Democrats & Liberals: Archives

“I wouldn’t be surprised if Kerry came into contact with broken glass from the windows, which would explain the blood that was seen.”

Interesting idea. Funny though, that neither Kerry or anyone else has ever suggested that Kerry recieved any wounds in the manner you describe. A

You’re trying pretty hard to spin stories here that would account for the gross discrepancies not only in the “official reports” (written by Kerry) but the many ways in which Kerry’s version contradicts other eye witnesses. Your task would be easier if Kerry allowed us access to the pertinent records—don’t you wonder (even for a second) why he refuses to let us see them if they support his version of events?

Wouldn’t the task of reviewing the credibility of the SwiftVets be easier, if they made all their records available ? It’s a fishing expedition. You assume certain reports were written by Kerry. What about the report written by Lambert? That’s what makes Lambert important- his story is independent verification, from a source that neither knows nor likes Kerry. More importantly, It’s Lambert who is the witness for Thurlow’s record.

It’s not spin, its logic. additionally, if you’re citing the SwiftVets on the reports initialled KJW, then you should know that the Naval historians say the initials indicate the reciever rather than the sender. Besides, we all know what his initials are: JFK.

I suggest the glass cuts because the thought crossed my mind. The glass was blown in on three sides. Remember that wounds that get medical attention are the ones that get the purplehearts and the documentation. if he gets a small cut but doesn’t have it treated, it’s officially non-existant. Besides, an explosion that destroys the windows, the radio and damages other parts is not something to be sniffed at.

I point out during the course of my entry that the people who stand with the swiftvets, by and large, are those who directly attended to that boat, who were concentrated on keeping it afloat. I suggest the possibility that they remember better what happened over the long period of securing and bailing out the boat, than in the likely abbreviated firefight.

I was trying to be kind, trying to find a plausible way to reconciled the different accounts That instead of accusing them of being liars.

Not spin? You are going to get dizzy you are spinning so hard. The trouble with your position is that even if I accept everything you say, it still doesn’t change the fcat that Kerry has lied for thirty years. He lied about his first wound; even his campaign was forced to admit that his wound may have been accidently self inflicted. He lied about atrocities; that is why his fellow veterans are so angry. He has defamed them for thirty years. He also did more damage than Jane Fonda; as one of the former POWs said, Fonda was just a ditzy actress, Kerry was a US naval officer, and he should have known better. His lies were used against the POWs. Finally, he is showing everything wrong with American politics today by condemning free speech when it disagrees with his position, but not condemning it, or even encouraging it, when it supports him. He is the ultimate hypocrite.

Troy-
He lied about his first wound? Not according to the only two people who were in the other boat. He lied about atrocities? History doesn’t agree with you and neither does factcheck. The same article also exposes how much of Kerry’s language they jettisoned overboard to make him sound like he was personally accusing soldiers, rather than relating the unfortunate stories of other officers who were forced by higher officials and officers into that situation.

The question of free speech is not involved here because what the SwiftVets have done is not only to grossly misrepresent what he has said, but also to denigrate his military record without having shouldered the required burden of proof. Do you what defamation without proof is? If it’s more than just somebody’s opinion, it’s libel in print, and slander in the spoken world and neither are protected forms of speech. Gross misrepresentation of somebody’s views or character is also grounds for legal remedies as well. Either way, the SwiftVets, short of demonstrative proof of their charges do not have the legal right to go in and trash somebody’s reputation.

You can call him a hypocrite all you want, but the SwiftVets for Truth are the ones who have yet to fulfill the promise of their name. All you have is a bunch of people who take the worst interpretation of Kerry’s war record, the most viciously revisionist view of his medals, and phrase it in the most biased language, all without the benefit of corroborative evidence.

Now, I was trying to make a case that would actually be fair to them, that would actually factor in the human element in things. Now they could be lying, but I’d prefer to think that thirty years down the line, their recall of the gunfire would faint enough (especially for the Pees, who suffered a head injury) that a little browbeating would be sufficient to get these guys to say what they did.

The question is, why did many of these people stand by Kerry for so long, only to turn against him when he ran for president? Thurlow himself helped Kerry win a tough race eight years ago. The question arises: where they telling the truth then, or now? I’d like to think these men are just confused, and suffer the same memory problems that are common to people in general, and old men in particular. But others, not trying to be so kind may conclude malicious motivations.

Oh, by the way, when he got the chance to have Jane Fonda over to one of his meetings, Kerry disinvited her. If you want to guage Kerry’s politics by photos taken through a long lens (telephoto lenses compress depth) By my estimation, He was at least four or five rows back, across a break in the crowd from her.

Even if guilt by association is your cup of tea, I don’t think a disinvitation and three or four rows of space qualify as that strong of an association. Kerry was a moderate among the protesting veterans, and when the talk turned to assassination, he resigned from the group.

I would like to hear Martin and/or Troy explain why people like Elliott, Lonsdale, and Hoffmann have so quickly changed the story they were telling about John Kerry back in 1996.

I’d also like to hear why they choose to believe people in a group that has vowed to prevent John Kerry from being president over people who have stayed neutral, who say they don’t plan to vote for Kerry, but whose version supports Kerry and differs vastly from the partisan “nonpartisan” members of the Swiftboat Veterans.

Stephen,

Kerry, apparently, did lie about his first wound. He wrote his own reports and he never expected anyone to question him about making his four months in Vietnam the cornerstone of his candidacy. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released this statement about the Kerry campaign backtracking: Kerry campaign backtracks on first purple heart. Also, Kerry’s own journal refutes his claim: Diary refutes Kerry claim.

Yes, there were atrocities committed, but not by Kerry’s unit. He testified to Congress that he witnessed the events. That means his unit did these things. This is exactly why the veterans are so angry. By Kerry using his four months in Vietnam as the cornerstone of his candidacy, he opened old wounds, many of which were never healed. Also, Kerry’s testimony (C-Span) was just wrong: Kerry’s annotated testimony

I have no problem with Kerry’s wounds or his medals; that is how the system worked, and, yes, memories can be wrong. I do have a problem with Kerry relying on four months of his life as THE reason why he should be elected. What about all of his years in the Senate? He glosses over that like it never happened. He has been on the wrong side of history again and again and again.

Kerry is a hypocrite; take a look at this: Move-on ads ok How can it be okay for groups like Move-on to attack Bush, but it not okay for the Swift Boat Veterans to attack Kerry? That is hypocrisy. How is it that an attorney for the Bush campaign had to resign since he was an advisor to the veterans, yet many attorneys are working for both the Kerry campaign or the DNC and Move-on, ACT, etc.? That is more hypocrisy.

The Swiftees are not defaming Kerry. He is a public figure. They must be saying things they know are false. They are not; they are expressing their opinions. Plus, as I already pointed out, even Kerry’s own records show his claims are false. Remember the Christmas in 1968 spent in Cambodia when Nixon was President? Thank God it was seared into Kerry’s mind or who knows what mistakes he may have made in retelling it. The publisher of Unfit for Command has, apparently, offered Kerry the opportunity to respond to the book. Speaking of books, why won’t Kerry allow his first book to be re-published? Maybe he doesn’t want voters to see the cover photo of hippies re-enacting the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima with an upside down American flag.

Many of the Swiftees are Democrats. The co-author of Unfit for Command, John O’Neill, was an Edwards supporter. This is not partisan politics with these guys. It is personal. (It’s personal) That is why even if Bush asks them to stop, they will not. I am not aware of any of the veterans changing position on Kerry with the exception of the guy who didn’t know Kerry was the guy who testified before Congress in 1971 until he heard a tape of it and realized Kerry was the one who uniquely mispronounced Ghengis Khan as Jenjis Khan. Many of the others have been opposing him for thirty years. Perhaps the thought of Kerry being elected President raised the stakes and brought out people who were otherwise neutral.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the guilt by association stuff. I only mentioned Jane Fonda because the one guy dismissed her and felt Kerry was the bigger traitor by his false and damaging testimony to the Senate which was then used to further torture the POWs.

I’m wondering why Kerry hasn’t just laid out his version of the truth, presented his evidence, and refused to comment further on the issue.

The swift boat guys are a small group, relatively unfunded when compared to all of the Kerry 527 groups and entertainment industry zillionaires who are throwing money at his campaign. Left alone, the Kerry backers would easily shout down the opposition as good Democrats normally do — the natural order of things, you might say.

If the assertions made by the swifties are lies, then sue them. That’s the remedy for libel, not whining about it.

I’ve come to believe that Kerry wants this thing on the front burner for as long as possible. I think he knew the accusations were pretty likely before he decided to run and this is the strategy he devised for dealing with them. By doing so, he can get by with just making general statements about his vision for the future and divert attention from his record since Vietnam. His positions that were popular in Boston may not be quite as popular in Columbus and elsewhere. When questioned about some specific position he took…or didn’t…he can just scream that they’re questioning his patriotism and then show them his medals. It seems to be working so far.

Meanwhile, the stuck-in-the-sixties BMW and Birkenstock brigade converges on New York, further trivializing the electoral process and turning this election into an international circus.

Sadly, we still have two more months of it to endure, not counting the probable challenges at every voting precinct in the country that Democrats don’t win. Even for some of us poltical junkies, this thing is starting to become a real bore. Never thought I’d say that.

> He wrote his own reports

That’s a lie and I challenge you to provide one shred of evidence to prove it.

> Yes, there were atrocities committed, but not
> by Kerry’s unit. He testified to Congress that
> he witnessed the events.

That’s a lie, too. He never said he “witnessed atrocities”. Check the transcript.

> I have no problem with Kerry’s wounds or his medals;

That’s another lie! You’re on a roll, Troy! Two sentences ago you made claims about Kerry “writing his own reports”, clearly suggesting that his medal recommendations weren’t deserved. Now you say you don’t care. Jeez, if you’re going to play the role of Republican hack, at least have the guts to stand by your accusations and not try to talk out of both sides of your mouth in the same post. You either argue that John Kerry’s a fraud and a coward or you don’t. This passive aggressive thing is really annoying.

Just yesterday, President Bush said he did not beleive any of these SBVT accusations, the same accusations that you still stake so much of your own credibility on. Which of you, then, is the most dishonest? Bush or you?

> Many of the Swiftees are Democrats. The co-author
> of Unfit for Command, John O’Neill, was an Edwards
> supporter.

He said he would “probably” have supported Edwards, not that he was an “Edwards supporter”. Which was a blatantly obvious lie (I can’t believe that you would fall for it. Do you really believe that, or are you just hoping other people do?), given that he’s given tons of money to Bush and to other Republicans before, and that he’s well known to be a Republican personally.

> The Swiftees are not defaming Kerry… they are
> expressing their opinions.

Is it an “opinion” when you sign an affdavit, essentially testifying under legal oath, saying that you know Kerry lied about his wounds, only to admit later that you didn’t see any such thing? Is it an “opinion” when you say there was no gunfire when you yourself have a Bronze Star for bravery under enemy fire? Is it “opnion” when you claim not to have ever been in Cambodia, when there you are, on tape, telling the President of the UNited States that you were in Cambodia?

I suppose the word “opinion” is now the conservative code-word for “lie”. It’s like you’re saying “hey, don’t question the accuracy of my testimony, it’s just my opinion.” Pathetic.

-Cf

Folks, let’s get away from the ‘you’ and discuss the content of each other’s messages. This debate is walking the edge of attacking the messenger instead of critiquing the message. If the personal nature of this debate continues, this thread will be closed or the offenders will lose access. Please, keep our policy in mind, Critique the Message, NOT the Messenger.

Sorry, my bad. Indeed, you could replace almost every instance of the word “You” in my last post with the words “Republican supporters” and my point would have been no different. I should have expressed my points that way. I’ll try to be more civil.

-Cf

Troy-
A accidental wound, if that is what it is, still counts as a purple heart wound regardless of what the private Military Order of the Purple Heart says. It’s DOD regulations that count here. You have two witnesses who say there was answering fire. Two eyewitness who were the only folks who could be there. Nobody else was around, according to them. Given that the presumption rests with official records, and corroborating eyewitnesses to that record, it must be said that there is a lack here of evidence to suggest that their record of events differs from the reality. If I wanted to be kind, I’d have to say the SwiftVets confused this outing with another one they took.

What’s more, Doctor Letson did not sign the report on Kerry, and cannot even be certain that the assertion that the people speaking were talking about Kerry’s boat was correct.

On the testimony, you basically link to a blogger who blow by blow rebuts Kerry’s testimony without even a scintilla of supporting evidence. There are book after books on Vietnam, attesting to the correctness of what was said there, even documenting evidence to backup some of the accounts Kerry heard. Then he says all the vets Kerry interviewed were lying. Does he provide any links to any debunkings or reports of such? No.

In short, like the good doctor, he just wants us to take his word for it. His word against historical texts out the wazoo, their word against official documentation, the SwiftVets word against all the witness who confirm Kerry’s representation of events.

According to a poll by the National Annenberg Election Survey, fifty-five percent of Americans believe Kerry earned every medal. of course the Veterans grade him lower.

They give him 52 percent on that. 42 percent of Americans Believe Bush is behind the ads. According to the people taking the poll, the response to the ads is going to drop in time, especially since so many holes in the story came to light as the media checked the facts given in the story.

I don’t want to bring a dictionary definition into this, but being a public figure does not mean Kerry cannot be defamed. In all actuality, he’s a much easier target for it! There are different standards for libel and slander for celebrities and public officials, but they still stand. If you knowingly lie about Kerry’s character with intent to cause his reputation harm, he can indeed go after you in a court of law.

A number of things need clearing up. For one, the hard “G” pronunciation of Ghengis Khan is actually a westernized mistake. Kerry’s pronunciation is actually fairly close to the right one. Kerry does not need to respond to Unfit For Command As he already has a book out that he stands on and it would be months before Kerry could republish that book. By the way, the Hippies are soldiers, and the upside-down flag is a distress signal.

Do you think that means that Kerry and the Veterans were sending a distress signal to the public and Congress on behalf of their fellow veterans?

Look, you call what he says false, but it doesn’t seem like you have taken the time to research this stuff for yourself. Instead, you rely upon the echo-chambered charges of the Swiftvets, even using them as a source. You imagine progress and persuasion where really you are alienating people, and failing to convince people of what you’re actually saying.

I’ll give you three guess as to what the major group was that turned out against Kerry is, in the Annenberg poll- That’s right, conservatives. It should be worrisome to you, that the only group whose majority believes the SwiftVets are the Republicans. To me, it simply just makes me feel tired inside. Your people are funded mostly by Republicans, they are advised by Republicans, they have worked for Republicans- Their Webmaster, and the coauthor of your anti-Kerry book are admitted Freepers!

And yet, after all that, you expect us to believe that there is no political bias or political connection here. A person more paranoid than myself might start to think that the Swiftvets doth protest too much, that they struggle to maintain a non-partisan facade, so as a to hide something about their group.

Personally, I’m just waiting for the other combat boot to be deployed groundward.

NOTOTH-
I think if you look at the Kerry site, heck, if you even watched the convention, you’d know what his domestic agenda was.

You seem to be angry at somebody in your post, some idealized democrat who drives a Beemer, wears Birkenstocks, etc., etc.

You know, this would be a much easier election if y’all were more open-minded about the character of the Democrats, especially since you’ve decided to hold your convention right in the middle of city filled with them.

I know I was shocked when I heard this. (warning: fiction vignette) So shocked, as a matter of fact, that I spent several minutes sitting in my chair, reading to children, before I got to the podium and said these historic words: “The Republicans are holding their convention in New York to milk the political capital of 9/11.”

That’s the only reason. perhaps it seemed like a good reason at the time, but I think it may prove to be an awful mistake. The Bush that stood on top of the rubble and shooke his fist at the terrorists might have been well advised to do that. The Subject of Farenheit 9/11 might not do so well.

Christopher,

I guess I hit a nerve, huh? Sorry. The failed logic in most of your posting makes it difficult to respond to each point. By the way, had you spent more time in actually looking at my points instead of just attacking my character, maybe we could have had an intelligent dialogue. I will just go it alone then.

I am most certainly not a Republican hack. I am, and have always been an independent. As I grow older, I despise the political games played by both sides. They do us all a disservice; we, the people, deserve much better than the choices we usually have.

See here and here about Kerry writing his own reports.

I think that Bush is very wrong to ask the Swiftees to stop their attacks. They have the Constitutional right to make their attacks. The whole question of Kerry’s medals and what he did are part of the Swiftees anger, but not mine. That is their issue, not mine. As I already said, I could care less about it. I would rather see Kerry speak out against the other 527 groups which he sees as okay because they happen to be suypporting him. Take a look at Factcheck for its evaluation of the accuracy of Move-on’s ads. And Kerry says those groups are okay? He is a hypocrite. That is why he is now trailing in the polls.

Stephen,

As I have said, I have no problem with any of Kerry’s medals. He got them. Period. If something was wrong with how he got them, then he should never have received them. He got them, so that should be the end of it. But the same thing can be said about Bush’s National Guard discharge. He got it, so drop it, but that didn’t stop a lot of Democrats from attacking him. I feel about this the same way I feel about Paul Hamm’s Olympic gold medal: he got it, and now it is time to move on because the avenues to challenge it are now closed.

I only mentioned Kerry’s pronunciation of Ghengis Khan because it is unique in our culture to pronounce it Jenjis. That is how it stood out in the POWs mind. Until that point, he didn’t know it had been Kerry whose words were used against the POWs.

Maybe the Swiftees are the “other combat boot” you mentioned. Kerry now comes across as a spoiled child. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. It is not okay for the Swiftees to challenge him, but is okay for his cronies to attack Bush in the same way. That is deplorable. Maybe that has something to do with his now trailing in the polls.

The Link to the Annenberg Survey that I boneheadedly forgot to put in place.

Troy-
It doesn’t matter whether he sometimes wrote the spot reports, it matters whether he did it those times.

What puzzles me is that you take the side of the SwiftVets against Kerry uncritically, but then tell us that it isn’t your fight, it isn’t your anger, that it isn’t your issue. If I had no other evidence to work from than your posts, I’m not sure how I’d come to that conclusion on my own. If you’re going to insist on taking a side in the argument here, I just hope you know the problems with what arguments you’re offering.

Stephen:

I think if you look at the Kerry site, heck, if you even watched the convention, you’d know what his domestic agenda was.

You seem to be angry at somebody in your post, some idealized democrat who drives a Beemer, wears Birkenstocks, etc., etc.

You know, this would be a much easier election if y’all were more open-minded about the character of the Democrats, especially since you’ve decided to hold your convention right in the middle of city filled with them.

Sorry for the outburst, Stephen, I had just watched the umteenth news report about the anti-Bush demonstrations and I was having a painful series of flashbacks to a much earlier time when similar groups were trying to shout down the opposition instead of simply voting.

There’s no question that it’s a favorite tactic of the left. You must admit that there aren’t a lot of Republicans engaging in these little field trips, unless you count the goofy looking guys in ties who got a little fired up during the never-ending recounts of the last general election.

Not to shock you too badly, but I was once a Democrat myself and still vote for Democrat candidates every now and then at the state and local level. I should also mention though that the last Democrat I ever voted for at the national level was Lyndon Johnson. Like Reagan, I didn’t leave the party; the party left me.

Troy, there is a difference between asking about a void in the President’s record, and lying about Kerry’s record. It is amazing to me so many find that distinction so ‘nuanced’.

Kerry is not trailing in the polls, it is a dead heat with up or down points within the margin of error. Amazing acutally with all of the supposed advantages of incumbency.

Electoral college predictors are also showing a dead heat.

David -

Do you have any problem with Kerry relying on four months of his life to stake his claim on the presidency? Since that is all he seems to feel qualifies him, then I think it is certainly acceptable for those who were also there be able to challenge him. Besides, Kerry can clear up the question about who is lying by allowing the release of all of his records. It is not a privacy question; he already showed those records to his biographer.

Stephen -

I am not uncritically accepting the Swiftees position. It is their battle over whether or not he deserved his medals. As I said, he got ‘em, so they’re his! I was even willing to accept Kerry’s claim about being in Cambodia until all of the facts came out about that. Again, Kerry can clear this whole thing up and make it go away by simply allowing the release of all of his records. Kerry raised the issue, and he can resolve it.

Here is an excellent summary of the problems that Kerry is having: Kerry’s Quagmire

NOTOTH-
almost three years ago, a Republican president stood up on a pile of wreckage, and put his arm around an exhausted firefighter and promised revenge for the devastation around them.

Did you know that since then, that firefighter has come to regret that moment?

The Republicans have patronized the people of New York. When it’s time to use the political power of 9/11, oh, we all stand united. But when the convention is over, the Republicans will fan out and continue to repeat the standard slanders against values many New Yorkers hold dear, and the standard accusations of treason, depravity, and cowardice, that so easily roll from the lips of nationally televised and syndicated conservative pundits.

If I felt betrayed by the partisanship and the vitriol of those pundits and politicians following 9/11, how do you think the New Yorkers that got their skies filled with smoke, their streets filled with wreckage feel? How do you think they feel about a president who let his attack dogs savage the Democrats while he mislead them into a an unnecessary, bloody war? How do you think the cosmopolitan liberals of the city feel about a president who has so alienated our allies, and so impugned the internationalism they cherished?

If the Republicans only come out of this with a few harsh demonstrations, they’ll be lucky. If not, they may very well end up with their own version of Chicago 1968.

There’s an old vulgar axiom: “Don’t crap where you eat.” Well, NOTOTH, the Republicans are just about to sit down to the dining table.

Troy-
The four months is important, but they’re not crucial. I’d doubt he’d be focusing that much on them if the SwiftVets weren’t making it an issue. The convention hoopla is our answer to what the SwiftVets and others like them were charging- that Kerry would be a soft or unreliable Commander in Chief.

As for clearing things up with records, your links give lie to that. They’re already pouring over every little detail to search for real or imagined inconsistencies. This is my problem with the SwiftVets; that they never pass up any opportunity to paint things in a negative fashion about Kerry. If the SwiftVets had been home on the range, and Kerry had passed by, the old song’s line would be “And never is heard an encouraging word!”

They don’t let details breathe, conclusions arise in the audience. I read a sample chapter of the book and was just struck by the relentless negativity and name-calling directed at Kerry. If there’s a discrepancy in detail, oh, it must be a lie. If a contradicting bit of testimony comes along, it’s Kerry’s accuser whose point of view is adopted. You would think that witness would make mistakes, that those people would be wrong on some things, that the SwiftVets would do follow ups on the story-

But that’s not what ended up there. They can call it an investigation, but in a real investigation like this, one does not always end up where expected. The fact that Kerry gets no breaks in the story compounds the forced nature of its conclusions.

As for uncritical approaches, I can’t help but see all the points you make where you take on wholesale the position of the SwiftVets. Where have you found issue with their conclusions? If I better knew your objections, I could better concede that they exist. Otherwise, I’m simply going by what you’ve written.

John Kerry joined the U.S. Navy. He didn’t have to. His family money and social position would have ensured that he could have avoided service. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He spent four months there. He was a hero. Some details are in question, but nobody can say he didn’t do his duty. (He was mistaken about being in Cambodia, at least on Christmas when Nixon was president.) He came back from Vietnam and criticized the war. Even Kerry admits he sometimes went over the top. Many Vietnam Vets felt insulted and aggrieved by what he said and they now dislike him with a passion. People on the other side of the debate think he did the right thing. Anyway, it never hurt him in liberal Massachusetts, where he pursued a successful political career. During his Senate career he was very liberal, by the standard of the place. When he decided to run for president, he began to lean more to the center. After that, to face down a left challenge from Howard Dean, he leaned left. That accomplished, to appeal to the general electorate he leaned center again. Part of this moderate strategy was to emphasize his admirable service in the U.S. Navy. Kerry made Vietnam the central part of his campaign, “reporting for duty” in Boston and randomly saluting civilian groups. This produced a backlash among the Vietnam vets mentioned above. With money from Republican leaning 527 type groups, they counterattacked. It looks like the Swift Vets have effectively neutralized Kerry’s Vietnam resume. Even many people who believe everything Kerry says were surprised he was in Vietnam for only four months. This is not fair, since he did serve honorably, but it looks like a political fact. John Kerry now will have to sell the American people on his Senate record. This is fair and where the debate should have been all along.

Stephen -

Kerry started this fight when he reported for duty at the convention. Jack’s posting is very good; the focus should never have been on Kerry’s four months in Vietnam; it should have been on his time after that. The problem is that he has not accomplished anything positive in that time unless you feel that reducing our military, reducing our intelligence and appeasing the world are positives. Kerry focused on the one thing in his past that he thought was beyond reproach - his military service. Unfortunately for Kerry, the Swiftees have taken it personally.

Also, I have said a few times now that I don’t think that it is right to challenge Kerry’s medals or to denigrate his time in Vietnam. No matter how he wound up there, he was there and, at least officially, performed well. The Swiftees, however, feel differently. That is their prerogative.

Most of what you write is accurate, Jack, but your post is sprinkled with inaccuracies.

For starters, I’m baffled at how people keep repeating the false charge that Kerry misspoke about Nixon being president when he was in Cambodia at Christmas 1968. Kerry simply said he was in Cambodia at Christmas 1968, a place where Nixon later said there were no American troops. There’s nothing in his statement to suggest the two events occurred simultaneously. Yet even some of those who support Kerry are drawing this unfounded conclusion. It’s a minor point, but illustrative of the problem in the political debate today— something gets said enough times and it becomes “fact.”

Here’s Kerry’s quote:

I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which president Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.

Where does he say that the two events occurred simultaneously? Yet some have struck an image of Kerry tuning in Nixon speaking about Cambodia on the very night he speaks of being in that country. It’s fiction.

Second, the “excellent summary” you discuss is yet another mischaracterization of the debate designed to make Kerry look bad. The author would have us believe that Kerry did all he could to avoid Vietnam and ended up there only by a stroke of bad luck, when this document proves otherwise.

Finally, I have a problem with your characterization of Kerry’s voting record. I’ve had the privelege of voting for John Kerry for Senate four times. One of the reasons I continue to back Kerry is that he isn’t the “Massachusetts liberal” you make him out to be. Is he on the left of the spectrum? Most assuredly— he’s a Democrat after all. I’d even say he’s slightest left of center among all Democrats over his nearly 20 years in the Senate. But Kerry’s voting record doesn’t support the label that you and many others have applied to him (nor does it support your contention that he’s shifted his positions somehow in his run for the presidency). I like Kerry precisely because he’s not a lockstep liberal Democrat.

I’d wager that you have little knowledge of Kerry’s voting record. I doubt you know he supported the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget amendment and has since supported other efforts to balance the budget. He voted for welfare reform, free trade, and several tax cut packages. He has consistently supported veterans issues and been a reasonable voice on defense and intelligence (despite what the GOP would have to you believe). He has also been a dogged investigator, bringing the BCCI scandal to light. And he and John McCain worked to normalize relations with Vietnam (appearing to have first been reassured that there were no additional POWs or American remains being withheld, though some POW/MIA organizations disagree).

On issues such as abortion and the environment, his record does reflect a liberal bent. So on certain social issues, Kerry is a liberal. But on many others, he is clearly a moderate. And it seems to me at least that he bases his vote on the merit of the legislation more than many others in Congress.

That’s my perception as someone he’s represented, I believe well, for nearly 20 years.

Jack…Troy. I see now that Troy actually posted the “excellent summary.” My apologies.

Jack-
Good analysis in my view, with a few issues I’d address differently.

On the issue of the timing of the Swiftvets, I don’t it’s tied to the convention, because the Book which is causing this hubbub had to have been written two or three months ago to be published at this date and time. This was planned. By whom? The SwiftVets of course, but the question of who else was involved is still open. Is Kerry’s Vietnam resume blunted? It might be in the short term, but it might have focused enough attention on Kerry’s war record that it will be harder for people to forget that he served as he did. I also believe the attack and the effective questions raised against that attack may have strengthened non-conservatives view of Kerry’s war record. I do agree, though, that absent any more big revelations solid, truthful big revelations, this issue should be allowed to fade away.

How do you think they feel about a president who let his attack dogs savage the Democrats while he mislead them into a an unnecessary, bloody war? How do you think the cosmopolitan liberals of the city feel about a president who has so alienated our allies, and so impugned the internationalism they cherished?

Attack dogs…savage…bloody: Nothing like a little reasoned debate to determine Mr. Kerry’s qualifications for the office he seeks.

I think you’ve just proven my point. An unruly mob waving signs and screaming obscenities isn’t going to change any minds or votes and makes the whole election process a sideshow. Fine, New York, send in the clowns.

> I am most certainly not a Republican
> hack. I am, and have always been an
> independent.

I didn’t call you a “Republican hack”, I said you were playing the role of one. Many people taking the “Kerry’s military record is questionable” position may not be card-carrying members of the GOP, but it seems to me that lots of conservatives and even moderates are being profoundly manipulated by the Republican hack machine. The credulity, the lack of skepticism and logical rigor, that so many people are showing with regards to these flimsy charges is astounding.

For example, were those two articles you linked to supposed to be “evidence” that Kerry wrote his Bronze Star, Silver Star, or Purple Heart recommendations? I don’t think so. At best, you were trying to show that Kerry may have written the daily “spot reports” (whatever that means), but even that isn’t proven, not by a long shot. No matter how the right-wing zealots at NewsMax spin it, the reality is that in his testimony he said that he “sent” spot reports (not “wrote” them), only to learn later that they had been altered and exaggerated by his higher-ups.

In order to credibly portray Kerry as a liar and a forger of documents, you’d have to provide evidence that Kerry himself wrote reports in the first place, AND that he did so by himself, writing reports for his entire unit, including other boats and other skippers, AND that his fellow swift boat skippers never wrote any of the reports and trusted Kerry himself exclusively to write them, AND that other people who saw the reports and signed off on them - including commanders at several levels above him - were either circumvented or deceived by Kerry personally in order to ensure that the historical record would include the words “enemy gunfire” when no such fire was present. Do you not see how preposterous this allegation is? You have provided no evidence at all to support that allegation. This 1971 “spot report” testimony is pathetically flimsy, a desperate attempt for your side to try to patch up Larry Thurlow’s hastily-hatched lie that Kerry wrote the reports.

Also, everyone on both sides should stop saying that Kerry “served for four months”. He was stationed in the Vietnam combat zone for four months, but he actually served full-time in the US Navy from February 1966 to March 1970 - that’s four years of military service, folks. Most Vietnam-era servicemen didn’t go to Vietnam at all, so while four months isn’t the same as the one year that most Vietnam vets endured, it’s a lot more than most servicemen experienced and in no way should four months of combat and four years of service be something that Americans mock or disparage.

-Cf

Take a look at this editorial from today’s NY Post: Kerry’s War vs. Kerry
It makes some great points.

Interesting Post editorial, Troy. Unfortunately, it’s infested with lies and misleading statements.

From the Post article:

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman denied at week’s end having written the Silver Star citation that appears on John Kerry’s campaign Web site over Lehman’s signature … the former Navy secretary told the Chicago Sun-Times Friday: “I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it.”

I’m curious, Troy, about what you expect us to conclude from the Post editorial. I’m curious also about what you conclude from it. I looked into the allegations, and frankly the only conclusion I can find is that the right-wing echo chamber is alive and well. In fact, that Post editorial is an excellent case study in how the deception machine operates.

Let’s first look at some background around the Post’s allegations.

John Lehman was Secretary of the Navy from 5 Feb 1981 - 10 Apr 1987. He wasn’t Secretary of the Navy during the Vietnam War. There are three different Silver Star citations at the John Kerry web site, two here and a third one found here. The first two are word-for-word identical. The first is most likely from the vietnam era. The second, the one signed by Lehman, is from the 1980’s.

It looks to me like the Lehman citation is basically a form letter, the kind of thing a soldier could get merely by asking the Department of the Navy for a copy. One would assume that the Secretary of the Navy wouldn’t bother to personally sign Silver Star citations, in particular those requested as copies by veterans from a decade earlier.

The wording on the Lehman document is copied word-for-word from the older document, so naturally Lehman would say that he “didn’t write” it. The Post was essentially sensationalizing a non-issue, even making a sinister suggestion that Kerry forged the document.

The most shameful part of this is that the Post literally left out the most important part from the original Sun Times article:

Asked how the citation could have been executed over his signature without his knowledge, Lehman said: “I have no idea. I can only imagine they were signed by an autopen.” The autopen is a device often used in the routine execution of executive documents in government.

Do you not see just how devious the Post is being in this editorial? They are hoping that you won’t check the facts or do any research, that you will just unquestioningly accept what they say as true. It’s so easy to check the facts, yet the Post knows that almost nobody does. So they print lies and deceptions with impunity.

It gets worse, too. The Post editorial makes another specious allegation that even a tiny bit of research reveals to be a total lie.

Kerry’s campaign Web site brags that he received a “Silver Star with combat V.” Yet Thomas Lipscomb, writing in The Chicago Sun-Times, quotes a Navy spokesman disputing that: “The Navy has never issued a ‘combat V’ to anyone for a Silver Star.”

Adds Lipscomb: “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.”

This is what I mean by “lack of skepticism”. You seemingly swallowed the Post’s version of this story at face value, but it’s not even remotely true, and all it takes is a couple of clicks with Google to find the real truth. Here’s another Sun-Times article, written by Thomas Lipscomb, which contains the other false allegations the Post is basing the editorial on. From the Sun-Times:

But the official records on Kerry’s Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry’s military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a “Silver Star with combat V.”

This is what is meant by “Republican echo chamber”. The Sun-Times didn’t say “Kerry’s campaign Web site brags that he received a ‘Silver Star with combat V.’” It merely says that an official Navy document (DD214) says so. The Post twisted those words to make it sound like the Kerry campaign itself is saying that his Silver Star has a Combat V. The Post’s allegation is, however, a lie. Here’s what John Kerry’s web site actually says:

Lt. John Kerry’s leadership, courage, and sacrifice earned him a Silver Star, the Navy’s fifth highest medal, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, awarded for wounds received in combat.

About that DD214: Take a look at it (the second page is the one in question). It’s a typewritten form, a “Report of Transfer or Discharge”, documenting Kerry’s transfer from the Navy to the Navy Reserves. It was apparently written by a “T Vanstrydonck, LTJG”. It does say “Silver Star with Combat “V”, but anyone with even an ounce of common sense can see that this is a clerical error on the part of Mr. Vanstrybonck and the US Navy.

Holding Kerry responsible for the content of the DD214 is ludicrous. Yet Lipscomb goes so far as to suggest that Kerry is guilty of criminal forgery when he refers to “a complaint that led last month to the sentencing of Navy Capt. Roger D. Edwards to 115 days in the brig for falsification of his records.” Such inflammatory insinuations seem to set the tone for this whole debate, suggesting that Kerry might have similarly forged more of his own documents.

Only a cheap partisan hack would interpret this obvious clerical error to mean that “Kerry’s campaign Web site brags that he received a ‘Silver Star with combat V.’”. Only a peddler in destructive lies would portray this as a possible example of deliberate deception by John Kerry.

And yes, it gets even worse. The Lipscomb Sun-Times article makes yet another false allegation:

But a third [Silver Star] citation exists that appears to be the earliest. And it is not on the Kerry campaign Web site. It was issued by Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam.

This is a lie. The third citation is on the Kerry web site, and it has been there for many months now. You can read it yourself. Lipscomb flat out lied. One lie from one columnist gets twisted even further by another editorial page, and then, eventually, it ends up being repeated by regular folks around the water coolers and even right here on WatchBlog. Every step of the way, someone blindly accepts these damning allegations without evidence and without doubt, and every step of the way someone adds their own little lies to the story. Laziness and partisanship cause these lies to spin out of control, forcing intellectually responsible, hard-working people like me to do the actual research to debunk them.

Karl Rove once said “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” We Kerry supporters are explaining — and proving — constantly that these right-wing allegations are transparent lies, but the right keeps them coming, like a bombardment. Have they no shame?

-Cf

Christopher -

Thanks for your Herculean efforts in analysing the NY Post editorial. I still disagree with you, however. We can go on like this forever. I can go find sites to refute your sites. You can then refute mine, ad nauseum. Let’s move on to something more productive.

If I vote for Bush, I will be voting for the lesser of two evils. I don’t like all that Bush does, but on the biggest issue, national security, he scares me far less than Kerry. Since you seem to be such an avid Kerry supporter, tell me why I should vote for him.

I wonder if this is the incident in which ‘VC’ was thrown from the boat or if there was another mine which hit Kerry’s boat during the four months he was there?

> I can go find sites to refute your sites.

Obviously you can’t. :-)

> Since you seem to be such an avid Kerry
> supporter, tell me why I should vote
> for him.

The differences between Bush and Kerry are vast. I don’t know enough about you to know what you think is important in a President, so I couldn’t possibly tell you why you personally should vote for Kerry. For me, however, it’s night and day. There’s pretty much not a single policy that Bush has that I agree with. You see, I’m no swing voter — I’m a mainstream liberal.

-Cf

NOTOTH-
We haven’t had a war with this high a death toll in three decades. Within my lifetime, 975 dead and 6690 wounded certainly qualifies as the bloodiest war this country has faced, and that I have ever seen.

As for attack dogs, I refer to the manner of the GOP’s spokespeople, who have used such endearing terms as traitor to describe Democrats. One of your young rising stars lists our political strain of thought as one of the evils in the world to eliminate. If there isn’t something savage about that rhetoric, I wonder how bad it would have to get for you to find it uncivil.

My point is, however you would hope otherwise, many New Yorkers are among the people your party has offended by such rhetoric, and by the actions of your president. Your president took them for granted. This “unruly mob”, whose sole major incident of nonpeaceful protest was the burning of a paper mache dragon did not make the election a sideshow, it just cast light on a basic truth of why the Republicans were there: to exploit the pain and suffering of thousands of their fellow New Yorkers in order to re-elect a president who betrayed their values. Why shouldn’t they protest. Why shouldn’t they march out and let their voices be heard. Should they just keep to their designated “free speech zones, off away from the cameras and the notice of the news networks?

Or should they stage one of the largest protests in history, not hurting a soul, and ultimately showing the rest of the world how they feel about this political interloper?

Troy-
They’re taking clerical errors from other people and using them as evidence of Kerry’s dishonesty. If Kerry himself wrote the report, it’s his lie. If he did not, then it is false to blame Kerry for it. Simple as that. If you simply gloss over these mistakes as if they don’t matter, you’ll never prove anything, if there’s anything to prove. Find a real irregularity and it will get the attention due to it. Otherwise, you’re showing the rest of us, why Kerry shouldn’t dignify your requests for all the documents. While you don’t have to be politically fair to Kerry, you should at least approach the facts with integrity and not jump to partisan conclusions

Eric-
Still gnawing at that particular bone? ;-)

Swiftboat missions during Operation Overlord were designed to provoke ambushes, to fly the flag down rivers that were in enemy control. I wouldn’t be surprised if mines were an occasional hazard.

I think it’s telling that month after this issue arises, we’re not talking about Kerry’s medals, we’re discussing whether Kerry told a shaggy dog story about a… a… well, you know.

Oh, and that’s SEALORDS. Overlord’s D-Day

Wow, so many of you, like Stephen and David, have claimed that Viet Nam should NOT be the issue. Yet here you are chattering away about…yep, you guessed it…VIET NAM.

Yeah, yeah, you’re gonna say that you are just responding, but that doesn’t explain starting up new threads to continue the discussions.

Here’s the deal for me: Kerry got medals in Viet Nam. We all know there was some measure of wordsmithing on medals, but so what.

We also know there are conflicting stories about some of what happened, and that alone doesn’t make either side a liar. Stephen did a pretty good job of showing how that can happen.

So lets leave the medals issue alone—its really not that salient in today’s world. What is salient is that 250 of Kerry’s peers—his “band of brothers” so to speak—don’t feel he is qualified to be President.

The SBVT feels Kerry betrayed Viet Nam veterans when he returned to the US—this is their opinion and they have the right to express it.

Kerry knew, or should have known the power of his voice in front of Congress. Some want to claim that he was simply repeating what others had said, and not actually saying those things happened. But that’s incorrect, since on Meet the Press this year, Kerry defended the accuracy of his statements, while admitting that his language and rhetoric was a bit harsh. But he pointedly maintained the truth of what he said.

Let’s focus instead on Kerry after Viet Nam. This is what many of you on the “left” keep saying we should do. So bring it on….stop creating threads about Viet Nam and have the courage to expand on his 22 seconds of glory (I’m referring to the amount of time he spent talking about his glorious Senate career in his acceptance speech).

Perhaps there is enough parallel between Vietnam and Iraq for Kerrys war record to be such an important issue worthy of the campaign trail and heated debate. Or perhaps Vietnam is over and hopefully we have all learned what we needed to from a non-declared war and its aftermath. If this is Kerrys fall back position then the card has already been played. Long ago… perhaps Kerry should ask not what this country can do for him but what he can do for this country.
In contrast to Vietnam, Iraq is a declared war a war that needed to be finished… we cry and moan about the horrors we see like we are creating them like all we have to do is quit, like the world would be a better place if we where not involved and took no action except complain about how we let these horrors go on unchecked… well you cant have it both ways and we cant have it both ways. We are far beyond being a neutral country our presence is felt no matter how we act and there are those who dont like us because of that presence, who can only remain checked through vigilance and determination right or wrong.
From what I’ve read about Kerry his vigilance was over long ago when he served, his consistancy was over long ago when he gave in.

Terry-
We never declared war against Iraq. We went in with a coaltion based on a UN mandate. It was literally the world against Iraq. This is why Bush had to go to the UN at all. Were it a declared war on our part, we could have alleged that Saddam had fudged on the cease-fire agreement, and just gone in. We really should have let the inspections go to their end, and then let Saddam come out from under the sanctions. Sounds bad, doesn’t it? Except, from there, we would have had a position of strength. No longer would the authority to go to war have required us to go through the UN. No longer would the presence or absence of the WMDS been a necessary issue.

What’s more, we could have used Kosovo and Bosnia as precedents, real precedents, if Saddam made any move against his neighbors or against his own people. Instead of being some supporting evidence for the necessity of disarming Iraq, humanitarian concerns could have been the main reason, and having overthrown Saddam, we could have proved his guilt unequivocally with the mass graves that we did find this in this invasion.

But of course, some people would see that as being soft on Saddam. But really it’d be no more softer than the California three strikes law. Saddam would be given parole, but it would be yanked if he ever chose aggression again.