of the reasons. I don't personally judge someone for not fighting, or even dodging the draft, because I have never been in a combat situation myself. If I was drafted, I think I'd just stay in Sweden.

What's wrong with being in the National Guard anyway? It's the reserves, you still work hard. And it's not like Kerry isn't a rich kid. However, I do respect him (and all soldiers) a great deal for going to Vietnam, even if I disagree with the motives (for lack of a better word) of the war.

Did I just stick up for George Bush? I need to watch Farenheit 9/11.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Why is a presidential candidate's military record so important in the US?

Unless I've totally forgotten my history, one of the titles of the President of the US is "Commander in Chief" (of the armed forces of our country). So that's prob. part of it, altho I don't think it's all.

[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! )

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's wrong with being in the National Guard anyway? It's the reserves, you still work hard. And it's not like Kerry isn't a rich kid. However, I do respect him (and all soldiers) a great deal for going to Vietnam, even if I disagree with the motives (for lack of a better word) of the war.

I know this is getting terribly, 100% off topic. But why? Why would you not support the motives for the war? Are you a Communist :P (just kidding)? The Communists believed they had a mission to spread Communism to other countries. They were expanding according to that mission. Russia already had taken over nearby nations, turning them into satellite countries. The view was that Vietnam was a strategic point. If it fell, a dominoe collapse would occur with other countries, giving Russia many places. The Soviet Union's government was extremely violent and aggressive. Taking a stand in Vietnam to me, seems like it was the right thing to do at that point. We failed. But the motive of stopping what Reagan called an "Evil Empire" from forcing numerous nations into submission is similar to the motive we had when we entered World War 2. Sure, it's all about national security to some extent. The effort was to protect other countries. Are you in favor of isolationism? I'm curious as to what your view is on this subject . . .

I guess you can respond in a PM, if you wish to respond . To keep the thread from going totally off topic.

[Rían]

... or start a thread on Vietnam

*settles into her chair with some popcorn to watch the thread blow sky high*

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Unless I've totally forgotten my history, one of the titles of the President of the US is "Commander in Chief" (of the armed forces of our country). So that's prob. part of it, altho I don't think it's all.

Yes, I'm aware of that. However, as far as I know the leader of a country always has ultimate control (in fact, if not in name) of the armed forces. I've never heard of so much importance being attached to a military record as opposed to, say, an academic one for a candidate for President anywhere else in the world.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, of course - Nurvingiel suggested it is different in Canada - but I still find the difference surprising.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

... or start a thread on Vietnam

*settles into her chair with some popcorn to watch the thread blow sky high*

John Kerry did not lie to the Senate. He was asked to testify to what he witnessed in DETROIT. Here is a taste of the testimony of just one of the 150 decorated vets that day:

MODERATOR. All right. Mr. Camile, you were in Artillery, FO. You were attached to the 1st Battalion, 12th Marines.

CAMILE. I was in the 1st Battalion, 11th Marines, attached to the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines.

MODERATOR. You have some testimony here on the burning of villages, cutting off of ears, cutting off of heads, calling in artillery on villages for games, women raped, napalm on villages, all sorts of testimony of crimes against the civilians. Could you go into just a few of these to let the people know how you treat the Vietnamese civilian?

CAMILE. All right. The calling in of artillery for games, the way it was worked would be the mortar forward observers would pick out certain houses in villages, friendly villages, and the mortar forward observers would call in mortars until they destroyed that house and then the artillery forward observer would call in artillery until he destroyed another house and whoever used the least amount of artillery, they won. And when we got back someone would have to buy someone else beers. The cutting off of heads--on Operation Stone--there was a Lt. Colonel there and two people had their heads cut off and put on stakes and stuck in the middle of the field. And we were notified that there was press covering the operation and that we couldn't do that anymore. Before we went out on the operation we were told not to waste our heat tablets on food but to save them for the villages because we were going to destroy all the villages and we didn't give the people any time to get out of the villages. We just went in and burned them and if people were in the villages yelling and screaming, we didn't help them. We just burned the houses as we went.

MODERATOR. Why did you use the heat tabs? Did you just light off the villages with matches or just throw the heat tabs in so it would keep burning?

CAMILE. We'd throw the heat tabs in because it was quicker and they'd keep burning. They couldn't put the heat tabs out. We'd throw them on top of the houses. People cut off ears and when they'd come back in off of an operation you'd make deals before you'd go out and like for every ear you cut off someone would buy you two beers, so people cut off ears. The torturing of prisoners was done with beatings and I saw one case where there were two prisoners. One prisoner was staked out on the ground and he was cut open while he was alive and part of his insides were cut out and they told the other prisoner if he didn't tell them what they wanted to know they would kill him. And I don't know what he said because he spoke in Vietnamese but then they killed him after that anyway.

MODERATOR. Were these primarily civilians or do you believe that they were, or do you know that they were actual NVA?

CAMILE. The way that we distinguished between civilians and VC, VC had weapons and civilians didn't and anybody that was dead was considered a VC. If you killed someone they said, "How do you know he's a VC?" and the general reply would be, "He's dead," and that was sufficient. When we went through the villages and searched people the women would have all their clothes taken off and the men would use their penises to probe them to make sure they didn't have anything hidden anywhere and this was raping but it was done as searching.

MODERATOR. As searching. Were there officers present there?

CAMILE. Yes, there were.

MODERATOR. Was this on a company level?

CAMILE. Company level.

MODERATOR. The company commander was around when this happened?

CAMILE. Right.

MODERATOR. Did he approve of it or did he look the other way or...

CAMILE. He never said not to or never said anything about it. The main thing was that if an operation was covered by the press there were certain things we weren't supposed to do, but if there was no press there, it was okay. I saw one case where a woman was shot by a sniper, one of our snipers. When we got up to her she was asking for water. And the Lt. said to kill her. So he ripped off her clothes, they stabbed her in both breasts, they spread-eagled her and shoved an E- tool up her vagina, an entrenching tool, and she was still asking for water. And then they took that out and they used a tree limb and then she was shot.

MODERATOR. Did the men in your outfit, or when you witnessed these things, did they seem to think that it was all right to do anything to the Vietnamese?

CAMILE. It wasn't like they were humans. We were conditioned to believe that this was for the good of the nation, the good of our country, and anything we did was okay. And when you shot someone you didn't think you were shooting at a human. They were a gook or a Commie and it was okay. And anything you did to them was okay because, like, they would tell you they'd do it to you if they had the chance.

MODERATOR. This was told you all through your training, then, in boot camp, in advanced training, and so forth and it was followed on then, right on through it?

CAMILE. Definitely.