August 27, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:Swift and true?
I haven't been making much out of the Swift Vets controversy, because frankly, who cares? His silver star and bronze star stories seem to have the weight of evidence on his side, and I think lying about a fellow war vet's record in order to keep him from office is a pretty scurrilous thing to do. I'm suspicious of the number of people on both sides who seem to have such crystal clear recollection of events that happened thirty years ago, when I can't even remember what I was doing last week. And who among us hasn't felt the temptation to . . . er . . . enrich a story? It's a minor and quite forgiveable sin, along the lines of leaving the toilet seat up. The problem is, Mr Kerry gave into that temptation in the press, and now his Cambodia tale seems to have caught him out, desperate flailing by Democratic journalists notwithstanding.
Moreover, I don't really care what Mr Kerry did, or did not do, when he was 24. I shudder to think about my destiny, if my career prospects in my seventh decade are to be decided based on my behaviour as a slip of a girl. To be fair, John Kerry has rather brought this on himself, by insisting that we focus on his four months in Vietnam and ignore the other 99.99% of his life. But the people who see inflating war stories -- or even involving himself with an ill-conceived protest movement with some unsavoury members -- as some unforgiveable moral failing . . . well, I think you'll have to stop reading this blog. I think I may have done both on the same day, back in college. Yes, my dears, I once was young, with the characteristic desire for dramatic importance in my life.
But I digress.
Actually, the original point of this post was that while I am horrified by neither the Swift Vets, nor their allegations (except if they're lying, which I don't have enough information to make up my mind about), I think the newest piece of news is going to hurt Kerry rather badly. A liberal friend who's been following the story closely has made much of the fact that the two people who have emerged so far after the ads were released, who are aligned with neither the Kerry campaign nor the Swift Vets, have both supported Kerry's stories. Well, now another non-aligned person has emerged, and he's delivered a rather crushing blow to the story about Kerry's purple heart. Far worse, from Kerry's point of view, is that he's a bleedin' retired admiral. As the New York Post summarizes:
Schachte said that Kerry:* Wasn't wounded by hostile fire.
* Wasn't even under fire by the enemy.
* "Nicked" himself with a grenade launcher and "requested a Purple Heart" afterward.
If Schachte's version is accurate, Kerry would not have been eligible for the award, the first of the three Purple Hearts he received.
Max Boot's commentary in the LA Times yesterday is directly on point. Kerry is already seen as a political opportunist. The story of his service record can be neatly told to bolster that claim: he joined the navy only after his draft deferment was denied. Requested service in Vietnam in the safest gig their was, the Swift boat coastal patrol, only to have the massive bad luck of having their mandate changed to dangerous river patrols before he reported for duty. Once there, he claimed purple hearts for every scratch, and bugged out as quickly as humanly possible. He then sold out his former comrades-in-arms by accusing them of war crimes as a stepping stone to office. He is now trying to win office based on the medals he pretended to throw away when that was politically convenient. He cares about nothing except his own career.
I don't say that that is an accurate story of his service, mind you. But it is one that his opponents can plausibly tell, because the facts in it are broadly true. And it gets much, much worse if he, as is becoming more credible, claimed a purple heart he wasn't entitled to, and then turned around and used the "three hearts" rule to get out of the service. The story then goes from mere opportunism to fraud. A mild and understandable fraud, to be sure, and if he hadn't made his war record so central, one that I'm pretty sure the voters would overlook, given the war record of his opponent and predecessor. But if he indeed did lie to get a medal, it's a lie that he's actively continuing today. And I'm pretty sure the voters won't like that very much.
Update: The plot thickens.
Update II: Tom Maguire says he's not quite as non-partisan as he's making out.
Posted by Jane Galt at August 27, 2004 11:29 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksIf it turns out that Kerry didn't deserve the Purple Heart, will the Navy make him go to Vietnam for 8 months?
I think Jane is right not to care what John Kerry was doing when he was young, but John Kerry wants desperately for us to care. Apparently alot of people do because he didn't become the nominee based on his personal warmth or captivating message because he really does not have either. He is where he is because of his compelling Vietnam experience. Now that his story is found to be based on exaggerations he is in a world of trouble.
Schachte says he was on the skimmer that night, and that he got the would by "nicking himself" with an M-79 .
Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis were definitely on the boat. They say Schachte wasn't there, and that Kerry got a small injury in the arm when he was shot. (http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerrypurpleheart1.htm) At best, that's a wash.
There was shrapnel in Kerry's arm. Nicking yourself doesn't leave shrapnel.
Quote: (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/17/kerry_purple/index1.html)
It reads: "3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl. Bacitracin. Ret. to duty."
Et tu, Jane?
> Bacitracin.
I wonder if he got a lollypop too for his sliver?
Ted, my interest in debating these matters is pretty small, but I think in the context of Schacte's claims, it's entirely consistent. He isn't claiming that Kerry hurt himself with the grenade launcher; he's claiming that he fired a grenade that hit some rocks, and the shrapnel hit him in the arm. Which, one would expect, might well leave shrapnel. "Nicked himself" might have been an infelicitous turn of phrase, but given that all sides seem to agree that the shrapnel in question was a tiny sliver of metal, it's not entirely inapt, and certainly not proof that Schacte is making things up.
As I say, I'm suspicious of the amazing ability of people on both Kerry's and anti-Kerry's sides to remember long-ago events so clearly. Given the vagaries of memory, I think it's entirely possible that either the two crewmen, or Schacte, are misremembering. They, of course, were definitely there; on the other hand, numerous people have said that Schacte would never have let a rookie go out alone; and Kerry's own journal seems to confirm that, as of nine days after the events for which he got the purple heart, he'd never seen combat. Furthermore, the paperwork that is supposed to exist if you encounter the enemy and get shot at, apparently doesn't.
For me, the weight of evidence swings to Schacte, mostly because of the journal, the paperwork and the fact that the Kerry campaign seems to be preparing to concede that he didn't deserve his purple heart, not because of any particular interest in either side. But that's just a poorly educated guess; I haven't any emotional investment in believing either side--or in believing either that Kerry is a knight in shining armour, or that he's a lying fraud.
The details of what happened in Vietnam aren't as important as that he's tried to have it both ways in the big picture.
He is a war hero who "defended the country as a young man" (quote from the convention speech), but Vietnam was an illegal and immoral war where our guys committed many war crimes. If the latter is true, then the former is not (i.e., he did not defend the country). He threw away his medals in protest, but he still has them.
All the more a problem because waffling and trying to have it both ways is a big issue with Kerry. E.g., he's done his damnedest to make sure no one understands his position on Iraq, which is a situation more important to people today than Vietnam is.
Now, it's not too surprising for people to have different recollections of things that happened long ago. And these sorts of exaggerations are reasonably typical, and certainly lots of people did try to take advantage of the three Purple Hearts and out rule.
Still, there wouldn't be such a charge by vets against Kerry if it hadn't been for his really blistering testimony in 1971, and the way he kept referring to Vietnam in the campaign and when being nominated. Vets who were POWs and were taunted by his testimony just don't have good memories of him at all. The contradictions between the nomination speech and the 1971 testimony are huge.
Now, absent such a Vietnam focus by Sen. Kerry himself, this wouldn't have happened. However, he and his advisors are truly unintelligent if they didn't expect a backlash from the veterans he accused in his testimony.
Both sides agree that it wasn't a major injury, but only one side says that it was a tiny sliver of metal. If the events happened the way you describe, Kerry still would have been eligible for a Purple Heart.
Of course, none of this matters if Schachte wasn't on the dang boat. I still don't see why his recollection should be privileged over the recollections of two others (three if you count Kerry).
Andy, I know you wouldn't talk like that about the wounds of any other veteran. It makes you look small.
I'm done.
Actually, Ted, he would not. My understanding of the regulations is that accidental or self-inflicted injuries are specifically ruled out, except in the heat of battle, which, if no enemy fired on them, this would not have been. You can read the regulations yourself here. In fact, as described by Schacte, his wound would have been specifically ruled out on at least three counts: it was an accident not caused by enemy action, it was self-inflicted, and it did not require treatment by a medical officer (no stitches or whatever). I've seen any number of liberal blogs say this, and I have no idea where they get it from; I've never heard that you could get a purple heart for accidentally shooting yourself with no enemy in sight.
As for the size of the sliver, anything that gets treated with no more than bacitracin and a bandaid is by definition pretty small -- so small that it doesn't need a pressure bandage for blood, or a larger bandage to protect the entry. We're talking about shrapnel that was less than 1/8 inch in diameter -- enough to sting, but not enough to do any damage, or he'd have been pulled off the line.
I agree that, absent Kerry's making his Vietnam service the central issue in his campaign, what he did 35 years ago should be of little interest. But he HAS made it, and Bush's lack of Vietnam service, the primary claim on why we should vote for him and not for Bush. Given all this, it's only proper that his record be looked at.
Now, he want's Bush to call off the attacks of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. Did Kerry object when the the head of the DNC attacked Bush for being AWOL back in 1972? No! Kerry thought the press' inquiry into Bush's Nation Guard service to be just fine. Did the press accept "official military documents" as the final word of whether Bush fulfilled his service obligations? No! They wanted eye witnesses who remembered seeing a junior officer at a guard meeting 30 years ago. All of this despite Bush NOT using his service record as a qualification for office. If a part of Bush's military and medical records were missing, this was offered as proof of a cover-up. Has Kerry released his FULL military record. No! He's released selected parts of it.
Kerry dared the Swift Boat Vets to "Bring! It! On!" He made Vietnam an issue. He has refused to release his FULL military record. He has no one to blame but himself that people are now questioning what did and did not happen 35 years ago.
I would like nothing better than to see the Vietnam issue dead and buried for all purposes except honoring those who suffered in it, and avoiding an unlearned repetition of history.
But, as has been stated repeatedly here and elsewhere:
1. Kerry brought it up, then blew out a fuse or two while trying to rewire the story.
2. Press handling of this story has been conspicuously inconsistent with press handling of the Bush ANG story. Since both events happened a long time ago, one involving a president and one involving someone who wants to be president, I fail to see a reasonable excuse for that anomaly.
Ted,
If Kerry was wounded by a piece of shrapnel from a weapon he fired without the presence of the enemy, he's not eligible. A combat wound requires enemy involvement. There are exceptions, like friendly fire, but that wasn't the case.
Also, I was a Navy Corpsman, served my country and ducked my fair share of bullets. If the only treatment for a combat wound is bacitracin, he should have gotten a lollipop. Basically, he had a splinter removed.
As for the lying, if it was that simple and he was just embellishing the story, that would be okay. But, John Kerry has repeated his Cambodia and combat stories on the floor of the Senate, during debate, and used that lie to influence policy. This isn't just a slip/embellishment. This is a web of lies that he based his Senate career and presidential nomination on.
The truly sad part is that he lost my vote. I believe that while Bush is an idiot and has made a lot of mistakes, his heart is in the right place. He really is trying to do what he thinks is best for the country - even if he is wrong. Kerry is a liar and the way this whole thing has played out, he's a stupid liar. That makes him the greater of two evils. I can have stupid, or stupid liar. I'll take stupid.
It think there is a HUGE difference between protesting the war and slandering your fellow veterans and your country.
There is a big difference b/w showing up at a protest march and participating in a fraud like the Winter Soldier debacle. Dozens and dozens of men posing at Vietnam vets spoke about atrocities and war crimes. Problem was, they hadn't been to Vietnam and many hadn't even been in the military.
This is not honorable. It is reprehensible.
Vouching for and testifying to all these slanderous lies under oath in a Senate hearing is despicable. Alleging that the commission of war crimes was the official policy of the military and that all the officers up and down the chain of command participated in them is also despicable.
And finally, being a leader of a group that seriously debated for 3 days the assassination of US Senators is not the same as being a war protester. Imagine the outcry if a Republican candidate had once been a leader of a group which seriously considered assassinating some pro-abortion Supreme Court justices before deciding it would be counterproductive to their cause. Little bit different than just marching in a pro-life rally.
How can this be a "crushing blow" if you don't know if its true or not?
"I haven't any emotional investment in believing either side...."
Oh no, never, never. (in Fletch voice). You're entirely non-partisan on this, as on all issues.
Is there a single Bush idiot policy that you haven't defended at the time it came out? The tax plan and Iraq were the two biggest, but they have been legion. (Aside: Are you still planning to post the re-think on Iraq piece?)
Look, you're a committed Republican, and you feel bound to salute their flag. It's not exactly criminal. You write well, and you are more likely to put their best case forward than they are, so it might even be a service to the rest of us. In any case, you are of course more likely to believe Republican claims (and those that support their aims) than others. (Hell, you might have said, maybe John McCain did have an illegitimate black baby. It's not like he hasn't admitted to having played around a lot in the past). You've trained yourself to do so. So it's not exactly surprising to see that (a) you post about something that you apparently don't really care about and have no interest in, (b) you find the Pub position suddenly credible, and (c) you spare little time for the evidence SVB's are lying. Whatever.
No doubt this will end roughly the way much of your other support for Bush has. There's a pattern at work, here. To wit, (a) you start out a fairly staunch supporter of the policy (or, as here, the claim), (b) then when it goes to hell in predictable ways in 12-18 mos., you edge away slightly. I think the lesson is, "It's OK to fall in love, just not so hard."
I haven't any emotional investment in believing either side--or in believing either that Kerry is a knight in shining armour, or that he's a lying fraud.
Jane: I agree with you, and I blame Bill Clinton. What this whole episode proves is not that Kerry is a lying fraud. What it proves is that he lacks the core competence for a Democratic politician at the national level, which, post-Clinton, I take to be something like:whatever happens, make it entertaining. I'm not sure how Clinton would have handled something like this, but watching Kerry hem and haw and back and fill and shuffle around with his shoelaces tied together is just painful. I'm thinking to myself: can I vote for eight years of watching this? and I'm thinking others are thinking the same thing.
The very worst thing that a fair-minded person could say is that this is unresolvable. The two other witnesses recall enemy fire. If this was anyone without a (D) behind his name, I feel quite confident that he'd be given the benefit of the doubt.
(http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/isele/109265584379530.xml?isele)
Once in place on the river, the three U.S. sailors paddled and drifted. Covered by the darkness, they hid to stop sampans, small vessels common in Southeast Asia. Guerillas used the sampans to smuggle weapons in the Mekong River Delta.Runyon said Kerry was wounded after one vessel tried to avoid an inspection.
"Lt. Kerry said, 'I'm going to pop a flare, and when I do, I want that engine started,' " Runyon said. But the outboard would not crank. Meanwhile, the sampan's crew steered it to the riverbank, and people started running on the shore. Runyon said shooting broke out.
Somehow, Kerry's weapon stopped firing. Runyon thinks he ran out of ammunition. He said Kerry bent down to pick up another gun and got hit in the arm.
Jane,
Myself, I find the whole thing hilarious. I have seriously followed it for unserious reasons, entertainment. That being said, I think it does matter if the primary reason someone wants me to vote for them (an admittedly stupid reason) is seriously misleading.
The evidence when looked at closely by people who know what they are talking about (as opposed to the mainstream media and most of Kerry's defenders who seem to swallow implausible explanations all too easily) leans heavily against Kerry. I'll not go into detail, but I think it is important to point out that the main reason we are at a point of he said/she said is that the Kerry camp has pretty much conceded on a whole host of points in order to narrow the argument. Much reporting is therefore now focusing on areas where things are fuzzier and ignoring that so far that the SBVT have won almost everwhere something has been decided.
#1- Christmas in Cambdia. Kerry has dropped this claim and has changed the succeeding story repeatedly even on what is left of the charge.
#2- The campaign and Kerry's biography acknowledge that the wound in his buttocks did not occur during the rescue of Rassmann in direct contradiction to official Navy records. It was also self inflicted in contradiction to official Navy records.
#3- Rassmann's rescue according to Kerry and his defenders no longer is an example of Kerry retrieving a floundering man while all the other boats flee (the story put out in official campaign releases in Jan. and imlicitly claimed at the DNC) instead now Kerry is leaving (possibly to land troops to take out the ambushers) and the other boats are staying to rescue the damaged boat and crew. Whether Kerry was under heavy fire (a ridiculous claim but not admitted) or not he nevertheless misrepresented this event repeatedly even if we let him win on the points still under contention.
#4- Silver Star incident. Rood's account does not challenge anything SBVT are complaining about. A great story, shows he likes Kerry, but so what? His story if it is true confirms that Kerry's citation of facing superior forces, etc. is poppycock. If the Kerry camp is supporting this version then Kerry is admitting his citation and after action account were fraudulent.
#5- Boston Whaler incident-Even Kerry's camp acknowledges the Purple Heart was superficial. Maybe technically legal, but hardly war hero stuff. Not to mention the disgraceful smearing of Dr. Letson. Dr. Letson may be wrong, but it is the Kerry camp who has lied about who the Dr. was. That has been proven. Still Kerry has admitted the wound was superficial. Throw in the previous admitted self inflicted wound and we have two purple hearts, one superficial and possibly self inflicted; and another based on an admitted self inflicted wound and a bruise on the arm, which Kerry now admits he misrepresented as occuring during the same incident, and as a result of combat in his citations and combat report. That is fraud and not so minor.
#6- Peck. The Kerry campaign has removed twenty pages of records which related to service that wasn't his but Peck's, his predecessor. This may have been a staff error (I am trying to be charitable,) but the SBVT were correct.
#7- Sevice- Kerry's campaign has been forced to amend his service timeline to include his time as a protestor and amateur diplomat when meeting with the Vietnamese in Paris.
Anyway, I could spend a lot of time showing why much of Kerry's story is probably untrue, but you can go to other sources for that. I just wanted to challenge the statement that the evidence has been in favor of Kerry. It seems to me the Kerry camp has admitted much of the swiftee's case is true and is trying to argue where they are strongest and hope that nobody notices. Or to put it another way what has been proven, or where someone has been forced to admit error it has been Kerry every time. Maybe he has been telling the truth on every other issue (making Adm. Schacte a liar for example) but it reflects very poorly on Kerry anyway that he has peddled these stories up to this day. Not to mention smearing others who have been shown correct often enough to at least admit that they may be wrong about some things, but there were enough problems with what he said to justify their complaints.
Once Kerry decided to base his campaign on his Vietnam service it became fair game--which he seems to be too stupid to notice.
Megan's update about the conflicting medal citations means they aren't authorative evidence, and it's a matter of conflicting memories about the March 13th Bronze Star too.
But, what really may be trouble for Kerry is the bit at the bottom regarding the 8 year gap in Kerry's military service. Yes, I said 8 years. He leaves active duty in January 1970, but doesn't get his discharge until 1978.
And he tried to hide that fact in his official biography, which listed his service as in two parts; from 1966-70, and a second stint from 1972-78. Obviously he's hiding something about his years as an active anti-war protester. I think it's about time for the NY Times (and the Economist?) to catch up with Just One Minute.
One more comment about the Christmas in Cambodia story. The fact Kerry's campaign has now admitted this story is false is important for a number of reasons. Most important among them is the fact that Kerry has used this story for decades to explain why he became an anti-war protester. Hearing Nixon lie to the American people that there were no Americans in Cambodia was just too much for him -- because there he was on Christmas Eve, 1968, in Cambodia, being shot at! It's a very powerful, yet totally untrue, story. Kerry was not in Cambodia. Nixon was not President. Kerry's now claiming that he was in Cambodia or near Cambodia (depending which version of the story is being told) in 1969, not 1968. Well, if he were NEAR Cambodia, the President was not telling a lie. If he was "inadvertently" in Cambodia (another version from his campaign), the President STILL wasn't telling a lie. But President Nixon did lie about Americans being in Cambodia. In 1972. More than 2 years after Kerry had returned home to protest the war. So, Kerry's epiphany didn't happen. It couldn't have -- unless he has a time machine.
If this were the only time he's made things up to make himself look good, I'd let it pass. Instead, it's a perfect example of a 35 year history that shows Kerry to be a political opportunist and a fraud.
The bickering over medals is missing the point.
It's not whether or not John Kerry is a war hero or not -- he showed up when he was ordered to, and he didn't leave until he was entitled to.
The issue is how honest he has been about his service and his accomplishments -- his claims about which form the foundation of his entire argument for why he believes he should be the next POTUS ... or so his convention speech would have us believe.
The truth or baseness of his claims, his personal reaction to the accusations, and the response of the "Kerry Machine" to the charges show what kind of man he is, and what kind of administration he would run.
He has already admitted that he has lied about the Cambodia thing (seared what?). His team has released several different explanations. There's no common story that they all agree on. In police shows, different stories usually indicates that someone's lying. ;)
His personal reaction has been to tell Dubya to break the law and violate the Constitution by oppressing the Swifties, and slander his Band of Brothers. ("Bring. It. On." has become "Make them stop!") He has yet to factually refute any of the charges, and those exhuberant reports that one swiftie or another has been discredited turn out to be not-so-discrediting once the facts come out and the spin is removed. I've heard he could put all the he-said/he-said to rest if he would just sign Form 180 like he demanded of Dubya, but for some reason he hasn't. Perhaps he's waiting for the furor to reach a fever-pitch, then pull the mother of all rope-a-dopes, releasing records that completely vindicate him ...
His political machine hasn't countered the threat to his campaign with anything remotely effective, decisive, or dignified. People talk all the time about how stupid and incompetent W's administration is; Kerry's machine can't even deal with a 527 -- how is he supposed to deal with, say, N.Korea, China, Iran, Syria?
Sometimes I feel like we are all Truman Burbanks, being shown a very carefully created caricature of John Kerry -- a facade created specifically to propel his political career.
It also should be pointed out that it is highly unlikely that utter novice John Kerry would have been given command of two enlisted men in that Boston whaler. Not when the man who devised the mission, Schachte, was available.
Two fellow officers, Ted Peck and Grant Hibbard (the CO) have come forward to support Schachte, and Novak claims he's spoken to others who do too.
To be fair, John Kerry has rather brought this on himself, by insisting that we focus on his four months in Vietnam and ignore the other 99.99% of his life.
1) How has Kerry's focus on his military service in any way caused him to deserve people lying about his record?
2) Kerry was perfectly justified in emphasizing his military service, given the way in which the Republicans have made alleged Democratic "softness" on defense/security matters an issue in every Presidential race for the last 25 years--at least.
"#2- The campaign and Kerry's biography acknowledge that the wound in his buttocks did not occur during the rescue of Rassmann in direct contradiction to official Navy records. It was also self inflicted in contradiction to official Navy records."
'Self-inflicted' while blowing up a VietCong supply depot, that is.
"[Rassman rescue] Whether Kerry was under heavy fire (a ridiculous claim but not admitted)"
Sorry, you missed that Thurlow (& O'Neill) got caught with their pants down: the Navy report of the incident stated that 3 holes were in the structure of Thurlow's boat. And Thurlow was forced to admit that he went overboard and was underwater part of the time.
"#5- Boston Whaler incident-Even Kerry's camp acknowledges the Purple Heart was superficial. Maybe technically legal, but hardly war hero stuff. Not to mention the disgraceful smearing of Dr. Letson."
Letson did not sign the paperwork, yes? And even *Steve Gardner* admitted his own reluctance to participate with Letson on the book because of Letson unreliability with his stories.
Mark - "How has Kerry's focus on his military service in any way caused him to deserve people lying about his record?"
Nothing Kerry has said or done would justify someone lying about his record. The problem for Kerry's supporters is that the Swift Vet's claims, to the extent they can be proven, have proven to be true. It's Kerry who has been who has been conceding the truth of the Swift Vet's charges. (Another poster gave a long list of the claims that have been conceded or verified.) If anyone has been lying about Kerry's record, it's been Kerry.
How has Kerry's focus on his military service in any way caused him to deserve people lying about his record?
What he has brought upon himself is the scruity of his claims. If I walk into a job interview for, say, a writing gig at the paper, and I claim to have written a dozen best sellers, won a few Pulitzers, and gained international cred with my hard hitting reports filed from the shores of Galilee, would you just hire me on the spot, or would you take a look at what I claim to have done?
What if it turns out I've written exactly one book published by a vanity press, don't even know how to spell Pulitzer, and have never even left the state?
How's my credibility then? Would you trust me to babysit your children?
Also, it's hard to say that the swifties are all lying about his record when he's the one issuing consession after consession that he was, indeed, lying. Or at least inflating the story a bit. Or a lot.
I wish he had stopped talking about Vietnam back in April. I wish he had talked about his plans for the next four years, instead of running on a platform that has "I'm Not George Bush" branded into it. I wish the Democrats had run someone who would actually propose alternate paths of action or policy ... with no real opposition, if Dubya is re-elected, the damn fool is going to go off running willy nilly.
Why? Because no real alternatives have been set forth by the opposition.
This is what is truly galling about this cycle. IMO, of course.
Tim, I'm really of two minds as to whether to respond to such a gratuitously nasty and unfounded remark, but I feel you ought to know that a) I supported McCain (so far as it goes -- I am not a Republican, and so couldn't vote in their primaries) b) didn't vote for Bush in the election c) was loudly telling my coworkers last week that the McCain ad was the nastiest, most disgusting political trick ever.
I support Bush's policies when I support them (capital tax reductions, the war). I don't when I don't (gay marriage amendment). I have no slavish loyalty to Bush, and have, as of now, no plans to vote for him.
If and when Admiral Schacte's claim blows up, please do email me to make sure that I post an update -- my lukewarm support will not keep me from noting the event, but I might miss it. Until then, please refrain from casting aspersions on my character.
I find it pretty odd that those are claiming that Kerry lied about his medals overlook the fact that Bush has lied about his "service" in the Air National Guard.
In his 1978 congressional campaign, he claimed to be an Air Force veteran (He isn't)
Later, he claimed that he "volunteered" to be sent to Vietnam. (Nope, he checked "Do not volunteer" according to records in his own handwriting)
He claimed at one point to have continued to fly jets for "several years", when in fact it was 18 months. So if BOTH men are lying about their military records, why does this whole debate speak more poorly of Kerry than Bush?
As a commenter above has said, nothing justifies lying about his record. But he has invited the political damage from the unmasking of what are, in the end, rather trivial lies (by which I mean Cambodia & possibly the purple heart), by staking his whole campaign on what he did when he was 24.
3 holes were in the structure
Three holes ... and the boats were sitting motionless on the water for half an hour.
Who was teaching the VC to shoot ... Stormtroopers?
That's why I said that I thought that IF he hadn't made such a big deal about his service, no one would be paying attention to the Swift Vets, even if everything they said was right. Bush has not talked up his service, and furthermore, has essentially said that he screwed up a lot before he was 40; hence, whatever he did in the ANG has little effect on his popularity.
I think the Air Force thing is a real stretch; seems pretty clear to me it's a slip of the tongue. The other is clearly some creative embroidery, a la "MLK assassination in vietnam" -- unnecessary, not very productive, and hence not really news.
That's why I say that I think war stories don't say much about either candidate's character. It was simply too long ago. It's only because JFK II has offered us nothing else that this threatens to eviscerate his campaign.
Mark,
We know that Kerry has told whoppers. We know that Kerry disputes what some of the Swifties have said. But you have nothing to show that any Swiftie has LIED.
Lots of he said/he said. Nothing that can be shown to be a lie.
When Dems said Bush was AWOL and a deserter, those smears have been conclusively shown to be LIES.
When Dems said that Iraq wasn't seeking yellowcake and that Bush had lied, we now know that it was the Dems who LIED, not Bush.
Christmas in Cambodia (no matter how seared in his brain and no matter how it changed the course of his life) is a LIE.
Later, he claimed that he "volunteered" to be sent to Vietnam. (Nope, he checked "Do not volunteer" according to records in his own handwriting)
He claimed at one point to have continued to fly jets for "several years", when in fact it was 18 months. So if BOTH men are lying about their military records, why does this whole debate speak more poorly of Kerry than Bush?
He volunteered for a project that sent the 102s to Vietnam; that project was scrapped. Sorry, don't have the link handy, and I'm lazy. Also, he could just have been lying.
He should have said "year and change", perhaps. We already know he's an idiot when it comes to public speaking.
This controversy reflects more poorly on Kerry because Bush isn't saying, "vote for me because I flew jets for several years and volunteered to go to Vietnam." Kerry, however, is running on his war record.
Not to lighten the mood or anything, but focusing on 4 months out of 60 years actually means ignoring ~ 99.44% of Kerry's life.
Those of you familiar with Ivory Soap's 99 - 44/100% tag line, feel free to insert purity jokes here.
We have a person who was on the boat who disputes Kerry's version of the events. (today's Novak)
We have Kerry's commanding officer who denied his first request for the purple heart disputing Kerry's version of the events (http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040625/6319077s.htm)
And we have the doctor who treated Kerry disputing Kerry's version of the events. (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp)
Novak says he has outside confirmation that Kerry wouldn't have been on the skimmer boat without Schachte which means that Kerry's version is already called into question. I am really not sure what other information there is to get on this story.
feel free to insert purity jokes here
The problem is, while Ivory doesn't leave a film of soap scum behind, after listening to Kerry speak, I feel unclean.
Once when talking to a bunch of workers whose jobs were being offshored, he promised them that he'd bring the jobs back. Blah blah blah, insert demagogery here, here, and some over here too. No announcing of plans, or policies, or initiatives. He doesn't say how he would make jobs come back, or bring the French and Germans to our side, or give everyone universal healthcare, or fight a more sensitive war. He just says he will.
Listening to it makes me feel unclean. :)
Come to think of it, I think this 'rule by fiat' is something of a habit of his. I'm reminded of the speech when he finally denounced the swifties, saying something to the effect of "these attacks stop now!"
...
But then he hasn't been very effective in stopping said attacks.
Hmmmm.
BTW On his application form, He checked "DO NOT VOLUNTEER" with respect to being sent overseas. This was while the Vietnam war was going on. Vietnam, last I knew, is overseas. And Bush gets a free pass on lying just because it wasn't a cornerstone of his campaign? He "Should have said a year and change" but didn't. He said several years. Not true. Yes, Bush is a poor public speaker in certain regards, but that isn't a matter of flubbing your line, its about fluffing up your record.Also, you don't seem to touch the
Continuing my prior post...
BKW, you didn't address Bush's lie about being an airforce veteran. What is your reply to that?
Jane, the Airforce claim can't possible be a slip of the tongue as you put it, since it was written, it was in his official campaign bio, which presumably, was vetted by the campaign staff before being sent to the printer. One would hope the candidate read it as well, but we know that Bush basically doesn't like to read. My point isn't that it should or should not effect Bush's popularity, but rather, whether it reflects adversely on his character. I know that Bush supporters tend not to want to believe that this guy could do anything bad, but he has clearly lied about his military service.
Why is it that two of the more nonpartisan blogs (Jane and Drezner) seem to inspire a lot of partisan debate? Is it just cuz they attract people from both sides?
Edymion - Let me see if I understand the essence of your argument: Bush puffed up his campaign bio in 1978 so Bush no one should care whether Kerry is CURRENTLY puffing up his bio? Here are some differences between theses two sittuations that might account for why some treat them differently:
* Bush is running on his record of the last four years, while Kerry is running on his record of four months some 35 years ago.
* Bush has admitted to youthful indiscretions and told us not to pay too much attention to his past. Kerry has told us to pay attention to his past (war record) but asks us to ignore his two decades in the Senate.
* Bush has given us a very good idea of the kinds of policies he would pursue if he's granted another term. Kerry has asked us to ignore policy (He's on all three sides of every two-sided issue.) and base our vote on the fact he's a war hero.
So again, why should we care what Bush said or did in 1978, when, at best, Kerry is doing the same thing today?
David, No that isn't my argument at all. My arguments is that Bush is a proven liar regarding his scant military record. Kerry has NOT been proven to be a liar about his medals. Despite your ludicrous claim to the contrary, the Not So Swift Boat Veterans' claims have not been proven true. In fact,Kerry's version is corroborated by official government records and witnesses, and only rebutted by people of suspect credibility, who in some cases have contradicted their own stories.
Dear Jane,
Jane Fonda Kerry has spent 35 years calling me and 2.5 million other Vietnam vets a bunch of doped-up, baby-killing war criminals. Now the traitor wonders why resent his attempt to use four months of service he has repeatedly called criminal as the justification for electing him president. As for his "wounds," I lost far more blood to leaches on patrols near the DMZ than he--by his own admission and whatever medical records he has released--did in his entire home-movie remake of "They Were Expendable."
I'm afraid I'm not going to bother digging up the reference to the project for which Bush volunteered at some point in time after filling out the application form you cite above. But you should note that your citing something he signed initially does not refute what he may or may not have done later. But given the fact that you put the word service in "quotes" makes me think you really don't truly care, so long as you get to support your own opinion.
That's how I interpret scare quotes; forgive me if I'm unjust in my assessment.
Sure, Bush lies. All politicians lie, to some degree. This is hardly news. I'm sure there's some inflation going on wrt Bush's records or his claims.
And we'll yell and scream about it all you want, the next time Bush says, "Vote for me because I'd be a better CiC than the gother guy, because I had (insert quantity and description of service), and the other guy was "just" (insert some other service or lack thereof)".
Or the next time Bush tries to influence Policy by claiming first-hand knowledge of the effects of said policy because of events that were seared -- seared! -- into his memory ... which later turn out to be flat out lies.
In all honesty, I'm cynical enough that I don't really care very much that Kerry lies either. What boggles is his abysmally poor judgement with regards to WHAT he chooses to lie about, and the utter incompetence with which he goes about lying.
Couldn't he pick something meaningful to lie about ... and then lie about it competently?
I mean, really. Lying about foreign leaders who want him as President? Oh please.
If you're going to lie, tell the people lies like, say, "you feel their pain." Tell lies that help people to connect to you -- instead of telling lies that elevate yourself on a pedestal, above everyone else, so that they may worship at your feet.
Check my post above, where I cite the three big failures of Kerry's response to the swifties. Even if every single claim the swifties made was false, we've still seen how well Kerry functions when out of the Mass. coccoon.
If he can't handle a 527 with less than a million dollars in their coffers -- even though he has the majority of the mass media on his side -- how in the hell is Kerry supposed to be President?
When Iran demands that the US hand over nuclear technology, is he going to call Jacques to tell the Iranians to stop, like he ran to Bush, Dole, McCain, or Robert Brant?
Are we supposed to take seriously a man whose employs campaign strategists who say things like, "George Bush is a traitor because he didn't go to Viet Nam"?
Kerry has NOT been proven to be a liar about his medals.
Funny how the medals are only one part of what is being claimed as 'lies,' yet you delimited the argument to just those. Why?
Correction :
I'm sorry, the swifties have received $2 million from 30,000 Americans who have donated an average of around $64.
So they have more than a million. So I guess they're twice as hard for Kerry to deal with than I first thought. :)
Looks like the good admiral is starting to crumble already. He claims to be "non partisan" but has donated to both Bush's 00 and 04 campaigns, donated exclusively to Republican candidates and parties, served in the Reagan admin. DOD, and is partners with one of the chairs of the GOP convention.
Yes, Jane and the others are correct. And when Bob Dole centered his campaign on his service to his country, he opened himself up to smears by his political opponents. I only wish the Dems. took the opportunity.
mouse,
He didn't make his war service the entire focus of his campaign. And the Dems did attack his service.
Stan, can you name just ONE democrat who attached Dole's service record while he ran for President?
"...you didn't address Bush's lie about being an airforce veteran. What is your reply to that? "
He is an Air Force veteran. The Air Nat'l Guard is a branch of the Air Force.
And he did volunteer to go to Vietnam. Four of his fellow pilots confirm it. One of them has contacted me--after reading my arguments on Brad DeLong's blog earlier this year--and confirmed it.
Yes, Kerry has made Vietnam the entire focus of his campaign. He literally talks about nothing else. Funny how the Rep. argument depends so much on hyperboly (sp?).
Second, Kerry's credibility seems to depend largely on his alleged LIE about Cambodia. Sorry, folks. Its not a lie. We know that Kerry's boat and other boats were on mission "near" the Cambodian border at the time, if not on Christmas eve, at the latest by the end of January. We know from history that Navy boats actually crossed the border on missions. We also know that John O'Neill told Nixon that he was "in" Cambodia. Come to think of it, Kerry's story sounds pretty credible doesn't it, though he perhaps got the date wrong. Does this sound like a lie, something as clearly false as "I was flying jets throughout 1972 and 1973?"
Don't think so.
All these proves to me is that the conservatives so-called love for our veterans and our personnel in the armed forces is entirely contingent on the soldiers' political views. Who's spitting on which Vietnam vet now?
The Air Force says that the Air National Guard isn't part of the Air Force. Perhaps your contacts in the military failed to mention that to you.
And its easy to volunteer to fly in Vietnam when you know you don't have the points, the experience, or the right plane. If W. wanted to fight, you think it would have been difficult for him to find a way?
And everyone please stop with the "Kerry volunteered for the easiest job in Vietnam, and never intended to be in danger." The argument is self-evidently stupid. How many of you are willing to volunteer for the least dangerous job in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Patric,NO, actually. The Bush campaign already tried using this claim that National Guard Service=Airforce Service. It doesn't hold water. The airforce itself debunked that theory. And Bush, in a technical way may have volunteered to go to Vietnam, in the sense that he put in for the program. But at the time he did so, he knew the program was being phased out because the jet he flew was obsolete, and that he did not qualify for it, because he failed to log enough flight hours and could not possibly get those hours before the program was ended.
I could care less what John Kerry did or did not do in Vietnam or Cambodia 35 years ago. And let's be honest about things - there aren't very many (if any) Democrats who care about those things either. They back Kerry because, in order of importance, (1) he's not Bush, (2) he's not Bush, (3) he's not Bush and (4) he has a reliably liberal record on a broad variety of issues. They don't care about his military record any more than they cared about Bob Dole's or GHWB's or Bill Clinton's. But apparently they convinced themselves that other folks, some rubes out there in the heartland, would care about Kerry's military record and vote for him because of it.
In the securities business, buying a stock not because you like its fundamentals but instead because you think someone else is going to pay more for it is called the "greater fool" theory and when widely practiced, leads to bubbles. Bubbles inevitably burst, and that is what has happened here to Mr. Kerry.
DBL
I'm a liberal. I imagine you're not. Yet your last analysis was spot on. Although I would charaterize what Kerry is doing more charitably. The Dems. are trying to package a product. Military services -- especially in light of the Dems' poor reputation in military matters and in light of Bush's weak service record -- seemed like the logical thing to do. Apparently, no one anticipated that this would lead to smears by people who supported him as late as last year.
Kerry's bubble won't burst because Dems like me don't expect much from him apart from an improvement from the rock bottom president we have now.
"And he did volunteer to go to Vietnam. Four of his fellow pilots confirm it. One of them has contacted me--after reading my arguments on Brad DeLong's blog earlier this year--and confirmed it."
Yeah, that's why he checked the "Do Not Volunteer" box to the question "Do you Volunteer to go to Vietnam" on his application forms.
Did it occur to you that he might have said one thing to his fellow pilots, but actually did another? It would be consistent with a later pattern in life.
(Nah - of course not - this is Susupply we're talking about here.)
I don't know who is telling the closest version of the truth in these matters; short of putting people under oath and examining all evidence in a court of law, it really is murky, and probably would be so even then. The stories, however, regardless of which version is believed, really do give insight as to why enlisted men often hate officers. I heard a combat veteran on t.v. the other day, a retired colonel, who did not take a position on this issue, other than to say that when he meets an enlisted man who won the silver star, his reaction is somewhat different from when he meets an officer who has done so, because he knows how much more difficult it is for an enlisted man to win such a medal.
This election, like a lot of elections, will be hugely influenced by whomever is perceived to be the bigger A-hole. I'm convinced that is the only reason Gore vs. Bush was close, because Gore appeared to be such an orifice. Note the modifier "appeared"; we really don't know any of these people. Kerry, by constantly informing the world of what a gosh-darned war hero he was 35 tears ago, along with the smarmy salute, yada, yada, yada, really ran the risk of appearing to be a major leaguer, and his decades-long enemies have attempted to fully exploit it. Them's politics.
Anonymous said: The Dems. are trying to package a product. Military services -- especially in light of the Dems' poor reputation in military matters and in light of Bush's weak service record -- seemed like the logical thing to do. Apparently, no one anticipated that this would lead to smears by people who supported him as late as last year.
If they didn't know, they were not paying attention. The SwiftVets were around during the nomination process trying to get the Dems to choose anyone BUT Kerry. They said at that time that they'd pack up and go home if anyone else was nominated.
And whether or not he deserved his medals, they shoul have known that "war protestor" cancels out "war hero" in most people's minds, and that a lot of veterans hate him for his testimony about war crimes.
The problem for Kerry's supporters is that the Swift Vet's claims, to the extent they can be proven, have proven to be true.
Not so, David. As Max Boot notes, in the piece Jane links to:
They have caught him in only one, relatively inconsequential untruth — Kerry's claim that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968.
None of their other claims have withstood critical scrutiny. Virtually all of them conflict with the documentary record--e.g., Letson's claim to have "treated" Kerry for the wound that lead to his first Purple Heart.
The most clear-cut case is the Bronze Star/3rd Purple Heart incident. In this case, we have substantial documentary evidence that supports Kerry's story--the After Action Report, Thurlow and Lambert's Bronze Star citations. We have the testimony of witnesses--Rassman and Lambert--who have no motive other than honesty for supporting Kerry's version. And we have the fact that had Kerry behaved as the Swift Boat Vets allege on that day, his actions--fleeing the scene, endangering other personnel, failing to give aid to the disabled boat--would have been a serious violation of Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Mitary Justice, which covers "misbehavior in the face of the enemy," and which is potentially punishable by death. So why didn't the Vets on the scene--Thurlow, Chenoweth and O'Dell--report Kerry's cowardice to their superiors or other relevant authorities.
The only explanation that fits the facts is that Thurlow, Chenoweth and O'Dell are lying.
The masses quibble
the masses all a quiver
at the babbling bufoons
and political hacks
but they do not seek
an objective truth
but a version to justify
bitterness, loyalty and faith
simply endless machinations to
believe what they want to believe
a chasing after the wind
Perhaps Bob Dole's service record didn't lend itself to attack quite as easily as others'.
Jane,
The difference between your youth and John Kerry's youth is that your youthful indiscretions aren't being replayed on C-SPAN. But why are these issues just being dragged out now, I hear everyone ask. Perhaps it is appropriate for a John Kerry to have a career, marry a billionaire, be elected dog catcher, serve in the Senate, maybe even chair a committee on Defense, or become Majority Leader. But perhaps the ceiling imposed by his public behavior is just below Commander in Chief. If the public makes that judgement, then the timing is entirely appropriate.
we have substantial documentary evidence that supports Kerry's story
IIRC, that documentary evidence was written by Kerry himself.
So if I'm accused of lying, if I write down on a piece of paper, "I'm not lying" ... then that constitutes documentary evidence that I'm not lying?
Also, the Cambodia lie is hardly inconsequential. Waving hands and saying it doesn't really matter ... doesn't make it not matter.
Mark, can you explain why Kerry refuses to sign the Form 180? I mean, all this stupid he-said/he-said can go mostly by the wayside if he'd just release his records, true? I'm really curious ... the only theories I've yet heard are from right wing crackpots who think the full records show that Kerry was really Nixon's pimp boy and is descended from Martians.
I kid, I kid.
But seriously -- this stupid debate is distracting from the real issues, and apparently causing real damage to his campaign. At least the silly polling numbers. So why wouldn't he stop the hemmoraging and sign the form?
Re: attack on Dole's war service
See Daily Kos who has dredged up one of the attacks in a 96 article in the Nation.
I read a post somewhere in the last few days which outlined several other nasty pieces, but can't find it in the time I have
First, the accusation that Jane is a Bush shill is ridiculous. Her complaints about Bush over the years are so numerous as to lead one to believe you are not a steady reader of her work. Ideologically she meshes in some places, doesn’t in many others.
Tom,
“'Self-inflicted' while blowing up a VietCong supply depot, that is.”
Outside of the question of whether or not it qualifies as worthy of a Purple Heart, it is not what he claimed in his after action report, Purple Heart citation or in his citation for the bronze star or in many other characterizations of the incident. In essence you validate my point. There is nothing wrong with what the real story is (well actually some leftists [Alexander Cockburn amongst others] have claimed it was part of him committing war crimes, but I definitely don’t endorse their analysis) but he still has either lied or to be charitable exaggerated and allowed misleading accounts to go unchallenged for his benefit. Less charitably he shouldn’t have gotten it at all.
“Sorry, you missed that Thurlow (& O'Neill) got caught with their pants down: the Navy report of the incident stated that 3 holes were in the structure of Thurlow's boat. And Thurlow was forced to admit that he went overboard and was underwater part of the time.”
First of all Thurlow falling off of the boat happened later and is therefore irrelevant to the question at hand. His account always noted that fact and therefore he was hardly caught with his pants down here. As for the three bullet holes, remember I was not discussing that as Kerry hasn’t conceded that point. However, my point was “heavy fire” including from heavy automatic weapons. Thurlow claims they were from earlier in the day anyway. Assume he is lying, it hardly qualifies as heavy fire. These boats were sitting ducks for well over an hour. They are in a small canal with 50’ craft. You are telling me the best this “heavy fire” could do was three bullet holes and not a single wound. It is ridiculous. My guess is that Thurlow and those who said there was no fire are mistaken. Probably a few rounds were gotten off before they were killed or fled. Who knows? What it wasn’t was enough for the other boats to notice much and it ended quickly. Long before Kerry rescued Rassmann. These were heavily armed boats that could get off between them over 6000 rounds a minute just from their machine guns. Throw in infantry fire, cannons etc. and anything other than a large force would have been decimated. A large force would have dealt extensive damage to the boats and would have hit somebody. Kerry didn’t do anything wrong here, only afterward, but you even seem to be admitting his claim that he originally put out in January was untrue. As well you should since The Kerry campaign has conceded the point by adapting the SBVT story.
“Letson did not sign the paperwork, yes?”
Who ever claimed he did? Read what Letson has claimed before you attack a straw man. Letson however was the only Dr. present and the only doctor assigned. The initialing and notations support Dr. Letson. However, he doesn’t need that support, he was the only Dr. and his account is supported by the paperwork which says Kerry only needed a bandaid. I should point out that while in Clinotonesque fashion campaign flacks have pointed out he didn’t personally sign the paperwork, neither they, nor more importantly, John Kerry have claimed Letson wasn’t the Dr. A clever way to smear somebody and simultaneously, should the media ever get angry about it, allow one to deny you ever said he wasn’t the Dr. I say that with admiration. It is one of the few instances of Kerry lying competently in this whole mess. Now, maybe Letson is lying about some of what he has said, but the gist is true, and Kerry’s wound is still superficial and Dr. Letson was the one who treated him and Kerry shouldn’t resort to lying to defend himself. Sticking to the “Letson wasn’t his Dr.” shows you are not attempting to seriously follow the other side of the story.
Endymion,
You can’t compare a man making the immaterial claim Bush has (and probably not caring about the difference when he claimed it) and Kerry’s ongoing and front and center deception. It is immaterial since Bush has not made an issue of his service. Others have. Similarly I could care less about any Kerry intern story because he has not made fidelity in his marriage an issue. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or false. Kerry is a grand ongoing public deception which he has used to justify policy. Bush never brings up his youth unless forced to. Smart since it isn’t so distinguished.
More importantly we are not discussing Bush, but Kerry. You can show all the flaws of Bush you want, prove many SBVT have lied about some things in their life, but it doesn’t mean Kerry didn’t lie. As for your claims that none of their claims have been proven true, then you need to talk to Kerry as his campaign has conceded each point I mentioned.
“Stan, can you name just ONE democrat who attached Dole's service record while he ran for President?”
I have heard them recently as a matter of fact, but:
http://www.tedellis.net/dole-article.htm
“We know that Kerry's boat and other boats were on mission "near" the Cambodian border at the time, if not on Christmas eve, at the latest by the end of January. We know from history that Navy boats actually crossed the border on missions. We also know that John O'Neill told Nixon that he was "in" Cambodia. Come to think of it, Kerry's story sounds pretty credible doesn't it, though he perhaps got the date wrong. Does this sound like a lie, something as clearly false as "I was flying jets throughout 1972 and 1973?"”
Well getting the date wrong doesn’t get him off the hook. Read his claims, they are very specific. Being near the border doesn’t work either since the claim was he was illegally ordered to do it. The Kerry camp is by peddling this story, and you parroting it, that Kerry lied about why he was there, if he was there. Of less interest is that he almost undoubtedly wasn’t ever there as his crewman deny having gone. Kerry’s campaign (I have to keep saying that as Kerry has made sure he doesn’t say any of this himself to avoid being pinned down personally) has moved the date forward repeatedly so that as of now it wasn’t in Jan or Feb, but March. You will have to get your talking points straight with the Kerry campaign. Still, even if true he has been proven a liar.
Also even if his latest story is true and we allowed that it had the same import as his original story he owes the swiftee's an apology for saying they were lying. He may have only been mistaken but they were not in saying the story was untrue. In fact a lot of this is like that. They have certainly proven that whether right or wrong in every detail his original accounts were questionable.
Mark,
See above. Even if Rassmann and Lambert are correct. Kerry still lied. Also, since the SBVT allege Kerry wrote the reports the citations were based on then the records shown are useless in attesting to the veracity of his claim. Kerry could release his records to verify if he wrote them, but he will not. Your defense is circular.
"The Kerry camp is by peddling this story, and you parroting it, that Kerry lied about why he was there, if he was there."
This should have read;
"The Kerry camp is, by peddling this story and you parroting it, admitting that Kerry lied about why he was there, if he was there."
Sorry.
From the second link:
"But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."
Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either. "
Right.
"Soldier Awarded Silver Star with Valor"
"U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste (left) pins a Silver Star with Valor medal on Staff Sgt. Raymond Bittinger, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment at Forward Operating Base Gabe near Baqubah, July 19"
(http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jul2004/a072004a.html)
I wonder who that anonymous Navy spokesman was.
he's a bleedin' retired admiral
If you were half as objective about all this as you claim, Jane, you would mention that he is also a Bush supporter and contributor to the tune of $1000 in 2000 and 2004.
While making much of Schachte's claims, you ignore those of others who were definitely on the scene, and the widow af another. You also ignore O'Neill's bizarre history, Thurlow's self-contradictions, the official records, etc. In other words, despite what you and the usual suspects here believe, the overwhelming evidence is that the Swifties are lying.
You're saying that it's bad for Kerry that it is possible to spin the story badly for him. In other words, it's bad that it's possible to tell a lot of lies without getting called. OK,that's true. But it's the unwillingness of too many people, including you, to recognize and denounce smears no matter what the evidence that makes it true.
"Outside of the question of whether or not it qualifies as worthy of a Purple Heart, it is not what he claimed in his after action report, Purple Heart citation or in his citation for the bronze star or in many other characterizations of the incident."
Sorry, the write-up in the Bronze Star report mentions only the right arm injury, which was sustained during the firefight.
(Cue: "oh but those reports were written by Kerry because he knew 35 years later he'd run as president" refrain)
Oh Letson: Sorry, Letson is basing his account on hearsay which we didn't even record until 2003. Both men (Runyon and Zaldonis) with Kerry that day deny talking with Letson.
As for Schacte's account, well, both Runyon and Zaldonis deny he was on the boat that day. Schacte also claims he is also an "independent", despite giving to Bush in 2004 and 2000 (80% of his contributions were to GOP candidates). Oh, and his fellow law partner is Chair of arrangements for the RNC. (You'll call that a smear: tough. Given what Runyon and Zaldonis say, Schacte's veracity is seriously in question here).
Sorry about the italics. The first line is quoted from the post the rest is mine.
But while I'm here let me note that for all his contributions, which he did not mention, Shachte claims to be an independent, and is a law partner of David Norcross, a rather prominent Republican.
Maybe that information helps us assess his credibility just as much as the fact that he's a retired admiral. What do you think, Jane?
We can clearly see on what side people fall WRT this one.
Personally, I think Kerry probably beefed up his story a bit. Sounds like all the SBVT guys did as well, when they got their awards.
Interesting that W gets a pass for snorting coke in the 70's, while Kerry gets pounded by fellow vets for protesting what many felt was an unjust war (and several historians have written about the general truth to the Winter Solder testimony). But I guess Bush said he was sorry that he was reckless back then.
I don't think Kerry is a particularly big liar as politicians go; Bush certainly can top him with some of his whoppers (everyone receives a tax cut, 69 stem cell lines, implying strong links b/w Saddam and 9/11). And I really don't think Bush's heart is anywhere but next to his pocket book.
As to SomeCallMeTim's comments and your reply, I have to lean towards his analysis (at least in the past three months I have been happening by this blog). You generally seem to give the benefit of the doubt first to the Repubs, while never (at least rarely) any similar sentiment to the Dems. Perhaps that is what is meant by Assymetrical Information (does that translate to Fair and Balanced?). I find your writing intelligent and insightful in general, though your partisanship and sniping against the dems undermines your credibility. Unlike the general masses here, I know you to be better than that; you have more integrity. Usually your comments back reflect less snarkiness and greater understanding of both sides. If only you would have such evenhandedness in the original...but perhaps that would not be entertaining?
"Shachte claims to be an independent, and is a law partner of David Norcross, a rather prominent Republican."
I'm going to wander off the reservation here (and contradict myself above) and note that the law firm Shachte's in seems to be a rather large one, with multiple offices, so this link may be a bit weak.
I maintain that
1) there are some things you can fake and some things you can't
2) pulling a man out of the water under fire when your boat has been blown up, is one of the ones that you can't
3) the American people are in general smart enough to know the difference
and that therefore
4) this issue can only help Kerry; if he loses, it will be because of something else.
I'm going to wander off the reservation here (and contradict myself above) and note that the law firm Shachte's in seems to be a rather large one, with multiple offices, so this link may be a bit weak.
Yes it may be. But so might the notion that we should believe him because he's (gasp) an ex-admiral. My point is that if Jane wants to present information relevant to the guy's credibility she should present it all.
Like Scott, I find Jane's claims not to be a Bush fan a bit dubious. It's stuff like this that influences my thinking.
Interesting that W gets a pass for snorting coke in the 70's, while Kerry gets pounded by fellow vets for protesting what many felt was an unjust war
Good lord people! How difficult is this? GW isn't making his cocaine and alcohol habits as a young man the centerpiece of his stated qualifications to be President of the United States! He's acknowledged his bad behavior and he's indicated that he grew up. JFK .5, on the other hand, spent an entire week (and some months before that) telling the American people that those 4 months he was in Vietnam qualify him to be elected president. There are some people who are very vocally disagreeing with that.
The real problem seems to be the way the Kerry camp is responding to the charges. Invariablly when the talking TV heads bring members of the swift boat vets onto the same show with Kerry campaign people the vets calmly explain their version of what happened while the Kerry people go apoplectic and call them names. I have yet to see civil discourse come out of the mouths of the Kerry flacks in the face of the assertions of the swift boat vets. Misdirection and evasion have been the rule.
That makes it appear as though they have something to hide.
My goodness! Such attentive parsing of my words. Bernard, when I posted this this morning, the only thing I'd read was RObert Novak's column, which didn't include the information you're advancing. It wasn't some dark conspiracy to hide relevant information from my readers; it's simply the prosaic fact that I don't know everything. If you were under the impression that I do know everything, I'm afraid I must disapoint you. You'll note that I independantly mentioned it, when I saw it on Tom Maguire's website.
Scott, I hope you know me well enough to know that I would never, ever be anything but horrified by the revolting push polling that hurt McCain in South Carolina, the charge of Tim's that pushed me over the edge.
It wasn't some dark conspiracy to hide relevant information from my readers; it's simply the prosaic fact that I don't know everything. If you were under the impression that I do know everything, I'm afraid I must disapoint you. You'll note that I independantly mentioned it, when I saw it on Tom Maguire's website.
I missed your mention. Could you point me to it? Does it change your views?
More important, since you were greatly offended by the McCain matter, can you understand how greatly Kerry supporters are offended by the Swifties? Take a hard look at the facts, Jane, and then tell us what the evidence suggests to you.
IIRC, that documentary evidence was written by Kerry himself.
No, the Swift Boat Vets allege that Kerry wrote the After Action Report. They have produced no proof whatsoever that he did so beyond saying "he wrote it" over and over. Well, OK, they have pointed to the initials on the report, but that only damages their credibility, since those initials are "KJW," which most certainly do not stand for John Forbes Kerry (Kohn Jorbes Werry???), and which the Navy Dept. has pointed out are the initials of the recipient of the AAR, not its author.
They have also alleged that Thurlow's Bronze Star citation is based on the reports allegedly written by Kerry, in spite of the fact that the paperwork clearly shows that the award was based on the testimony of Lambert, who has confirmed its accuracy (and who is not a Kerry supporter).
And I might also draw your attention to the question that no Swift Vet partisan has ever given a satisfactory answer to--why didn't Thurlow, Chenoweth or O'Dell report Kerry's supposed violations of Article 99 of the UCMJ at the time (in 1969). If you study military history at all, you find that the military takes dereliction of duty in action very seriously. Any commissioned officer (like Thurlow or Chenoweth) would have had a duty to report such behavior. Kerry would have, at a minimum, been relieved of his command had he actually "fled the scene," etc., as Thurlow, et. al., now allege. So why were they silent at the time?
I find it pretty odd that those are claiming that Kerry lied about his medals overlook the fact that Bush has lied about his "service" in the Air National Guard.
In his 1978 congressional campaign, he claimed to be an Air Force veteran (He isn't)
I was in the NY Air National Guard from Jan 1965 to July 1970 and every time I put on my uniform the patch on my left chest pocket said US AIR FORCE.
I know this for sure because I just went to my closet were my last remaining fatigue jacket is still hanging and looked at it. The sargeant stripes on my sleeves were US Air Force sargeant stripes and my discharge papers were from the US Air Force as well as my dogtags and boots and my US AIR FORCE dress uniform and hat with the US Airforce insgnia on it. So you weenies are obvously clueless, I and my fellow guardsmen at the time always considered ourselves to be in the US Air Force, as well as, the guard. To this day if you ask me if I was in the service I would reply "Yes! the Air Force".
You weenies just can't admit that you screwed up and nominated a LOSER ( and a serial Liar) so you constantly try to to paint your opponent as a worse liar than your guy is-- how pathetic.
In general I would agree that it's not usually entirely worthwhile to closely examine someone's past as gauge of who they are today. I would also say that the development of the modern "gotcha" game of airing closeted skeletons as a means to delegitimize political candidates was one of the worst things to happen to this country. It has very nearly destroyed our political process. And really, for me, the finer details of Kerry's service record (even as "fine" as how many dozens of miles he was away from Cambodia on Christmas 1968) don't interest me much. And really, I would accept apologies on inconsistencies as good enough.
However, in this case I think there are a few things worth noting. The most important fact is that the swift vets aren't attacking the minutae of Kerry's record, they are saying that his character was so extremely poor that he is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief. This is no small thing. As I said, I'm inclined to overlook the foolishness of youth, or even of last week. So long as it's only foolishnesses. Obviously, if someone is a serial killer when they're 24 that sort of thing is probably still worth considering when they're 54. I think the kind of character flaws that the swift vets are claiming are of a serious enough sort to warrant attention several decades after the fact, because stuff that deep doesn't just go away. Moreover, regardless of the seriousness, Kerry is running on his Vietnam service as his platform, in essence, so he has no one to blame but himself for making the topic relevant.
The only explanation that fits the facts is that Thurlow, Chenoweth and O'Dell are lying.
No, one of the explanations is that John (Liar) Kerry wrote the reports himself and put in whatever he wanted to. As he was supposed to be an officer and a gentleman his word could ( couldn't in his case it seems) be taken with confidence.
Using Occams Razor what would Thurlow, Chenoweth and O'Dell have to gain by lying? What does John Kerry have to gain by lying?
I thought that whole push polling nonsense was debunked already.
Odd...two nameless mice, more or less ideologically opposed in their viewpoints on current events, BOTH posting on AI. This could get confusing.
Will they coexist? Nitpick each other for the unfortunate coincidence of nomenclature? Or maybe become two immortals who shall duel until judgement day?
Equally strange is that the right-leaning mouse is the one with a hyphenated name.
Moreover, I don't really care what Mr Kerry did, or did not do, when he was 24. I shudder to think about my destiny, if my career prospects in my seventh decade are to be decided based on my behaviour as a slip of a girl.
At 24? 14 maybe, but you're far beyond the slip of anything at 24. You'll just have to live with whatever retarded crap you pulled when you should have known better.
Jane, a couple of points (which smeone may have already made and I missed it).
There is nothing ion the regulations that requires enemy fire. Nothing at all. In fact Tom Maguire has commented on this already. The crucial condition for a self inflicted wound to be considered for a PH is that it result from attacking the enemy. Its not required that Kerry be under attack but it is necessary that Kerry be attacking. And this has not been contested.
The other point is that this is not new information. O'Neill has said publicly several times that he was relying on Schachte's testimony and it is in his book. All Schachte has done is prove that O'Neill wasn't lying about that part but has provided no further information or proof as to the underlying allegations.
Jane:
Bubeleh! You know I love you and your blog. Snarky chiding, sure, but "gratuitously nasty"? I'm genuinely puzzled by your response.
Most generally, surely I was criticizing your judgment, not your character? I said that you (a) supported Republicans (judgment/ not character), (b) wrote favorably and well about their policies (a mildly positive claim), (c) and were inclined to believe their claims (judgment/not character), and (d) recognized when those claims proved baseless (judgment/not character - and positive I'd think). I've said before that I believe you (and Mindles) are bright, articulate commentators who write in good faith, and for the life of me I can't understand your pro-Bush tendencies. (Hell, a week ago I said, "I think Jane's quite smart analysis is unintentionally contorted by her support for Bush.") Good brains + good faith + bad results = bad judgment in my book. That doesn't seem nasty to me - I'd assume you make the same claim about good-faith Dems.
More specifically,
[ Dammit, Scott, Jane. I wrote a longish response in which I tried to guess what offended Jane and respond. It had a snarky bit along the lines of "surely being called a Republican isn't offensive…hmmmmmm," the use of the phrase "less than full throated," and an extended metaphor based on the lyrics to "Stairway to Heaven." All gone.]
I referenced McCain as an example of possible credibility about Bush campaign lies on your part. I mean, he could have had a black kid - he did cat around. The whispering campaign was in my mind because I'd commented to the effect of roughly what you said above about it a couple of days ago and your right-of-center were having none of it.
I didn't believe you approved of it, but I didn't think it bothered you too much - rather I assumed you thought of it as part of the rough-and-tumble of politics. IIRC, you've said before that you think all politicians lie, and that the Bush team was no worse than any other. Good to know I misread you.
Finally, it was probably sloppy of me to use the McCain episode without more comment. It has become a shorthand for not just the low lies of the Bush campaign, but also for the racism of some parts of the southern Republican party. I certainly wasn't accusing you of racism - as I've said before, your political goals (and Mindles's) are probably roughly congruent to mine, we just place different priorities on specific individual goals in the basket. I only mention this aspect of it because I didn't want to leave open the possibility that I meant to include such an accusation. I didn't.
In any case, I wasn't aiming for gratuitously nasty, or even nasty, just snarky. Well, maybe snidely snarky.
"Possible credibility" should be "possible credulousness," above. That is, indicating your guillibility, not your believability.
Ted Barlow: "If the events happened the way you describe, Kerry still would have been eligible for a Purple Heart."Jane Galt: "Actually, Ted, he would not. My understanding of the regulations is that accidental or self-inflicted injuries are specifically ruled out, except in the heat of battle, which, if no enemy fired on them, this would not have been."
GT: "There is nothing ion the regulations that requires enemy fire. Nothing at all. In fact Tom Maguire has commented on this already. The crucial condition for a self inflicted wound to be considered for a PH is that it result from attacking the enemy."
My reading of the regs is the same as GT's. An unintentionally self-inflicted wound suffered while engaging the enemy is sufficient. There's a "gross negligence" exception to this, but I don't think Kerry's accident fits the examples given.
Ted Barlow: (quoting the Cleveland Plain Dealer) "Lt. Kerry said, 'I'm going to pop a flare, and when I do, I want that engine started,' " Runyon said. But the outboard would not crank. Meanwhile, the sampan's crew steered it to the riverbank, and people started running on the shore. Runyon said shooting broke out.
Shooting by whom? Both sides or just Kerry's unit? A number of people have remarked on the Clintonian-sounding phrasing that implies Kerry was fired upon without explicitly stating it. (See "Fudging Breaks Out".)
David Walser: "Kerry's now claiming that he was in Cambodia or near Cambodia (depending which version of the story is being told) in 1969, not 1968. Well, if he were NEAR Cambodia, the President was not telling a lie. If he was "inadvertently" in Cambodia (another version from his campaign), the President STILL wasn't telling a lie. But President Nixon did lie about Americans being in Cambodia. In 1972. More than 2 years after Kerry had returned home to protest the war. So, Kerry's epiphany didn't happen. It couldn't have -- unless he has a time machine."
Judging by Kerry's and Lewis Lapham's stories, I'm starting to think DNC scientists may in fact have invented such a device.
Endymion: "Stan, can you name just ONE democrat who attached Dole's service record while he ran for President?"
Does The Nation count? Dole's War Record - The first casualty of politics is truth.
Jane Galt: "Scott, I hope you know me well enough to know that I would never, ever be anything but horrified by the revolting push polling that hurt McCain in South Carolina ..."
Is this account of the extent of anti-McCain push polls accurate?
Mark: "... the Swift Boat Vets allege that Kerry wrote the After Action Report. They have produced no proof whatsoever that he did so beyond saying 'he wrote it' over and over."
Maybe Kerry should follow Bush's example and execute an SF-180 so the press can examine all the relevant records and expose the Swift Boat Vets as frauds.
Guys, read the piece. And then read the regs. Self inflicted wounds are only eligible for purple hearts if they are inflicted "in the heat of battle". While I agree that there is probably some situation in which "the heat of battle" describes your position even though you have not been fired upon by the enemy, and in fact are not fired upon afterwards, the admiral is alleging that they were not, in fact, engaging the enemy. Since it was 3am and pitch black, it's hard to see how they could have known the enemy was there without enemy fire. ANd it seems unlikely to me that they fired grenades at the enemy and then weren't fired upon -- I'd certainly shoot back, if I had a gun. The entire point of the missions, as I understand it, was to flush the enemy by drawing fire on a small boat, and then bringing in a big boat to destroy them.
From the regs:
When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.
My wife is an elementary school teacher, and she says whenever she catches a kid misbehaving, they always try to talk their way out of it. "We're raising a nation of lawyers," she says in disgust.
Yup. George Bush is certainly a less-than-ideal president, but it's equally obvious that the man who wants to replace him is just awful, an awful candidate and an awful man. When confronted by a problem, his solution is to lawyer up and hide. Maybe he should release his records and deal with this whole thing in the open? Maybe he'd get a lot more respect if he did? Naaah. Instead, John Kerry does what he always does: he bleats "Do you who I am?" to anyone who might dare oppose him. After all, he was in Vietnam, you know! Stand aside, peasant!
Meanwhile, the Bernards and Tims of the world are just like my wife's little kids: they parse words and split atoms of minutiae, not because they like their candidate all that much, but because of their abiding hatred for the other one. The Swift Vets are obviously "liars", not merely people who have a differing opinion. And Jane, who doesn't plan to vote for Bushitler but who dared to say something positive about him, is of course a tool and a fool. Right. Uh-huh.
A few weeks back I said Bush would win this thing by about 53-47%. Now, as Kerry and his true believers screech their way into irrelevance, it's looking like a Dukakis-style blowout, or perhaps even a McGovernesque earthquake. (Gotta lay off those Bay Staters, folks. You always wind up hating yourself in the morning.) A shame, really. A strong challenge would've forced Bush to move more to the middle (what's with this anti-gay marriage crap?), and maybe make him a better president. Now he has to do little more than show up. Pity.
Jane Galt: "Guys, read the piece. And then read the regs. Self inflicted wounds are only eligible for purple hearts if they are inflicted 'in the heat of battle'. While I agree that there is probably some situation in which 'the heat of battle' describes your position even though you have not been fired upon by the enemy, and in fact are not fired upon afterwards, the admiral is alleging that they were not, in fact, engaging the enemy. Since it was 3am and pitch black, it's hard to see how they could have known the enemy was there without enemy fire. ANd it seems unlikely to me that they fired grenades at the enemy and then weren't fired upon -- I'd certainly shoot back, if I had a gun."
From the Novak piece you cite:
At about 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer ... fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.
From the relevant passage in Unfit for Command which I linked to, and which you apparently didn't read:
"Kerry requested permission to go on a skimmer operation with Lieutenant Schachte, my most senior and trusted lieutenant, using a Boston Whaler to try to interdict a Viet Cong movement of arms and munitions. The next morning at the briefing, I was informed that no enemy fire had been received on that mission. Our units had fired on some VC units running on the beach."
So, how did they see when it was pitch black at 3am? They fired a flare. Who was Kerry firing at with his M-16 and M-79 grenade launcher? Presumably the "VC units running on the beach". Why didn't the VC fire back like Sgt. Galt would have? Maybe they feared having to face heavily armed Swift Boats (which would back up the skimmer), so they decided to flee instead of fighting.
You say, "the admiral is alleging that they were not, in fact, engaging the enemy." I don't think you read his piece closely. He doesn't say there were no enemy soldiers present. He says "there was no fire from the enemy".
So, even assuming Schachte's account is accurate (and my hunch is that it is), Kerry rates the Purple Heart.
I've not visited this blog for awhile -- not much posting and what there was didn't exercise me.
Here's my two cents on this topic:
Q: Why is the blogsphere carrying on this research and debate?
A: Because John Kerry is in hiding. If he and his "band" would submit to a news conference (with no limit on questioning), then we'd all have our answers and he could "move-on" to tell us all how he'd be a better President than GWB. Until he releases all of his records (signs SF 180) and personally submits himself and HIS witnesses to open questioning, this will not be put to rest.
OBTW, Jane -- I think the stories about "push-polling" in GA against McCain are an urban myth -- they've been debunked.
The head of McCain's 2000 campaign, Richard Davis wrote in the 3/21/2004 Boston Globe, Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign. Indeed -- but against GWB.
Indeed, there was never ANY evidence that this took place -- just some anecdotes of VERY uncertain provenance.
Jane,
I am not going to pretend I am a expert on this, other than what I have read all these past days.
But what MDP posted is basically the same as what Tom Maguire posted, I suspect from a completely different political point of view. The summary is that to get a PH for a self inflicted wound the crucial point is that you be attacking them but there is no requirement in the regulations anywhere AFAIK that demands they be attacking you.
As Schachte told Lisa Myers:
I had been a patrolling officer and when I became the operations officer and the number two in command, it was subsequent to the bombing halt announced by President Johnson. We got orders to turn up the heat, try to be more aggressive, do things differently. And I conceived an operation – it became known as ‘skimmer ops.’ Very simple operation – we had a 15-foot Boston whaler. We would send that boat into ‘hot’ areas… The operation was very simple. The boat was to go into these areas and, by the way, I must mention that these areas were all non-population areas, not near any villages or anything else. We knew if anybody or anyone were around, they were enemy. We would go in, draw fire and get out immediately. Let others – swift boats standing off or maybe air support come in
and take care of the enemy forces…
(btw this coincides with what Rood had to say about more agressive tactics when supporting Kerry on the Silver Star incident)
And more. As for seeing the enemy Schachte says:
This night, we were in an area – I recall we were so close to the beach you could actually hear the water lapping on the shoreline. It was between two and three in the morning – I don't remember. I detected what I thought was some movement. So, I took one of the hand-held flares and popped it instantly. It went up and when it burst – I don't know if you've heard that described, but it really lights up the area. I thought I saw the same area of movement. So, I opened up on it with my M-60.
So now we have Schachte confirming you could see the enemy and he shot at it. That is engaging the enemy.
I detected what I thought was some movement.
Thinking that there was something there ( something which evidently did not respond to the flare or machinegun fire) does not prove the presence of enemy forces. All it does is show that these guys were working under extremely tense conditions and that Schachte erred on the side of not taking a chance that there were enemy present. It dosen't prove that they were it just proves that his original split second decision was taken on an educated hunch which seems to have been wrong according to what happened after the flare and machinegun fire smoked out NO ENEMY RESPONSE.
It is so entertaining to listen to you Kerry KoolAid drinkers clutch at straws as you stand on a chair and try to bite your own ear.
I just checked the TradeSports betting line and in the last two days Bush has been going UP and Kerry has been going DOWN. It seems that the people who are willing to put their money where their mouths are are putting it on Bush. Kerry is (French) Toast!
Three purple hearts in 4 months is suspicious in itself, unless you have a guy who got popped right away every time he got out of the hospital - but Kerry doesn't seem to have even spent a day in the hospital. A purple heart wound doesn't have to be bad enough to require hospitalization, but most of them involved long hospital stays. Getting 3 in a row that are just bad enough to require treatment by a doctor is quite a coincidence.
"it's looking like a Dukakis-style blowout, or perhaps even a McGovernesque earthquake. (Gotta lay off those Bay Staters, folks. You always wind up hating yourself in the morning.)" George McGovern was from South Dakota.
How many of you are willing to volunteer for the least dangerous job in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Very few, if any, when the alternative is to continue sitting home blogging. Probably a different story if the alternative is to be drafted, into a job over the choice of which one will have no control, and which may well be more dangerous.
> It has become a shorthand for not just the low lies of the Bush campaign, but also for the racism of some parts of the southern Republican party.
Since it doesn't seem to have actually happened, it's actually a self-applied "any accusation is acceptable against a Republican" label.
For what it's worth, here's my take on the Swiftvets controversy:
1. With the exception of one incident (maybe two), the people making these accusations have personally witnessed events which cause them to sincerely believe the Kerry's version of events is wrong and inflated. The WaPo account establishes this to my satisfaction with respect to the Rassmann incident, and what I've read about the other claims leads me to believe they are grounded in personal experience on the part of the Swiftvets. (The one exception is the Silver Star incident -- the one Rood writes about in the Tribune -- which apparently is reconstructed from other accounts, not the personal observation of any current member of the Swiftvets. The "maybe" exception is Cambodia, which, since they're claiming is a non-incident, would by its very nature not be personally experienced by anyone; their personal experience included the fact that the Mekong is not the border of Vietnam and Cambodia, the knowledge that the river was blocked off to the kinds of thing Kerry claims, and other personal knowledge about U.S. military policy from December 1968 to March 1969, the time of Kerry's service. This issue is moot anyway, because the Swiftvets have essentially already won on the Christmas in Cambodia claim, although as usual, the MSM has minimized that.)
2. Because of what he said and did after he came home, they're not going to cut Kerry any slack over these issues. With any other vet but Kerry, the discrepancy between what they saw and experienced and the story the individual vet tells would cause them to shrug their shoulders, say "So what," and get on with their life. Indeed, that's pretty much what they did even with Kerry -- notwithstanding their contempt for him because of his actions after Vietnam -- until his presidential candidacy raised the stakes so high they weren't willing to do that anymore.
Now, Democratic partisans can call what they're doing a "smear," but "smear" implies that those making the accusations don't really believe they're true. I don't think that's the case with the Swiftvets. As I say, they've turned out to be right on Xmas in Cambodia (how do you "smear" someone by telling the truth?) and they sincerely believe they're telling the truth on the other incidents about which they take issue with Kerry.
Most of the factual allegations of the first ad will probably be unresolvable. The real problem Kerry has is the second ad, which uses his own words.
One other issue: it has been frequently repeated, here and in other venues, that the Swiftvet ads distract from the "real issues." With all due respect, I disagree. Vietnam-era military service has been made an issue, not simply as generic qualification to be CIC, but specifically because of the issue looming over the campaign: the Iraq war. It's Kerry's evidence that he's really a hawk on Iraq, and would be a good war president. And quite frankly, I don't believe him on the "hawk" claim --in part because of the issues raised by the Swiftvets. I think it is a "false flag," as Wretchard has so eloquently written on The Belmont Club. For these reasons I think the Swiftvets claims are part and parcel of the "real issues."
Wretchard's essay may be read here:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/08/both-sides-now-john-kerrys-troubles.html
Tom, the problem with the WAPO piece -- and EVERY MSM piece -- is that the guys doing the research aren'e particularly qualified. They're JOURNALISTS!
What skills and/or ability does this job require? Only those that are sufficent to get yourself hired.
Here's Grant Holcomb's take on the Bronze start incicdent (from Swiftvets.com):
Why James Rassmann Is Honestly Mistaken About John Kerry Saving His Life And Kerry Is Shamelessly Exploiting The Situation
I do not doubt the sincerity of Mr. James A. Rassmann regarding his version of events on March 13, 1969.
My own experience and review of such part of the record as is available convinces me that then First Lieutenant James A. Rassmann is right about then Lieutenant Junior Grade John F. Kerry helping him out of the water. However, Rassmann is wrong about Kerry heroically saving his life.
I was an Operations Officer for 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment during the first Gulf War.
As a U.S. Marine Corps Officer, achieving the rank of Major, I was on active duty for over a decade.
I have watched first hand how men behave under enemy fire.
It is my opinion that Mr. Rassmann actually believes that he was under enemy fire and that now Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry is shamefully exploiting the situation for personal political gain.
It is also my opinion that, if a proper investigation is conducted, that Senator Kerry's "band of brothers" will reveal significantly embarrassing facts.
The right questions have not been asked and pertinent U.S. Navy and U.S. Army operational, administrative award, maintenance, and medical documents have not been reviewed, which I believe would disprove Senator Kerry's claims.
I cross-referenced the available official Naval documents and numerous statements from Senator Kerry, Mr. Rassmann, and several other officers and sailors who participated in the "Sea Lords" tactical operation on March 13, 1969.
I use a military "findings of fact" format, presented in chronological order,