August 5, 2004: Cambodia, Mon Amour

I just finished reading the sample chapter from the current No. 1 hit on Amazon. I also read the transcript of the interchange between Judy Woodruff, Jim Rassman and Larry Thurlow linked by Instapundit. And of course I saw the now infamous ad.

The chapter, not surprisingly, is the most detailed and undoubtedly the most important substantively. (The CNN interchange was on the usual banal he said/she said level one gets on cable.) In our lives we have seen a lot of political nastiness from both sides of the aisle, most of it repellent and brainless. But this is different. The chapter touches on a great number of matters. A whole series of events revolving around Kerry's purple hearts and medals are reported upon. I have no idea how many of them are true--or if any of them are--but even a small percentage being accurate would constitute a damaging, if not devastating, portrait of the candidate and the man.

For some reason, among the many stories, a subchapter entitled "Christmas in 'Cambodia' - Vietnam, December 1968" struck a special chord with me. Apparently, on the floor of the US Senate in 1986, Kerry asserted he was ordered into Cambodia in Christmas 1968. As he later told the Boston Herald, "I remember spending Christmas of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Never mind that Nixon was not yet president at Christmas of 1968, a whole slew of people, quoted in the chapter say it was impossible for Kerry to have been within fifty miles of Cambodia. They also say where he was and what he did. (It wasn't pretty.) Are they lying? Well, consider this. Despite having been repeated by Kerry many times over the years, this story (according to the chapter) is curiously absent from the Senator's recent laudatory campaign bio Tour of Duty. Why, if it was so important to him, so meaningful?

Now why do I find this kind of petty prevarication so disturbing? Well, I don't like the idea of having a man who sounds like a pathetic barroom blowhard (and that's what he sounds like to me) becoming President of the United States in a time of war. People like this start to believe their own lies. Maybe the greater good of Kerry's "policies" outweighs this for some people. They'll have to explain that to me. But they'll also have to explain all the rest of this book... in detail.

UPDATE: A retraction has come in from one of the Swift Boat veterans. More of these will be good news for Kerry on this matter. I will now shut my mouth about this as I intended to do earlier and wait and see. On to contemporary matters.

OOPS: Now that same veteran, Elliot, is saying the Boston Globe got it wrong. Where is this all headed and will the Mainstream Media report it fully? Time will tell.

MEANWHILE: Hugh Hewitt has more on the mysterious incursion into Cambodia.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Actually, I thought the Swiftie on CNN made some pretty substantive points about how none of the other boats, most of them stationary, drew any fire or took damage from the evidently nonexistent shore fire.

I'm sure the man in the water testified honestly, but I'm skeptical of how objective an observer he was under the circumstances. It is entirely possible he was wrong about taking fire, or mistook the Swift boats' suppressive fire on the shoreline as fire directed at him.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 5, 2004 5:54 PM

I tend to hope that it is the latter explanation.

I think it's striking that the Dems keep yammering on that none of these guys were on John Kerry's boat. No, they weren't they were his peers and his superiors. They are folks who are less likely to be intimidated, and far less likely to be "influenced" by their commander.

Posted by: holdfast at August 5, 2004 6:14 PM

Oh - and I also think that the Cambodia story is important. It highlights JF'nK's habit of making up stories to illustrate a point, when the point by itself would still be (arguably) valid. Also the tendency to totally re-write history (Vietnam was all Nixon, etc.)

Anyone remember the story about his airborne dog - VC I think his name was?

Posted by: holdfast at August 5, 2004 6:17 PM

Based on your comments, I will read the book. I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the reports (that ring true) about John Kerry's character, and those reports, combined with his ever-changing positions on important issues, are compelling reasons not to vote for him. It is somewhat disconcerting--even frightening--to think that someone who would make up stories like the Cambodia Christmas one (the words
"narcissistic" and "self-serving" come to mind) could become CIC. God knows that anyone who has the desire to become President of the US must be somewhat narcissistic, but there is always the hope that real leaders might emerge from the process. 8 months ago, I was one of those swing voters the two parties are vying for and I might have voted for Joe Lieberman, a decent man who would be strong for our country, if the Dems had chosen him. I disagree with Bush on many social issues, but compared to Kerry, he is a sincere, principled, and decisive leader, who has earned my vote by the strength of his committment to protect America.

Posted by: dr. sanity at August 5, 2004 6:19 PM

Naturally, the press is glossing over the important point: While individual recollections are always suspect for a variety of reasons, the fact is that opinion among the officers who served with Kerry and in his chain of command is overwhelmingly and severely negative. Only one out of 22 surviving officers in his unit is willing to come out as a supporter? Unless you believe that the Right-Wing Republican conspiracy was placing its operatives in Swift Boats 36 years ago to thwart John Kerry, you'd have to think that there's something not quite right with the candidate. Perhaps the apparent character flaws that are bothering Roger are similar to what these officers noticed a long time ago.

Posted by: Kurt at August 5, 2004 6:22 PM

The issue devolves to one of who is lying; this group of veterans or Sen. Kerry?

I keep asking myself who has anything to gain from the lie, because we lie in order to protect or advance ourselves. The calculus here points to Sen. Kerry being the liar, he gains credibility as a leader if these stories are true. The swiftboatvets gain nothing! If they are lying all they get is excoriated in the public eye. Even if they are telling the truth they have put a lot on the line for no conceivable gain. The DNC is already attacking.

I don't know the truth here, but it is probably verifiable with some extensive research into Sen. Kerry's service records and medical records related to his service. It will be impossible for him to embargo this research after the DNC screaming for Pres. Bush's Guard records for the last four years.

My opinion is that we've just seen the Kerry candidacy turn to toast.

Posted by: J.R. at August 5, 2004 6:24 PM

Anyone remember the story about his airborne dog - VC I think his name was?

I do. If memory serves, the wise and all-powerful deity created a photo(shop) image of VC's memorable ascension. Please behold it, Big A!

Posted by: mrp at August 5, 2004 6:28 PM

J.R.,

"It will be impossible for him to embargo this research after the DNC screaming for Pres. Bush's Guard records for the last four years."

With most of the media in his pocket? You wanna put money on that?

Posted by: Cybrludite at August 5, 2004 6:29 PM

J.R. — Well, you have one guy with what, five witnesses, at least some of whom may have been benefited from supporting his testimony, on one side, and something like a hundred and fifty witnesses on the other who contradict his every story. Kerry's gonna need some Kobe-class lawyerin' for this one...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 5, 2004 6:33 PM

MSNBC just had one of the SwiftBoatVets and one of Kerry's vets in a too short point-counterpoint.

Foxnews also covered the story, as did CNN.

I've been scanning the news sites (mainstream stuff) at CBS, MSNBC, ABC, FoxNews, Bloomberg, as well as BBC.

Up until an hour ago, only FoxNews had the story, then CBS. I'm sure the others will get on it soon.

NYT doesn't have it yet.

MSNBC is doing something like "McCain deplores
anti-Kerry ad
White House declines
to repudiate it"

This thing is going to be examined closely. If its stands up, in facts, then it could do some serious damage. I hope these guys didn't stretch any truths.

Even if F9/11 is bull, I'd like this to be a clean take-down.

I don't usually buy these kinds of books, but I guess I'll head from here to Amazon.

Posted by: John Lynch at August 5, 2004 6:43 PM

The Bush administration has wisely distanced itself from this. But these allegations are nothing like those against Bill Clinton. They are much more serious. The Dems. will try to smear the makers of the allegations as they always do. (remember what they did to Paula Jones) But already you can read between the lines. They respond to the ad by accusing the vets of lying. They say none of the men served on Kerry's BOAT. They did not claim to have been on his boat. They said they served with him. I am sure this will be verified as true. They say the man who claims to have treated his wounds is not a doctor. I'm sure he was a field medic. They also say Conservative activists contributed to the group. So what? Do liberals care that George Soros has contributed millions to anti-Bush groups? Does the fact that Michael Moore is a leftist make his film less legitimate to them? The hypocrisy makes me nauseous. I can only conclude that these people genuinely believe that they are right and anyone who opooses their agenda is illegitimate and not worth listening to. This must not be dismissed. It is clearly relevant. John Kerry has disturbed me for a long time. His entire bio is wierd. I have never heard of anyone getting three purple hearts without spending one day in the hospital. As I see it, these guys have no motive to lie. Indeed if they can be proven as lies, it is actionable slander. I think their are plenty of reasons to oppose Kerry even if he served with great honor. But if he did not, it is a slander on genuine war heroes to call Kerry a war hero. The strangest thing of all about Kerry is the way he has bragged about his service. I have never known ANY veteran that has used his war service to THIS extent. Not even JFK made it the centerpiece of his entire campaign. I will not be called a right winger or a partisan because I am willing to question the convetional wisdom that this man is a great hero.

Posted by: Doug at August 5, 2004 6:44 PM

Here's the VC flight, as captured by the ruler of worlds.

Posted by: mrp at August 5, 2004 6:49 PM

A very good friend of mine has posed a question that I will just throw out here for discussion. Could it simply be that these guys are in this for revenge, for Kerry's stateside anti-war activities?

Now don't yell at me. I'm just saying we might see this spin. It would be interesting, because it would open up that whole story even more fully.

Posted by: Bostonian at August 5, 2004 6:50 PM

The ad is very impressive. The credibilty of these vets is clearly supported by their lack of motive to lie, their age, their occupations, the clarity of their memories, and their respectable demeanor as seen in the ad.
By coming forward, they surely expected to be subjected to a barrage of allegations calling them "liars" from young fuzzy faced Kerry campaign aides who never sighted a rifle and invasive questions by aggressive doubting news reporters like Judy Woodruff. I can not think for a second that they are lying for this 15 minutes of shame. Preposterous.

Posted by: jedrury at August 5, 2004 7:02 PM

Color me jaded, but I don't think things like this are going to make a whole lot of difference. People who were going to vote for Kerry will dismiss it, and those who were going to vote for Bush will believe it. The act of changing one's mind based on new information is something most people are incapable of--they simply emliminate or discount information which doesn't reinforce their existing positions.

That might not be true of many people in his forum--I know it isn't for Roger himself--but that's the way it is for most people in general.

Posted by: zak braverman at August 5, 2004 7:04 PM

Well Bostonian, I'm sure we will see all kinds of spin and counter-attacks. It is a given.

Some number of people will believe it even if it turns out completely false. Some won't believe it even if there is video evidence and Mother Theresa's testimony.

The real value to this will be with the undecideds.

Motives will be examind, but I, like Doug and J.R. above, can't see much of a motive. Revenge is possible. Money (from the book) is possible. But neither seem enough to go through what they are going to go through if it is not verifiable truth.

Here's hoping.

Posted by: John Lynch at August 5, 2004 7:07 PM

From Instapundit, Kerry Lawyers Up Again

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 5, 2004 7:14 PM

I think their motive is just what they say it is: from what they observed of his behavior both in Viet Nam and afterward, they don't believe that Kerry is fit to be CIC. He sounds to me like he was the type of junior officer who often ended up getting their men killed by being either stupid or scared. That's bad enough when all you're talking about is a few guys on a swift boat. When you're talking about a man who will have command over the largest army in the world . . . God save us.

He is striking me more and more as a small, hollow poseur of a man. The kind of man who was the inspiration for Carly Simon's "You're So Vain." You got one eye on the mirror and you watch yourself a lot . . .

Posted by: penwil at August 5, 2004 7:14 PM

Bostonian,

No need for revenge on Kerry's state side policy.

That will take care of itself in due course.

Study the history of Winter Soldier and Dewey Canyon.

You can get a lot of it from Google.

Operation Swift Boat is just the opening salvo.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 5, 2004 7:24 PM

I think the people who have the greatest chance of being affected by an ad like this are my grandparents and people like them. My grandparents have voted in every election for the past 65 or so years, and have voted Democrat ever since FDR. The chances of them voting for a Republican, ever, are not good, even though their politics are much closer to Bush's than Kerry's. However, my grandfather received a purple heart in WWII as a tank commander or something similar, and would feel VERY strongly about someone lying to get medals or doing something similarly dishonorable. A few thousand of the WWII generation Democrats could have some serious effects.

Posted by: Katie at August 5, 2004 7:28 PM

Bostonian:

I can't see any sense to a "revenge" motive. The idea of lining up this many people, some of whom surely have a great deal to lose, to get together and create a lie for the purpose of getting revenge, not likely.

All it would take to put the kabosh on such a plan is one or a few to say something like, "Hey, comeon now guys, its 30 years later and I'm not gonna cook up a lie to get even with somebody for lying about me." And some of these guys, such as O'Neill, are sophisticated enough to know that the story will be hammered on. They aren't stupid enough to think they could keep a revenge motivated lie intact even if they were somehow stupid enough to cook up the idea in the first place.

This could ultiimately turn out any way, but as others have said above, there just doesn't seem much of a case for the Swiftvets to cook this up. At the very least they strongly believe this. Given that Kerry is such a Lurch Lookin nutball it seems unlikely to me that they have some sort of composite mistaken identity thing going here either.

Is there one of those Iowa Markets things anywhere taking bets (investments?) on the truth or dare of this? I'd give it 95% of being at least 85% correct. Too many people involved to try to pull off fraud.

The single most plausible answer is that one self-absorbed nutball (that would be Kerry) cooked up a fantasy and ride it too hard and put it up wet.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 5, 2004 7:34 PM

BTW, if anyone is doing an Iowa Markets gaming thing on this, what's the odds Kerry will say, "Hey, this is all a bunch of slanderous crap and I've authorized DoD to release ALL my records to prove it." Anybody want that bet?

Kerry cooked his own goose, hope he likes the taste of it. We'll get a few days of people thinking this is just a horrible attack by the horrible, mean-sprited Republicans, but Kerry can't manage sincerity and if anyone in the MSM keeps on it even a little bit he's toast.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 5, 2004 7:39 PM

This is what's bothered me from the beginning about John Kerry. Look, there are two relevant "types" in the military, the braggart ("barroom blowhard") and the hyperaggressive "Rambo." The first is a fun-object, who may or may not be honored depending on the quality of the stories he tells; a competitor to Roger, in a different genre :-). The second was once honored, but more and more as our military becomes professional the Rambo character slips more and more into being viewed as useless, even counterproductive.

Both types have traditionally been dissed by the Left, the blowhard as inspiring people who would otherwise be peaceful to violence, the Rambo-type for his personal actions. In this we militarists considered that we had a thin but real connection to the leftists; our disapprobation wasn't and isn't as great as theirs, but it does exist.

It only takes one or two listens to John Kerry's stories to place him immediately into the "barroom blowhard" category, a person who exaggerates when he doesn't precisely lie. A skilful blowhard is immensely entertaining, and in a backhanded way there's actually a competition for status in this category, but he'd damned well better be able to back up his stories with evidence or his respect goes to nothing; good storytelling skills are not a predictor of leadership ability, rather the reverse.

And Kerry's own stories and claims place him squarely in the Rambo category -- zooming in under fire to rescue a man in the water, heading off into the village with an M-16 and a grim expression. The dissing he gets from his "brother" officers and his chain of command point directly to exactly the same thing, a hotheaded, egotistical, all-guns-blazing hero, the type who gets medals in order to get the asshole out of there -- what Robert Townsend called "percussive sublimation": if he's promoted he isn't screwing up the unit any more.

The curious thing is: the same people who've been sneering at war stories, and putting Rambo up as the archetype of Evil Military ever since the movie came out and the name became available, are now the ones complimenting John Kerry on his war heroism and oohing and aahing at his vainglorious sea stories. Can't they keep their own ideology straight?

Percussive sublimation won't work here, because there's no post higher than President. Maybe we can go sideways. When is Kofi Annan's term over?

Regards,
Ric Locke

Posted by: Ric Locke at August 5, 2004 7:43 PM

penwil, You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself gavotte
Gavotte -- A French peasant dance of Baroque origin

Posted by: Stephen_M at August 5, 2004 7:56 PM

Bostonian asks, "Could it simply be that these guys are in this for revenge, for Kerry's stateside anti-war activities?"

Kerry was accused of "war crimes" in an election in the '90s (maybe against Bill Weld?). It is my understanding that several of these same anti-Kerry vets came to his defense. They defended him not because they agreed with him on issues but because they served with him and knew the charges to be untrue.

Posted by: Terry at August 5, 2004 7:58 PM

Addendum:

If Kerry really is a blowhard sea-story teller -- and it looks more and more as if he is -- he falls squarely into the saddest, most pitiful subdivision of that group: the guy whose accomplishments are real and substantive, but for whom that's not enough. The guy who detected the ambush and saved his patrol, but that's not enough; he has to have personally killed fifty VC. The guy who's gotten commendations as a paratrooper, but that's not enough; he has to be Special Forces instead of 82nd, with a hundred combat drops. The guy who was wounded in a combat extraction, but that's not enough; he has to have made love to the head nurse at Bethesda on the ward.

If you meet one such, strive to be kind. When they aren't rich they often end up on the street, with a bottle of cheap wine in a brown paper bag, repeating their stories over and over in a drunken slur to uncaring passers-by. I've met 'em at bus stations and on street corners, in cheap bars and dives; some of them are relatives and high-school classmates. Their signature is, "Listen," (finger point), "I was in the Nam, you know," accompanied by a direct stare that falls away when you meet their eyes. The story follows...

Listen to their stories as long as you can; give 'em a fiver if they're down and out; break contact at the earliest opportunity, for your own sanity; shed a tear for them; and never, ever, ever give them any responsibility whatever.

Regards,
Ric Locke

Posted by: Ric Locke at August 5, 2004 8:02 PM

But sometimes a Kerry Story can be the start of something so much more...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 5, 2004 8:05 PM

Terry,

That brings up another very good point. Was Kerry lying re: Winter Soldier/Dewey Canyon? He said he saw war crimes. He never reported them.

Which in fact makes him a war criminal.

Unless he was lying.

Either way, not a pretty picture. His lying got 2 million killed. Talk about your war criminal.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 5, 2004 8:08 PM

Terry — Kerry accuses himself now of war crimes, in 71 in front of the whole damn senate, just this year on Face the Nation-- when he isn't painting himself as the heroic defender of the nation in a useless war he never approved of...

Fugbuck. Utterly.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 5, 2004 8:09 PM

Re the CNN interview, the "gotcha" moment (from the transcript — I didn't see it live) was the unanswered question, "Why did none of the boats have any bullet holes in them?"

I'm inclined to give Mr. Rassman the benefit of the doubt about the "fog of war." If the Americans in the vicinity were shooting at the banks, and if he'd seen one boat hit a mine and was in the water himself, one need not impute any evil motive to the man in thinking that he (rather than the bushes on the bank) was under fire.

But after things calmed down, after he was dry and with a blanket wrapped around him, after his heartbeat was back to normal and his thoughts had stopped being full-time frantic prayers — where were the bullet holes in the boat?

Posted by: William Dyer at August 5, 2004 8:14 PM

William Dyer — I don't know that he was praying; per se. The one time I was in a situation remotely similar I wound up reciting the Blasphemer's Prayer. You know, "Oh, Jesus, Oh, Shit, Oh, Jesus, Oh, Shit, Oh, Jesus, Oh, Shit, Oh, Jesus, Oh, Shit,..."

Kerry, according to Brinkley's book, was far more introspective about such things. Why, when he was pinned down by enemy fire, he passed the time wondering if the folks back in Rochester appreciated the sacrifices the troops were making. Of course, while he was wondering, the unit he was with was still getting the shit shot out of it, but any good officer has to have his sensitive side...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 5, 2004 8:38 PM

I think the relevant song is not "You're so Vain" but the lovely tune by Kerry supporter Bruce Springsteen "Glory Days." This song seems to embody Kerry.

Posted by: J.R. at August 5, 2004 8:57 PM

I have also visited all that I can find so far today on this, including the faxed copy of the letters being sent out by Kerry's and the DNC's lawyers. The legal threats seem to be his only answer so far.

The letter seems very vague. It states that the men are claiming to have served on Kerry's boat, when in fact they do not make such a claim. The letter says that there is no record that he was treated by the medic, but does not deny that he was treated by the medic. It states that the record of the Defense Department is clear, but we all know that. It says that a station has the right to refuse to sell air time for an ad if the station knows it to be false.

The unspoken, but clear, threat is that if a station sells air time for the ad and it turns out to be false, Kerry and the DNC will sue the crap out of the station.

The stations will need an owner with deep pockets to risk this ad. You know, someone with more money than God, or even Terayza.

Calling Rupert Murdoch.

Mark in Mexico

Posted by: Mark in Mexico at August 5, 2004 9:11 PM

Roger and All:

The MSM should cover this story but they won't.Well,let me restate that, they will cover it but only from the perspective of it being a dirty Republican trick. The Bush campaign has been hit with 62 million dollars of 527 group ads but the first of these type of ads to be explained away as "dirty tricks" or have the funders of the ad be accused of conspiracy is this one.

Compare the upcoming coverage of this story with the Bush AWOL urban myth.The Dems dig up the old story from the 2000 election and accuse Bush of deserting his responsibility. The MSM takes the accusation at face value. They press Bush's press secretary to release all his service files. They say this is a legitamate story and Bush has to provide proof that he wasn't AWOL. When the records are dug up by the Army they bury the story that shows that Bush fully met his commitment to the military.

So far the MSM is rallying to Kerry defense like they are criminal defense attorneys.They don't even report the accusations before they are are reporting that this is a dirty republican trick. They will spend more time writing about the funding of the 527 group them they will on the story itself. They will also spend more time rehashing the McCain whispering campaign story. They won't press Kerry to release his full military jacket as Bush did, they will let him get by with the partial edited release that he has already released. They will also ignore the bully tactics of the lawsuit threat against any station that runs the ad.As the Newsweek reporter said, the MSM is in the tank for Kerry. Thank God for the blogs
I do not know whether or not the stories of the swift boat veterans are true or not. But I know enough about the MSM to think they will not cover it with the rabid furor they covered the bogus AWOL story. And I know where to go to get a full picture of the story so I can make up my own mind.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 5, 2004 9:33 PM

If Sen. Kerry's actions before, during, or after Viet Nam wind up costing him at the polls, the Dems only have themselves to blame.

I've always believed there was a chance that Kerry's actions during that era had the potential to sink his candidacy. The reason being is that we all know the nation still bears scars from that era. That being the case, is it wise to choose a candidate that many believe helped cause the wounds in the first place? At the very least, many folks likley believe Kerry poured salt on the wounds with his post-combat statements. The Dems need a pol with a Viet Nam record that more closely mirrors Sen. McCain, instead they nominated a vet version of Abbe Hoffman disguised as a taller Audie Murphy.

Obviously, only time will tell how this will play out.

Posted by: RandMan at August 5, 2004 9:52 PM

I hate to be a party pooper, but I think the better course of action here is for President Bush to take McCain's advice, and turn it into a Sister Soulja moment.

I agree with Roger several posts ago, and am still wondering how what somebody did 30 years ago matters right now. Yes, I know he "opened the door," but it is now time for Bush to close it, and bloody his nose while doing it (mixed metaphor alert...)

The President should call a press conference and distance himself from these attacks, remind the public that he has been accused of being AWOL by the DNC Chairman and therefore knows how this feels, and then clearly state to the public that the War on Terror is more important than a pissing match about what everybody did after they left Yale.

Mediators call this a conciliatory gesture, and it is a powerful tool for persuasion. Moreover, it would confirm Bush's image as a generous person, and Kerry's image as stingy and ungracious. Thereafter, every time Kerry brings up Viet Nam, something he is genetically incapable of avoiding, he will be the one responsible for the fallout.

We all know Kerry believes Viet Nam is the ace up his sleeve. Why not take it away from him?

Posted by: Lapsed Randian 2 at August 5, 2004 10:27 PM

FWIW, both O'Neill's "Unfit for Command" and Hugh Hewitt's "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat" were sold out at the Sherman Oaks Borders when I went there today... So maybe we're not all preaching to the converted here...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 5, 2004 10:45 PM

I've long believed that indicators about character are more important in a presidential campaign than normally given. There were ample indicators about Clinton in 1992 to indicate his negative traits - womanizing, lying, use of power for personal purposes, etc. They were ignored or described (even above) as invalid attacks. But those attacks did more to predict Clinton's behavior than normal issues.

To get an idea how Vietnam Veterans feel, imagine that after one of the most important events of your life, your efforts were disparaged, you were called names, you were accused of terrible atrocities, and it was all done by an opportunist who was aiding the enemy cause.

Now, thirty some years later, with most of us having put Vietnam behind us, that same bastard shows up and runs as a war hero.

Those who say "it was 30 years ago, it doesn't matter" are missing two things. First, it matters to 3,000,000 of us; Second, his acts were eggregious enough to require exposure and debate. He skated on the edge of treason for two years. He met with the enemy. He is still honored by the butchers who killed so many Americans, and have since imposed totalitarianism on South Vietnam. This record has been ignored by the press. It needs to be examined. Even worse, he has, within the last year, affirmed his statements that he made back then - the ones accusing us of all sorts of nonse (the compendium above includes a link to the main speech).

There are a lot of Vietnam Vet organizations against Kerry. The one I work with, Vietnam Vets for the Truth ( kerrylied.com) is having a rally in DC on September 12.

Something not well known is that there are over 250 Swift Boat Vietnam Vets in Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I have no doubt that the Swifties are doing what they are doing out of a feeling of duty and a desire for redress. They feel that the public should know what they know about the Kerry of Vietnam, and they want Kerry's charges that he made as an anti-war activist to be refuted. I have spoken to several of these folks, including O'Neil, and their purpose is clear as are their feelings. These guys are doing it as a matter of honor.

Contrary to reporting, one crewman of Kerry's is with the SBVT. The members of SBVT don't know why those supporting Kerry do so. They are baffled. I have heard of a trip to France last year for them, but I don't put that as a very high probability.

I suspect the reasoning here about the Green Beret rescued by Kerry is correct.

If you are in the DC area, you can meet Tony Snesko, a Swiftie, near the Vietnam Memorial on many days, where he mans a home made information stand about Kerry.

The Swifties first attempt was their press conference on May 5 of this year. It was buried by the MSM, and Kerry provided smears of the group were included, without questioning, in the little stories that got out. AP, NBC and ABC spiked the story. CBS produced an astoundingly dishonest and negative report. here is a story from the inside of the press conference. here is my analysis of the coverage. By the way, Kerry spent about 45 minutes on the phone with the founder of the group, Admiral Hofmann, trying to change his mind.

After the press conference fiaso, John O'Neil and Jerry Corsi decided to write a book, the third chapter of which Roger just sampled. The book covers both the Vietnam history and Kerry's anti-war behavior. There are a lot of Kerry negatives in this are - see this collection on my blog.

Oddly, Dick Morris tonight said that this ad was dumb and dangerous, and wouldn't get Bush a single vote. After this ad and the book, if he gets 10% of the veteran vote I would be surprised.

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at August 5, 2004 11:02 PM

The brilliance of the ad's timing is breathtaking. According to Amazon, the book will not start shipping until August 15. Right now, we don't actually have any substantiated allegations; all the evidence is presumably forthcoming in the book.

Thus we will have at least a week of Kerry's defenders taking more and more rope, defending the indefensible, making ad hominem attacks, smears, the whole bit, then......WHAM! The goods are released when the book hits the market. Based upon the teaser on Amazon, the new stuff in there is going to really floor people. This book is going to spill evidence like a prosecutor's pinata.

Also bear in mind that O'Neill's publisher, Regnery, is a major house. Major houses do not screw around with half-assed, unverified stories as a rule--particularly when the subject is the Democratic nominee for president. This thing will have been fact-checked to death. I would look for much cross-verification of sources, including statements Kerry has made to reporters and in testimony over the years. The Kerry campaign will be spending another week just trying to sort through all the new allegations. August is not going to be a pleasant month for the Thinnest-Skinned U.S. Presidential Candidate in History.

That said, Lapsed Randian may have a point. Bush should make nice-nice with McCain even if McCain is wrong (he probably is). Bush can score points and look like a statesman. He doesn't have to trash the Swifties in doing so, either. I'm sure Rove can think of something--or maybe make it Peggy Noonan's first new assignment.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 5, 2004 11:15 PM

I wonder what value Dick Morris provides for anybody. As far as I remember, his predictions are approaching the record of being all wrong all the time.

Posted by: Katherine at August 5, 2004 11:35 PM

I don't mean to suggest a conciliatory gesture as only a tactical move. I really think it would be the right thing to do. I've said this before: it is not the Viet Cong who are presently trying to kill us.

Posted by: Lapsed Randian 2 at August 5, 2004 11:48 PM

Lapsed--

I agree a gesture of some sort is warranted IF modern presidential candidates held themselves to a gentleman's standard of conduct. OTOH, given the sh-tstorm Bush has been hit with by the pro-Kerry 527's, I'm not sure I would blame him if he didn't bother.

Yet another example of why McCain's campaign finance reform bill never should have been enacted.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 5, 2004 11:55 PM

“Yet another example of why McCain's campaign finance reform bill never should have been enacted.”

Yes, and the Big Man signed it, just to neutralize Dashle, hoping that the Supremes would “make it right”. That’s one big game that our poker player did not win.

Posted by: Katherine at August 6, 2004 12:06 AM

My HTML skills are non-existent (sorry), but there is a CNN article on this story. Can someone grab the link? Thanks.

Anyway, at the very end, it has McClellan's response to questions from the press. To paraphrase, he says, "Of course we condemn this ad. It was produced with evil unregulated money. Won't Senator Kerry join us in condemning ads made with unregulated (527) money?"

Of course, that would mean condemning MoveOn.org ads, ACT ads, etc., so Kerry may find that line of attack unpromising.

Posted by: Sam Barnes at August 6, 2004 1:04 AM

I'd advise you all to take the time to visit our bulletin board at www.swiftvets.com. You'll find a thriving community discussing the topic and some valuable info collected no where else.

I'm Known as ASPB over there!

Posted by: RiverRat at August 6, 2004 2:01 AM

Haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I don't think the only value to these vets coming forward lies in the independents.

I suspect that, from the Republicans' point of view, there is a significant "keep the vote home" factor, too.

I did not vote in the 2000 election, because I developed an aversion to Al Gore's character after the famous crotch-stuffing photo shoot for ROLLING STONE.

I'm serious.

That was the moment.

I didn't vote for Bush, but I didn't vote for Al Gore, either.

If I'd been living in a Red State that would have been serious. (I did vote, btw; I just didn't vote for a presidential candidate.)

Posted by: Catherine at August 6, 2004 4:11 AM

I'm with John Moore on this. All the way.

Posted by: Catherine at August 6, 2004 4:13 AM

J.R. and Richard-

Given what happened yesterday, I think the only song the Kerry campaign will need for August will be Low Spark of High Heeled Boys.

All-

I went to the local Japanese restuarant with my best bud last night for squishy fish. We sat at the relatively crowded sushi bar. In the course of our meal we started talking about the Swift Boat ad, and WHAMMO!, half a dozen unsolicited comments came flying in front both the other bar denizens and the sushi chef. They had all heard about it. It seems this is making the rounds very quickly.

Just because the MSM doesn't cover it doesn't mean it won't have an impact. Remember Jesse Jackson and Shakedown? The MSM wouldn't touch the book, author or issue, but it was a best seller and at least in my local library, it was one of the most read books the year it came out. And, it is no accident that Jackson as since devolved into little more than an embarrassing anachronism amongst his 'supporters'.

The more I see about the Swift Boaters' book, the more I am inclined to think this story is going to have serious legs. The initial reaction we are seeing out of the Kerry/DNC camp appears to be the product of panic rather than thoughtfulness, and it could very well contribute a fan to the flames. It is one thing to try to discredit fellow political operatives, but quite another to discredit a bunch of veterans. If Kerry/DNC handle this hamfistedly, we could see a backlash based on that alone.

And finally, I have one simple question: Why are the Kerry people and the DNC acting so surprised about this? Didn't any of them watch the initial press conference held by O'Neill and the Swift Boaters? I watched it on C-SPAN and it was quite evident then that (a) these guys were out for blood, and (b) they were not going to be intimidated. Wouldn't you think someone out there would have turned to Kerry or McAuliffe and said "Hey, we need to be ready for these guys."?

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at August 6, 2004 4:40 AM

River Rat:

I'd love to visit swiftvets.com but it seems to be hammered by hits from curious folks.

Knucklehead:

I just checked the Iowa Market and in Winner Take All, it looks like Bush is going down while Kerry is going up. Odd. It did get a bit of a mention in Newsweek. So I'm wondering if it's been spiked by some folks with deep pockets. Before the issue came out, Bush had been going up while Kerry was going down.

Posted by: Lola at August 6, 2004 5:49 AM

Lola,

If one goes out and pokes around at opensecrets and publicintegrity it becomes painfully clear VERY quickly that there are some incredibly deep pockets aligned with leftist and ABB. I don't think those two things are precisely the same but the overlap, the union of the sets, is so high that they are very nearly equivalent in a functional sense.

If there are Zillionaire Moonbats willing to send millions of dollars to MoveOn and other pure ABB efforts it would not surprise me in the least if some of that money, or other money from the same sources, is being used to move the Iowa market kinda stuff.

I am pretty convinced, just from talking to my family over the past few hours, that there is another factor at work here. At this point in time the whole flareup of the Swiftvets stuff seems like meanspirited attack dog stuff from the Bush campaign to those who are not political junkies. They do not understand the depths of the issues. It can be explained to them and they can be swayed at least to the point of thinking they need to have a deeper look - to find out if, in fact, Kerry is a lowlife wierdo and the Swiftvets have very serious points to make (or vice-versa).

So Bush is going to take a hit in the short term from this story. The general public just sees all this as "more of the same ugly politics". If the MSM and the Dems can hold this story off from deeper investigation for eighty more days this will work in Kerry's favor. Now that it is out it has to be pushed and it has to have substance and significant levels of truth behind it. But even truthful substance won't matter if it is allowed to be positioned as sour grapes and rabid attacks against a "guy who went whether he's the hero he claims to be or not" rather than "there's something deeply disturbing about this looney-toons running for president".

It will be interesting to watch.

BTW, I suspect that Michael Moore and the sorts of wide ranging attacks put out by the MoveOn and other ABB attackbots do NOT ever become associated in people's minds with the Dem attack machine but that any and all attacks against Dems are instantly associated with the Republican attack machine. The "Republicans are mean-spirited" meme that has been so relentlessly trumpetted for so long is deeply effective - it is a standard part of "public awareness" or CW or whatever one wants to call it.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 6, 2004 6:07 AM

Another thing at work here is that the non-political junkies segment of the population really has no idea what we got passed off on us as "Campaign Finance Reform". They have no clue that 527s exist or any of that. The fact that Zillionaire Moonbats and LLL Popstars are pouring Big Bucks into the money buys influence and can be used to sway public perception is not known to them. The general public knows that Daddy Warbucks is alive and well but they do not know that he went Moonbat Leftist a long time ago.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 6, 2004 6:14 AM

Well, it looks like one of the SwiftVets has retracted his statement:

Swift Boat Ad

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

Posted by: Lola at August 6, 2004 6:22 AM

When I think of Kerry's three purple hearts, I'm continually drawn back to the scene from the Spielberg miniseries " Band of Brothers," when the grievously throat-wounded Private Blyth is laying in hospital. A visiting high ranking officer goes from bed to bed, handing out Purple Hearts. The medal being pinned to Blyth's pillow doesn't even register on the shell shocked, traumatized private (He eventually dies from his wounds). Two lightly wounded, obviously malingering jokesters in the adjacent beds make light of their additions to their collections (one lifts up his pillow to show the other the 2 purple hearts already awarded). Then they look at Blyth and feel somewhat guilty over their levity.

Kerry is the guy with the purple hearts under his pillow, minus the guilty conscience.

Posted by: Mike at August 6, 2004 6:36 AM

Lola:

Elliott was one of the swiftees who defended Kerry against charges of war crimes in 96. Odd coincidence but we should take it at face value.

Lapsed Randian 2:
This retraction is all the more reason that you are essentially right. Bush needs to stay as far away from this as possible - look forward and stay focused on WOT. Let this play out in the media whichever way it will.

All:

Three different swift officers were interviewed on CNN, Levin's show, and Hannity & Colmes, respectively, yesterday disputing Kerry's bronze star. Two of them told essentially the same story. The vet on Hannity & Colmes never actually got to his story because Susan Estrich (filling in for the rather more reserved Colmes) kept the focus on the DNC talking points - you weren't actually "on the boat" were you and isn't it true the doc who says he treated Kerry's wound wasn't the one who signed the record.

Look, a serious investigation by journalists ought to be able to clear this up one way or the other. After all the charges made are pretty damn specific and can be disproven. If the media doesn't do its job then there is only one conclusion - the swifties are telling the truth.

Posted by: PeterArgus at August 6, 2004 6:40 AM

Lola,

The Boston Globe article does a good job of muddying the water concerning Elliot but never quite gets to the point of asking him whether he stands by his statement in the actual ad. "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here." refers to whether or not Kerry shot the VC kid in the back. Does improper wording of the affidavit invalidate the ad?

BTW - This is precisely the theme that the MSM will follow and I will believe them when I read a statement that says "I was absolutley wrong and now support John Kerry". Ain't gonna happen.

Talking to reporters will generate a lot of this type of drivel over the next few days. You'll never see anything but pull quotes in support of the journo's initial thesis. Elliot might want to reword the affidavit and resubmit it. If "in the back" was the big deal to him, then a quick line through should fix it.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 6, 2004 6:54 AM

DTP:

This story will have legs but only in the blogosphere. The MSM will not only ignore the guts of the story but they will slime Bush with the "republican atttack machine"meme. This weekend John McCain will be on every Sunday pundit show and will get more mug time then the swift boat veterans themselves. The only pressing the MSM will do is to go after Bush until he condemns the book. Kerry will play the victim, McCain will play his defense attorney, Bush will be portrayed as the rapist.This is as predictable as a Steven Segal script.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 6, 2004 7:05 AM

So what will it take to get MSM to drop their phony act?

Posted by: Lola at August 6, 2004 7:35 AM

"On to contemporary matters?" Roger, this is a contemporary matter. As Shakespeare wrote, "What is past is prologue." This is the man who is running for President today; this is the moment in his life he has chosen to define himself by. And he has chosen to defend himself not by confronting the allegations, by providing the documentation in his possession, but by threatening legal action against third parties. I find that telling.

As for Hoffman's retraction, I notice he recants the wording, but never addresses whether Kerry actually did warrant the Star. Certainly the facts of the case, in the context of other Silver Star awards, suggest he didn't, and the fact thatKerry was his own recommending commanding officer further taints the matter.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 6, 2004 7:41 AM

richard,

Elliot - not Hoffman. Hoffman will recant nothing. Hoffman's not even mentioned.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 6, 2004 7:46 AM

Lapsed Randian 2,

I don't think it matters.

We haven't even gotten to tthe political heart of the matter. Winter Soldier.

This is an opening salvo on a well defended section of the line to draw the reserves. As long as Kerry keeps his records sealed the story can't do him much damage. But it weakens him and draws him out of position.

Next is Winter Soldier/Dewey Canyon. The important (political) parts are all public record.

Lileks sees this as an isolated attack. He is mistaken. It is part of a campaign.

They have already gotten one of Kerry's senior officers to say that maybe Kerry didn't shoot any one in the back. In Winter Soldier he admits to unspecified war crimes and witnessing others. (If I remember correctly). They are twisting this guy in the wind.

So either Kerry is a war criminal or a liar.

The Bush campaign ought to remain silent. Especially if the info is true.

You can fork Kerry. He is done.

The last battle of the Vietnam War. The Vets are finally going to get even the left's (most of it) respect back when we are done with Kerry's lies.

I never thought I'd live to see the day. Thak God Kerry won the nomination.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 6, 2004 7:46 AM

Rick — Thank you for the correction. My bad.

One other thing I liked in the Boston Globe article was the line, "It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement." Nice to see the Globe, home of the Abu Ghraid erotic photo spread, being worried about someone's research...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 6, 2004 8:02 AM

Kevin P,

MSM has to cover this. The book is #1 on Amazon and it isn't even out. #1. You know people are talking.

This is too big to cover up.

And then the Dems are tryin to cover it up. Well occasionally even old whores have a shred of self respect and dignity. Kerry only owns them as long as he doesn't ACT like he owns them.

The threat will back fire.

He has just destroyed one of his major alliances.

Fool.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 6, 2004 8:02 AM

Re Ric Locke's comments about war stories. There is an old joke among soldiers that goes something like this. What is the difference between a fairy tale and a war story? Ans: a fairy tale starts "once upon a time..." A war story starts "this is no s***...." In my experience, those who have seen combat very seldom talk about it.

Posted by: RogerA at August 6, 2004 8:02 AM

Riverrat, how do you get to the bulletin boards on Swiftvets.com ? I can't seem to get past the ad.

Posted by: shell at August 6, 2004 8:05 AM

Re: Elliot

Let me see if I get this straight.

The guy supports Kerry in '96. When interviewed for the book he changes his mind. Signs an ad. Based on issues he reviewed in '96 and subsequent.

Then changes his mind again.

Ladies and gentlemen. This is odd behavior. Very odd.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 6, 2004 8:07 AM

Mike:

As an “offshore” observer of the war (“U-boat”) and politics (below ground level in the pentagon) I have to dismiss your hopes as wishful thinking. Vietnam is 30 years ago except when it isn’t. Kerry’s Vietnam meme for this election is I was hero as a JO so I am qualified to be Commander in Chief. When Vietnam issues are raised, like Clinton’s draft evasion, its old history. The truth most likely lies mid point in the interval between the Swities and the Hero-sailor end points.

Posted by: jerry at August 6, 2004 8:08 AM

M. Simon,

Its not just "odd behavior". This has "troll" written all over it. His excuse of why he signed it is extremely weak. There is little doubt that this is how the Kerry camp planned on dealing with this group from the beginning. They certainly were not blindsided by the Swiftvets so they had to come up with some way to deal with it. Funny how this guy chooses the same day the ad is released to retract his statements. Actually, its not funny at all, but very percisely planned.

Posted by: so it begins at August 6, 2004 8:14 AM

So this whole thing is now jinned up to the point where people are discusing whether Kerry actually shot some one in the back. I'd rather be thinking about Clinton and Monica. That was a class act compared to shooting people in the back.

This is unraveling faster than I ever thought possible.

I'd have to look it up, but wasn't it Kerry who wrote up the report reccomending himself for the medal?

Was he lying on that too?

jeeze.

And we haven't even got to Winter Soldier.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 6, 2004 8:17 AM

shell

Swiftvets forum"

Posted by: Syl at August 6, 2004 8:19 AM

so it begins,

I saw this about an hour ago and thought it strange.

If I get it that quickly there will be others.

This is like Clinton/Monica. Yes the press has a preference. But there is blood in the water. Reason is no longer fully in control.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 6, 2004 8:21 AM

jerry,

Winter Soldier is going to move the ball towards the swifties goal.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 6, 2004 8:42 AM

btw, for those of you who think the Prez should come out and "distance" himself from this group I would not hold your breath. Rove is probably giving him some of the same sort of advise, but remember, these guys were betrayed by Kerry, who wants to be President. Bush may not even be very happy with the fact he has to deal with this issue right now, but he is NOT going to turn his back on these guys now. He is going to let them do what they need to do for closure - even if it is at his expense. He knows what happened and he knows how the honor of those who served in Vietnam was stolen by the LIES Kerry and his cohorts spewed. This President will not pull the rug out from under them because he knows this is not about him and Kerry - this is a personal matter between the Swiftvets and Kerry. It just so happens that the Swiftvets waited very patiently and chose the biggest stage in the World to land their knockout punch.

Posted by: so it begins at August 6, 2004 8:46 AM

I think we're going to need to watch this play out as if we're on jury duty. We have charges of a series of "crimes" and prosecution, defense, and witnesses.

The prosecution will make the case that the defendant is guilty of all the crimes and the defense will try to get at "not guilty" for as many of the charges as possible. We've heard the opening arguments and seen the defense cross on witness and seems to have scored some points against that testimony relative to one of the charges. Lots of witnesses and crosses left to go.

And keep in mind the defense does not need to prove innocence. Not guilty is all they need, but they need to get that for enough of the charges to salvage their client's campaign. That still seems a tall order to me provided we don't run up against jury nullification.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 6, 2004 8:51 AM

so it begins,

Right on about the prez.

Distance would only make sense if the attack was false or ill conceived.

The Useful Fool is Right. It is Mano A Mano between Kerry and 3,000,000 vets.

Enough to move an election.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 6, 2004 8:51 AM

In my experience, those who have seen combat very seldom talk about it.

Not strictly true. The fellow I know who saw the most intense combat talked about it obsessively for about ten years before the stories petered out. Gruesome and bizarre stuff, but not self heroising like Kerry. On the other hand, there were certainly veterans who talked very little. There were a lot of veterans around here in the 70's, from Green Berets to ordinary draftees and I got to know a fair number. Not everyone deals the same way with combat.

Posted by: chuck at August 6, 2004 9:01 AM

All--

I urge you to read the sample chapter Roger linked above. No registration is required, only an e-mail address. It would appear every citation Kerry received is in question, and there are multiple accounts from various eyewitnesses in each case.

I am inclined to believe the ad is a shot across the bow. The real attack is in the book. Whether the media will have the stomach for the nitty-gritty in there is another matter.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 6, 2004 9:08 AM

That retraction needs to be read carefully.
He now says some of the information relating to the Silver Star was never given to him, so he wasn't sure exactly what happened in that regard, when he signed the affidavid.
This is a partial victory in Kerry's favor, but it doesn't render vindication by any means.

Posted by: J_Crater at August 6, 2004 9:12 AM

M. Simon:

The MSM will cover the story but only from the angle that this is a smear tactic . They won't investigate the paticulars of the swift boat vets claims, they will only dig into their funding. Check out this mornings LA Times editorial and news coverage if you want to see how it will be covered. Before their reporters have looked into the paticulars of the SBV claims they have already declared that"It's Not All Fair Game". Kinsley states that the media can go after his post vietnam political actions and other items about Kerry's record as fair game but his 4 months are not fair game for scrutiny,Everything is "Fair Game" "BUT his war record is not ". Compare this passive response to the aggressive coverage of the AWOL rumour. The dye is cast. Their will be no rewrites of the script.

Posted by: Kevin P at August 6, 2004 9:12 AM

Regarding prez futures: Payroll data shows weak job growth (at odds with the Household Survey, BTW). I suspect the ability to keep demonstrating economic growth is viewed as far more important than the SBV stuff & could account for Bush downturn. Look for a major upward revision on the August data, however.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 6, 2004 9:13 AM

Chuck:

Are you sure he actually saw combat. Have any independent validation? I am not saying that someone who has been at war wouldn't talk about it. Its just when they do, its usually only to the members of the club.

The only time any of my uncles talked about their WWII experiences is when one of them came to town when my mother was dying. He made a brief allusion to bodies stacked on either side of the exit off of Omaha beach after the it had been secured. That's it. Nada, nothing else ever. \

Posted by: jerry at August 6, 2004 9:18 AM

I'm glad this story is out now. I've pre-ordered the book as have thousands of others. When I came back from Vietnam, I was called a "baby killer" by people who had read Kerry's testimony before Congress. To me it is wrong for Kerry to present himself as a war hero now after he contributed to that slander all those years ago. I would crawl through frozen mud in November to vote against Kerry.

Posted by: Xixi at August 6, 2004 9:33 AM

Chuck,

Just overheard some commentary passing on the wind...

"This sounds like a bunch of whacked out Veitnam vets with an axe to grind." "I don't know, the ones I saw on the news last night don't seem like the tattoos and Harleys crowd to me."

I just did a quick scan of the dusty old memory banks for some Veitnam Vets I've known and the return data is pretty much:

"Hey, I was on an aircraft carrier. I didn't see the war, I saw the jets taking off and landing and kept the radars working."

"By the time I got there the Marines weren't doing much of the fighting anymore. I was in supply in the rear. The worst thing that ever happened to me was walking guard duty and locking and loading on a noise that turned out to be rat just as the officer of the guard was driving up. Pulling my one magazine with a stinking five rounds in it for no reason was a court martial offense and I almost dropped the damn thing shoving it back in the pouch."

"I was with... at... in '67-'68. It was hell [that's all folks]."

And a couple guys who seemed nuts to me and were forever mentioning they were in Vietnam but never got specific. I suppose they really were there but it seemed like they wanted attention or to be taken for nuts more than anything else.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 6, 2004 9:38 AM

Knucklehead,

This note's for you. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/opinion/05bruce.html

Posted by: hollywood at August 6, 2004 9:50 AM

Knuck: thats because what you saw in Viet Nam depended on where you where in country, with what service, and what phase of the war you were in. The large multi-battalion operations of the mid 1960s gave way to smaller security style operations in the late 60s following tet. Every now and then a SF camp got besieged, but for the most part things had calmed down for most soldiers--until the cambodian incursion in the 1970s--but that was short-lived. There were occasional firefights but not of the scale of the mid 1960s. I was there 1969-1970 with the 69th armor battalion of the 4th infantry division and saw three significant firefights in six months.

Posted by: RogerA at August 6, 2004 9:50 AM

Roger A:

For the edification of some our readers would you be willing to rate the "quality" of your three significant fire fights with the kind of actions fought by WWII infantrymen in Normany, the Siegfried line, the Ardennes, Gustav line in Italy and say the liberation of Manila? Scale of 1 to 10 would be fine.

Posted by: jerry at August 6, 2004 9:57 AM

Kevin P,

Spin carries only so far.

But the media is right!!

His 1971 testimony is fair game. (Wow, we got that on the record? See how useful this attack is already? Like Doolittle's raid not much damage but it pulled the Japs out of position for Midway)

So now they admit Winter Soldier and Dewey Canyon are fair game.

Woooooooo Hoooooooooooo.

See this is not just an isolated battle. It is the opening stroke of a campaign. Brilliant.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 6, 2004 10:04 AM

Someone said: The credibilty of these vets is clearly supported by their lack of motive to lie, their age, their occupations, the clarity of their memories, and their respectable demeanor as seen in the ad.

Lack of motive to lie? Politics is a good enough reason to me. Age and occupations has nothing to do with it. Every age group and profession has crooks and liars. Not saying these guys are, just saying don't use that criteria to base your opinions on.

As far as clarity of memory, have you ever heard of the fog of war? It makes you see things that aren't there and remember things that aren't there. Plus, when interviewers are biased, they can easily "massage" the memory of people into what they want it to be. Remember the "repressed memory" baloney where a person would be convinced that they were molested or abused as a child? One has already retracted his statements. More are sure to follow.

It's funny to me that Republicans jumped all over John Kerry for using his Viet Nam experiences for politics (I agree with that, it was distasteful at best), yet when these jokers do it, it's all fine and peachy.

And as far as selective memory goes, Ronald Reagan had a bit of a problem separating his life from movie roles.

Posted by: Pionar at August 6, 2004 10:11 AM

Taking another look at the ad, it implies that these people saw Kerry in action, and are saying "You don't know what we know--we were there." But a great part of the reaction in the ad focuses only on what Kerry said before the senate upon his return from Viet Nam. I can understand vets feeling betrayed by that, and not wanting Kerry to be President. However, the ad implies much different. It's misleading at best.

More:

George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.

Louis Letson was not the Dr. on record as treating Kerry.

Some of the same officers now criticizing Kerry had written very positive evaluations of him as an officer in Viet Nam.

Let's not forget how the Bush team went after McCain in the last election.

Interesting to note, too, how many people say they remember Kerry in Vietnam, but not one person can stand up and say they remember Bush in the National Guard during the time period in question.

I still think It's interesting the Swift Boat ad attacking Kerry is launched about the same time as O'Neill's book is released. O'Neill being the Spokesperson for the SwiftBoat Vets should make a lot of money from this. Making money is, of course, just fine...but the timing and the marketing is pretty interesting.

Posted by: doublecola at August 6, 2004 10:13 AM

oh poor Pionar - it must be very, very disheartening to finally see what your candidate's betrayal has bought him. Bummer for him and you.

Posted by: so it begins at August 6, 2004 10:19 AM

I just wanted to wrfite that I have just read the full chapter available on line. I must say there are a huge number of allegations against Kerry which seem, repet seem, to be corroborated. These must be investigated. Even though I am a Democrat, I find comments like doublecola's above completely irrelevant. They do not speak to the facts. Obviously these accusations are not being made by Kerry supporters. Everyone knows that. But that does not make them wrong. Everyone should know that too.

Posted by: JK Ribera at August 6, 2004 10:21 AM

misleading at best? Ha. Yeah, we saw that letter from the DNC yesterday. It was already torn apart. Nice try though, but you're a little late. You should all try rethinking your strategy on this one at the DNC/DU and come back with some better arguements. We'll be waiting...

Posted by: so it begins at August 6, 2004 10:23 AM

DC:

There you again citing "favorable" text after being warned by a former naval officer that the text is meaningless without the ranking.

You also say "but not one person can stand up and say they remember Bush in the National Guard during the time period in question." which is factually false since a number of people have come forward to say he was there. The use of this disproven charge shows everybody here that you are troll not an honest participant.

Posted by: jerry at August 6, 2004 10:23 AM

doublecola

Yes the timing is interesting. Yes it is "coming after" Kerry.

In case it is not clear: This is a planned series of moves specifically going after Kerry.

From the number of them, the stories they have to tell, and their previous attempts to get their stories out - it is a justified attack on someone they feel is not suitable to be CIC.

This is between the Vets and Kerry. PR, Ads, Books, who knows - maybe even a mockumentary, all of it because they feel they have something to say, have the right to say it, and many of the rest of us want to see how this plays out.

From reading the chapter of the book, Kerry has a lot to answer for. And not just from his four months in-theater.

I hope they don't have too many more idiots like Elliot on their side.

Posted by: John Lynch at August 6, 2004 10:30 AM

Double Cola and Pionar:

This is not an RNC-funded site here. I for one could care less what the Bushies did in the past. I am just trying to sort through the facts at hand. Any serious observer would conclude they are troubling. There are alot of questions that need to be answered, not by misdirection and threats, but by careful investigation. Personally I would prefer that Kerry's record was as he and his crewmates say. I think it does the country no good in the long run to have a "barroom blowhard", as Roger put it, as a Pres. candidate or, God forbid, President. (This leaves aside the disturbing issue of whether he is a war criminal as he already admitted years ago when his memory was not "repressed" as it appears to be now along with the entire Democratic Party).

Posted by: PeterArgus at August 6, 2004 10:31 AM

To me, this whole thing just shows me how inept Kerry is. He knew these guys were out there claiming he was a fraud. So why did he put this Viet Nam experience at the center of his campaign? I guess because he has nothing else to point to that can qualify as an achievement. What made this guy think he should be president? Why did the Dems vote for him?

This is his first big crisis. Let’s see how he responds to it. Threatening lawsuits is all he is doing so far. Kinda revealing, no? I think he is planning on suing Osama if he is elected.

Posted by: thedragonflies at August 6, 2004 10:31 AM

Doublecola--

Letson treated Kerry, though he didn't write the injury up. Read the whole thing (it's in the free chapter).

Pionar--

The trouble with your comment is that this stuff is not coming from the Republican party or its candidate. It's coming from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I didn't hear any complaints from the DNC when moveon.org was pillorying Bush. I think the 527s were a stupid creation of McCain's CFR. But this is sauce for the gander, too. Wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 6, 2004 10:32 AM

Jerry,

Who came forward? I know that people said he served in the national guard, but that's not in dispute. The time period where he may have been AWOL is.

As far as I know not one person has claimed the reward offered by a group of former Alabama guardsmen to anyone who could remember serving with Lt. George Bush during the time period in question.

DC

Posted by: doublecola at August 6, 2004 10:33 AM

RogerA,

I believe I understand your point. Big war over many years with drastic changes in how it was fought and various services. There is no overall uniformity in the experience of Vietnam vets any more than there is uniformity in the experiences of veterans from any large war. Someone working the docks at Pearl in '44 would have a very different experience than someone maintaining bombers in England in '44.

Interestingly enough the background scan of data banks for vets I've known just returned one of the more interesting. I worked with this guy closely about 20 years ago for several years. He was retired navy - a demolition and salvage diver (the big helmet and hoses and Diver Dan stuff). He didn't have direct firefight combat experience but he was one of the most thoughtful and knowledgable people I knew back then so I asked him why it seemed that so many Vietnam vets seemed to be borderline nutcases. Was it just media hype or the lousy treatment when they came back or was the war more terrible than other wars or were we more a nation of wussies more prone to getting whacky from war experience and so on.

I have no way to know if his assessment was accurate but I found it interesting and very plausible. And he dismissed all of the standard explanations as potential primary causes.

Basically his explanation was that we made the war too much like a "job" for the guys fighting it. Guys would fight for relatively short duration (with varying degrees of intensity that wasn't atypical of any other war) and otherwise lived relatively comfortably with pretty good levels of safety. Sorta fight by day and then hang out and drink beers and smoke and joke with the guys at night.

According to him the reason fewer combat troops developed mental problems in other wars was because they became immersed in being in the life of being at war. Even when they weren't actually fighting they lived in such lousy conditions that they mentally stayed "at war" so to speak. But in Vietnam guys would fight and "go home" ("home", in this case, being someplace adequately comfy and safe with amusements and diversions) and fight and "go home" and the mental back and forth was more difficult and more likely to warp the mind.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 6, 2004 10:35 AM

I don't have much to add here.

One note that has not been touched on around here lately is that Bush has won political contests primarily defining policies and forcing the opposition to run on their record.

Kerry has been shielded from the tiny matter of his Senate voting record by the media. There's an awful lot of having one's cake and eating it too going on with the Dem campaign; without the wilfull and conscious bias of media he'd evaporate.

If the big prize is undecided voters I don't think that Kerry is going to get much help there. The sheer volume of crap targetted at the wall has a political cost all by itself regardless of what just splatters and what sticks...especially when the most damning accusations have been rather soundly revealed as wishful thinking or outright lies on the part of the opposition.

You cannot win by character assassination if you can't offer anything as a believable alternative. It's just not going to happen.

I think the swiftvets are honest. The fact that Kerry elected to threaten legal action against them right out of the gate is a signal that whatever opposition research they compiled in preparation for these charges to finally receive media attention, they don't have a rebuttal they think will work. That sitting Dem congresscritters are already signed up as wanting to quash this organization is flat stupid; who was screaming "CENSORSHIP!!!" last week, last month, last year when the Dixie Chicks, Linda Rondstadt, and various other celebrities paid public gelt for their political expression?

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 6, 2004 10:35 AM

"Louis Letson was not the Dr. on record as treating Kerry. "

How true. He was the nurse.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 6, 2004 10:36 AM

DC:

His pay and Dental records meet the criteria. Unless you believe that they are all part of the Bush family conspiracy to cover up the truth? Do you have your tinfoil hat on?

Posted by: jerry at August 6, 2004 10:36 AM

Peter,

Do we know if the SwiftVets are calling for an investigation by the Navy?

DC

Posted by: doublecola at August 6, 2004 10:37 AM

Jerry,

In other words, no one came forward.

DC

Posted by: doublecola at August 6, 2004 10:42 AM

DC:

They have asked Kerry to file a form 180 to allow public access to all of his records. Bush has released all of his records (even though he was not under investigation). Seems only fair that Kerry do the same. I am sure you like myself are hopeful, perhaps confident, such documents will clear some of this mess up.

We also have this important institution called a "free press". My understanding of the "free press" is that they have a responsibility to "find the truth" where ever it leads - Woodward and Bernstein's investigation of Watergate comes to mind.

Let's get the facts out there and let the chips fall wherever.

Posted by: PeterArgus at August 6, 2004 10:45 AM

Doublecola:

First off, there is no time in the disputed period at which Bush might have been AWOL, because he was ANG and the rules are different. (You can only be AWOL when you're on active duty; Bush was National Guard, and simply obliged to do some number of service days per year.)

But, beyond that, Bill Hobbs has extensive coverage. Of particular interest might be this which describes Bush's military dental records while he was in Alabama, and this which is a specific recollection of Bush doing duty days in Alabama.

It follow, ergo, that Bush has both documentation and recollections that he wasn't "AWOL". QED.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 6, 2004 10:47 AM

Louis states that he was a Medical Officer.

other info cites him as the base physician.

Posted by: doublecola at August 6, 2004 10:48 AM

Y'all might want to take a look at this on Drudge right now. Link...

Posted by: PeterArgus at August 6, 2004 10:52 AM

Already the media spin begins: one swift boat guy with a sound bite, one Kerry-supporting swift boat guy with a rebuttal sound bite. That's it; now move along.

I have no idea what legs this story will have. The MSM has two huge reasons to muffle it: firstly, they want Kerry to win; but secondly, this story is potentially huge not only because of this year's election, but because it could lead to the heart of the Vietnam debate for this country: the evaluation of the Vietnam war itself. And in this evaluation, the MSM itself has been a major player--for over thirty years, they have pushed a particular "narrative" of the war, and that is that the war was an unmitigated disaster for all involved, and that the press and the liberals were instrumental in showing us the truth and leading us out of the quagmire.

For most people, the history of Vietnam has been set in cement for decades, and it goes like this: big mistake, shameful past, war crimes by the US. I, as a former MSM-imbibing Democrat, thought I knew about all of that. It's only recently I learned there is another way to look at it. The whole swift boat/winter soldier controversy may reopen that particular dialogue in a different way than before, because Kerry's candidacy and his intense emphasis on his Vietnam record makes it important again. I have no idea how it will actually play out. But part of the MSM's motivation to bury the story is to hide the blood on its own hands.

Posted by: blogaddict at August 6, 2004 10:52 AM

knukclehead:

Jim Webb has worked hard to dispel the notion of the "crazy" Vietnam vet. He constantly points out the Vietnam veterans have had lower rates of "post traumatic stress disorder" then their WWII counterparts. WWII combat troops had more sustained and intense experience then Vietnam veterans. They did not receive medals for doing their job like Kerry did and they did not accept purple hearts for scratches.

Posted by: jerry at August 6, 2004 10:57 AM

Senator Kerry is in a strategic pinch between Bush and Nader. His campaign brainstrust has basically dug a rhetorical spider-hole for him to hide in. In it, we are led to believe Kerry keeps his secret plans for the economy and foreign policy. So long as the SBVT hammers the service record issue, he ain't coming out of that hole. Marginal advantage Bush, but bad for Nader. Nader would really benefit from pulling Kerry out of ground and forcing a stand on the issues important to liberals. Has a major network interviewed Nader to get his reaction to all this?

Posted by: tsonic at August 6, 2004 10:58 AM

I just read the Chapter and I'm even more convinced this story has legs. The media may attempt the doublecola "strategy" of talking about anything but the substance of the charges, but that tactic won't last long. Too many details. Besides, like somebody noted above, the narrative is already starting to spill over into his Winter Soldier problem.

With the scent of blood in the air, the press will gnaw on this bone I think.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 6, 2004 10:59 AM

Charile:

Once again DC shows his ignorance of the military.

Posted by: jerry at August 6, 2004 11:00 AM

Tmj,

I agree with your observations. This story is not going to be a decisive factor. I'd really rather read about what the price tag for the laundry list in the DNC platform would be. Just listening to Kerry try and explain how the platform would not double the national debt would be interesting.

Kerry's campaign has not measured up to this relatively minor situation. Are they going to threaten to sue every time this shallow self-promoter is challenged? What will they do when the book is out? Threaten Amazon & Borders with a cease and desist order? What will they do when the Winter Soldier testimony is played? Sue Kerry for slandering himself?

Meanwhile, President Bush will be honing the message concerning his proposals and platform. Four or five items with defined objectives. He'll set the debate topics and I'm confident that his proven ability to see things through will resonate with the electorate. He actually does have a record of accomplishment to talk about. Very unlike his opponent.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 6, 2004 11:01 AM

Charlie,