August 21, 2004: Don't Go for the Gold

Those who have been following the Kerry/Swift Boat controversy on this blog know that I agree with Glenn and am not especially concerned with the medals argument. It's not that I don't think the Swifties are right. In the end, I just think it's an unwinnable argument. To put it in a context many of us have been watching of late, the medals controversy is not like the 100-meter butterfly where there is (usually) one discernible winner. It is like the 10-meter dive where there are too many judges handing out conflicting and biased 6.7s, 7.2s, etc. (at least the East Germans are gone!).

The crux of this discussion is what it reveals of the character of a man aspiring to be President of the United States who used his Vietnam service as the basis of his campaign. Two problems have been revealed.

1. Kerry's so far unexplained braggadocio about being under fire in Cambodia (based on several assertions, including one on the Senate floor) is highly disturbing because it indicates either a liar or someone out of touch with reality.

2. His willingness to testify before Congress on behalf of the Winter Soldiers, likening his former comrades to "Ghengis Khan" without seeming to question whether his sources (those same Winter Soldiers) had gone off the deep end (boy, had they ever!)raises significant questions about Kerry's ambitiousness, values and loyalty. Speaking personally on that one, I was completely anti-war at that time, but thought the Winter Soldiers were nuts (to put it bluntly). And I wasn't the only one on the anti-war side who felt that way. I can assure you.

UPDATE: Mickey K. is predicting "a big Sunday paper** pro-Kerry eyewitness hit (on the Silver Star incident--that's the one with the beached boat and the fleeing VC)" --- the double stars, I take it, are from the Chicago Trib. To me that is all spin, whatever it is, and a perfect example of why the medal issue is beside the point. No one can prove whether someone really deserved a medal under fire thirty-five years ago or whether he didn't. That is subjective in the end. Who cares? [Don't you have a framed Academy Award nomination on the wall of your office?--ed. Yes, and I'm just showing off, still am by mentioning it.]

What is genuinely important is that Kerry appears (at least so far)to have lied on the floor of the Senate during a foreign policy debate. He also repeated that self-congratulatory lie (Cambodia) on several other occasions. It is also important that he hugely over-stated the supposed war crimes of his comrades in front of Congress. He can have all the medals he wants. Il Capitano always has.

UPDATE: Mathew Continetti appears to strike the right balance so far.

Comments

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

Kerry's post war actions are going to haunt him to his grave. Jane Fonda has said that going to North Vietnam was the worst thing she has ever done in her life. Both of them acted reprehensibly, but Fonda went into hiding and Kerry kept on keeping on. Those guys (Vietnam vets) will never forgive either Fonda or Kerry. Never. What we still need to know is if those charges about beheading, burning villages, and shooting innocents were true. If not, then Kerry deserves oblivion.

There were many bad soldiers in that draftee army. I once overheard a conversation in a restroom in Yokohama between two grunts who raped nuns and were laughing about it. I never heard of others doing that.

What will never be forgotten is the endless charges of "murderer," "baby killers," and "war criminals," hurled by the Kerry/Fonda groupies upon the veterans when they returned.

Kerry has this attack coming and has had it coming for a long long time and I'm only too glad to be part of it.

Posted by: Howard at August 21, 2004 7:58 AM

The "baby-killer" meme flows through many fever swamps: Jane Fonda, untold thousands of professors, and 3 television networks plus PBS coming to mind, and the list is overlong.

But the girlyman Kerry has always seemed the most egregious, the most consciously and easily evil, of the self-seeking liars involved in creating that damnable myth.

The second ad perfectly captures the tragedy, emptiness, and apartness of Kerry. He couldn't experience that intimacy and obligation--trust--that soldiers get to and have to have.

He ditched, after 90 days or so, his "band of brothers." I never knew or heard of anybody doing that. I can say with certainty that even the boy I was could not have done that. Who would have looked after my brothers?

But Kerry did, the better to embark posthaste on a career of ruining them and mocking their first acts as men. The lower he drove his comrades, the higher he rose.

This, the hole in his soul, needs no proof or documentation, no investigation by the girlymen of the press: they are there for anyone to see and they have been for these 30+ years.

Posted by: John Mendenhall at August 21, 2004 8:09 AM

The only way the "Medals" issue carries significant weight is if it can be shown that Kerry did something that goes beyond "gaming" the system (forgery or whatever). I would be legitimately surprised if that were the case except that he won't authorize release of the records themselves for inspection.

Regarding "Vietnam Syndrome" or the Unfinished Business of Vietnam...

The general "narrative" of the Vietnam war that the nation has is very well reflected, IMO, but the Vietnam Memorial. When I went down to DC to see the memorial I thought is was an extremely appropriate and beautifully done work. The "below ground" but open nature of it, the simple wall carrying all the proud names of those who served but whose lives were "wasted" by their nation's leadership said precisely what needed to be said. I honestly believed it was the most completely honest memorial in DC (and I love the monuments and memorials in DC).

That was then and this is now. A large portion of the tragedy of the Vietnam war rests squarely with a terrible CIC (LBJ) and an even worse SecDef (MacNamara). Most of the remainder of the blame rests with that portion of the anti-war movement who willfully and with forethought and malice constructed a lie and the MSM who helped them propogate that lie and turn it into "The Narrative" so many of us (I'm just a couple years too young to be truly of the "Vietnam Era") came to believe and which the Vietnam Memorial, IMO, reflects nearly perfectly.

The problem is that The Narrative is based upon a lie. That lie left an entire generation of veterans despised by the fellow citizens (I was a post Vietnam veteran and we were still paying the price of a citizenry that held us in contempt).

John Kerry was instrumental in constructing that lie and he did it for his own personal gain. He wasn't just a minor participant or footnote. He was one of the Prime Lie Builders. It took this nation a decade to even bottom out from the effects of that lie and another 10 years to bring ourselves back to the break even point. We still suffer from that lie.

John Kerry caused this nation great harm. We would be fools to hire him as our president. If we do we'll need another 20 or 30 years to dig ourselves out of the damage he'll do again. I don't know if he hates this nation or is just misguided or truly disturbed or demented. I don't really care, other than curiosity which of those it is or in what combination. All I care about is that we do NOT hire him as our president.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 8:21 AM

The past few threads on this subject have been fascinating; excellent comments as usual. I can't measure up to the high standard of these commenters, but let me update one thing.

I happened to catch part of Scarborough Country last night on CNBC or MSNBC or whatever. He had one of Kerry's hacks and one of the Swifties who had been on Kerry's boat. It was amazing. Even Scarborough was astounded by the full on accusations that Kerry was lying by one of his sacred crew members.

The hack kept spitting out the standard talking points over and over. The Swiftie (forgot his name) kept piling on the history. At one point, the hack kept saying that ALL of the documentation from official U.S. Navy sources backed up Kerry's side of the stories. The Swiftie then produced a copy of a confidential after-action report which came from Kerry which greatly exagerated the results of a mission he called the "sampan incident". Kaboom! One of "the records" that he urged Kerry to release.

I have the feeling that these guys have more withheld Kerry records and will be trotting them out at the right time. I would assume they want Kerry to attack their facts with counter-facts first, then hit him with the documents.

Posted by: sammy small at August 21, 2004 8:37 AM

I just can't trust someone who has always thought of himself as the "next JFK from Massachusetts" and who has wanted to be president all of his adult life. He seems to be a man who planned his presidential campaign in Viet Nam in the '60s! And is now playing out his fantasy about himself. Reality is not matching his fantasy, so he sues those who are opposing him.

He looks like a whacko to me. How on earth did the Dems go for him?

Posted by: thedragonflies at August 21, 2004 8:52 AM

Roger,
I would say, "Whoa" on the "...not especially concerned with the medals argument." While the Bronze Star is a low-level award and is generally handed out like candy, the Silver Star is in completely different territory. The only higher award one can win is the Congressional Medal of Honor, almost always awarded posthumously. If one's survival is cosidered a miracle or incredibly dumb luck (as in the cases of Alvin York and Audie Murphy, among a few others), one can receive the CMH while surviving the action, but this has been rare. You could almost go so far as to say that, if you survive the action - Silver Star, if you do not survive the action - CMH.

While the "V" designation on Kerry's Bronze Star does admittedly put it in a higher classification, that "V" is suspect. His Silver Star appears to have been undeserved. The significance here may not seem so important to you or me, but it is of the utmost importance to those who have been justifiably awarded the Bronze Star with "V" designation, The Silver Star or the CMH, and perhaps even more important to those who performed and survived, or survived only in part, or failed to survive, and received no award at all.

To all of them, their fellows and their families, those who survived, whole or in part, and those who did not, those with awards and those without, Kerry's awards are an insult (as was LBJ's). Sneering contempt, at the least, is warranted, overt action to expose these frauds and insults is to be expected and understood. I don't think that the difficulty inherent to uncovering absolute proof, even if it should prove to be impossible, should be allowed to detain or derail the efforts. Respect for the fallen demands such an effort.

Probably the first time I have really disagreed with you.

Posted by: Mark in Mexico at August 21, 2004 9:00 AM

Re: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 08:21 AM:

If we do hire this guy as our next president that will be a clear sign that the population of this country has been so corrupted by the Democratic Party and the news & entertainment media (but I repeat myself) that it is beyond redemption. This former republic is past its expiration date, and that will be a clear sign that it is no longer safe to assume that life will continue to improve as it has throughout our history. Better take the necessary precautions.

Posted by: Cap'n Billy at August 21, 2004 9:02 AM

Sammy Small:

You may be on to something here. Kerry could be getting dragged further into an ambush on the medals front. The Swifties need to start pressing the "release the records" campaign much more vocally than they have been. Because the Swifties haven't been regularly and forcefully pushing this, particularly during interviews, the MSM has been more than happy to ignore it as well. I've rarely seen any suggestion from print media sources or television that Kerry is withholding part of his service record. If this becomes common knowledge among the voting public, the effect will be devastating on Kerry's ability to counter the Swifties' accusations.

The NY Times'highly suspicious reference to 3 bullet holes in Thurlow's boat after the Bronze Star action, along with " intelligence reports suggesting 1 enemy KIA and 5 wounded," lead one to suspect there was much more to these documents than the Times was prepared to let readers see. Why weren't these documents sourced? As I've said before, Thurlow's account of the Bronze Star encounter, that there was no enemy fire, seems much more likely to be true than Kerry's claim of heavy fire. If Kerry won't release the remaining documents from his record, there may well be documentation elsewhere that hasn't been found through investigation.

Or maybe, as Sammy Small suggests, the Swifties already have it, and are waiting for Kerry to fully expose himself before springing the trap.

Posted by: Mike at August 21, 2004 9:04 AM

Sammy,

You are correct that there are additional documents in the hands of O'Neill that will come to light as time passes (deductive reasoning given O'Neill's profession). Kerry's campaign has the same records. Everything covered by the 180 is in Kerry's hands today. Kerry knows who signed the initial reccommendations for his awards and he knows how it iwll look when it comes out. (BTW - it is not unusual to self reccommend - if a superior directs you to do so).

I agree with Roger, however, the awards are much less meaning ful than Christmas in Cambodia and Winter Soldier. John Kerry has been willing to lie to embellish his reputation for his entire adult life. He was quite willing to betray his "band of brothers" as soon as he foresaw that it was politically expedient to do so. He has not changed, he has not grown and put aside expediency as his sole compass. I do not believe that there is anyone whom John Kerry will not use or betray for personal political advantage.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 9:10 AM

Do any of the folks here at Roger's Place have a reasonable understanding of the "ownership" of the sorts of military records in question?

I can understand that Kerry's med records are fully "confidential" as would be, I suppose, his fitreps. Why are AAR's and, for example, ops orders and maint records and the like require Kerry's approval to be released by DoD. Given the depth to which some detailed military histories go it seems impossible that nearly full access to detailed military files is not reasonably common. Do files become "open" based upon some expiration of a time period?

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 9:13 AM

thedragonflies,

John Kerry in Cincinnati:

BRINGIT ON!!!

subtext:

and I'll have Little John sue your butt off.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 9:14 AM

The only real value the medals controversy has is that it allows men who served with Kerry the oppurtunity to refute his claims to glory. It may be that we will never know the truth to some of these incidents but it muddies the waters. I know the whole controversy that surrounded Bush's duty in the Guard was countered by the Bush people but it still is an issue. The facts did not matter. It is the idea that drives it.

I was a amazed when the Dems chose Kerry for many reason but this was one of them. If I remember him from my days as a teenager watching the whole Viet Nam tragedy unfold then the veterans who served in the war have to remember him.

Whatever the truth of his actions in Nam it seems that his respect for the men he served with was not strong enough for him to simply take his medals and go home. I am amzed his little band of brothers can be ont eh same stage with him. I read that of the 23 commanders he served with only one is actively supporting him.

He had to make a mockery of their service. And for what? To make a name for himself. oppurtunistic and devious.

Posted by: Terrye at August 21, 2004 9:16 AM

The MSM appears to have learned a lesson about trying to bury a story that doesn't want to stay buried. The SF Chronicle this morning is carrying (on page 7) a Washington Post article on the second ad and Kerry's anti-war testimony. For a WaPo article it is surprisingly objective to the extent that it doesn't sound like it was canned by the DNC, but that the reporter actually went out, gathered some facts along with both sides of the story and then actually reported. (Wow, what a concept!) The article has quotes from the ad and the vets, and a new Kerry defense different from yesterday's which is that his testimony was never directed at the men, just the leadership at home (uh huh, and so when you said "they" raped and cut off ears you were talking about Nixon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff?). It's also got the Bush only served in the National Guard and yada, yada accusation, but that's not looking so good any more juxtaposed up against the Winter Soldier stuff.

The article also comes right out and says that the first ad hurt Kerry in the polls, and that Democratic strategists are afraid "the new ad could prove even more damaging."

Also http://betsyspage.blogspot.com links (you need to scroll down a ways) to a Washington Post article that talks "to some of the men who signed the SBVT ad asking Kerry to open his military records. These are the guys who are more casually involved in SBVT, but are angry nevertheless at Kerry. They are particularly incensed at his anti-war activities." I read the whole article and it too is surprisingly objective. And I sensed an undertone in it that was a warning to Kerry to open up the records now, because you're bleedng, man . . .

Posted by: penwil at August 21, 2004 9:22 AM

Mark in Mexico,

Actually the service crosses rank between the Silver Star and the CMH. Lots of stars got handed out to officers - very few to enlisted men. Also, it is correct that there is no "V" for the Silver Star. Kerry's "V", however, may simply be a typists error on his DD214. I'd need a picture of him in uniform wearing the "V" before I'd make anything out of it.

Much more interesting is the revision to the language on his citations. That is very unusal when it is done long after the fact. Just more minutiae in reality, though.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 9:22 AM

Okay, I'm half way there with figuring out this linking stuff. . . the link above is Betsyspage. I'm a little tentative about tryting to link directly to the Washington Post article since it's long and I don't want to mess up the format of thread.

Posted by: penwil at August 21, 2004 9:26 AM

ont eh is supposed to be on the. For the life of me I don't know why I miss this stuff in preview.

Bear with me please.

Posted by: Terrye at August 21, 2004 9:29 AM

As far as the boomers dredging up old wounds and trying to heal once more, I have a couple of thoughts.

I had my four year student deferment in college and was #4 in the original draft lottery. In other words, when the draft board came calling in the spring of my last year (1972) to come take an induction physical, I was one step away from going to SEA.

Long story short, I signed up with the Air Force to fly (to avoid the draft) and as I had guessed, the war ended before I even finished pilot training. In the ensuing years, I flew with quiet a few combat vets, including one or two former POWs. I held them all in awe. I felt both lucky to miss the war, but also envious of the unique experiences that they had in this life shaping event.

Based upon my experiences, the Boomers closed the book on that era when Watergate forced Nixon to resign, followed a couple of years later by the election of Carter. Carter seemed to represent an about-face in American life at the time. It helped close the book on the previous era. At least it did for me. Of course the antidote was almost as bad as the disease.

Anyway, Kerry bringing up all of this Viet Nam stuff would not have caused such a controversy if it had been done by someone with credibility. In fact, it probably would never have been brought up in the first place by anyone with credibility. The last thing we need is to bring up a painful time and then to twist the memories of vets with self serving lies and fantasies. It's Kerry that needs to close the book again, not the honorable vets.

Posted by: sammy small at August 21, 2004 9:37 AM

Terrye,

The gentlemen will wait patiently (or at least put up the best pretense we can). The ladies might get impatient, but y'all can go to the powder room later and sort that out. Which is all to say, Take yer time, no hurries Luv. ;)

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 9:38 AM

Rick,
You're right. One problem is that the rules get changed fairly frequently, especially with regards to the "V" designation, so that before one starts throwing rocks, one has to check to see what rules were in effect at that particular moment, for that particular campaign. Also, you are correct with regards to some very strange dates and signatures on what few records have been released. For instance, the signature of John Lehman, Sec'y of the Navy, appears on the Silver Star certificate. Lehman was Sec'y Navy in, I believe, 1982-1988, or thereabouts. Quite a long time after 1968.

My point remains, however, that the vets, survivors, award winners and their families are not going to let this die without a fight. Having said that, I believe that O'Neil is a clever fellow and will keep their collective eye on the prize. Remember that there are some 250 of them, backed up by several million current and ex servicemen, and O'Neil needs to keep everyone on board and as pleased with their progress as he can. If that means some time spent on the seemingly hopeless cause of exposing medal fraud, then so be it. I am beginning to wonder about outright forgery, how about you?

Posted by: Mark in Mexico at August 21, 2004 9:42 AM

Roger's instinct is correct. The medals, with the exception of the first Purple Heart (for which no documentation has ever been produced to my knowledge), are ultimately backed up by paperwork. The answer will always be met with a question: "Well, why did the military give me the commendation, then?"

But the bigger point--which we still can't see until the book ships--is that Kerry's whole narrative is shaken by these charges. The accumulated drip, drip, drip of each successive revelation (held the tiny piece of shrapnel in his arm for a day; fired his M-79 too close to the target; shot a fleeing, unarmed man; tried to conspire with other Swift Boat captains to create a medal-worthy incident; was hated and distrusted by his fellow commanders; filmed himself in action, etc) is devastating.

Roger is right. There will no knockout punch on the medals. But at some point the referee may have to stop this fight on a technical.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 21, 2004 9:46 AM

ont eh is supposed to be on the.

Don't worry about it, Terrye. Porf readign is a learned skill, and -- speaking as someone who has to read about 120 pages of proof AND INDEX the damned thing over the weekend -- it's not all that much fun.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 21, 2004 9:48 AM

I think it should also be noted that one of the reasons people were going to vote for Kerry is that Bush is polarizing. Well guess what Mr. Normal ain't so normal after all.

Americans want to get back to watching TV and to hell with all this war stuff. Just bring the boys home and let those crazy people in the ME kill each other but leave us the hell out of it.

Now we have the Democrat embroiled in a controversy that could ultimately alientate him from some of the little people he keeps saying he represents.

That is not good for Kerry. Normal is not normal anymore. As if it ever was. I mean just listen to the man. Everytime I see him I think of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

Man does that date me.

Posted by: Terrye at August 21, 2004 9:51 AM

Mark in Mexico,

Is there some link or whatever regarding Lehman's signature on the Silver Star paperwork? Is this some "replacement" sort of thing? Lehman served as Secretary of the Navy for Reagan between '81 and '87. He was Naval Reserve for 25 years.

How is he tied to Kerry's Silver Star? Kerry really needs to release his records and the press really needs to do an honest analysis. What are the chances of that happening?

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 9:52 AM

Why doesn't someone ask Adm. Boorda if the minutae of medals is unimportant?

Posted by: holdfast at August 21, 2004 9:53 AM

Knuck at 9:13:

I think you "done broke the code". The only military records that Kerry "owns" are his medical records, and his fitreps. Operational records and other official records relating to the unit are the Navy's. There are ways to get those other than than his signing a 180. I am pretty sure senior officers like RA Hoffman would have an understanding of how to get them, and probably have already done so.

Good trial lawyers like O'Neill do hold stuff back for "just the right time". Kind of like artillery "fire for effect".

Posted by: vnjagvet at August 21, 2004 10:00 AM

Charlie:

It is amazing how we don't see what is right in front of us.

I amazed I can drive a car and not kill people. People? What people?

Posted by: Terrye at August 21, 2004 10:00 AM

Knuckle--

I have seen the Lehman-signed-the-Silver-Star-paperwork thing discussed on other blogs, and the consensus was Kerry probably requested a replacement and the military had lost the original paperwork. Some people pointed out this was not uncommon.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 21, 2004 10:02 AM

Mark in Mexico — Sadly, medals for officers in Vietnam were greatly devalued by overissue, as part of the ticket-punching process that led to so much bad leadership over there. As an example, Colonel Anthony Herbert in his book, Soldier, reports on how it was the practice in the brigade in which he served (the 183rd), to simply assume that any line officer had performed heroic acts that had gone unwitnessed and automatically award them the Silver Star upon their departure from the unit.

Also, remember that the documentation and citations were drawn up, as a rule, by staff personnel who weren't witnesses. This is the likely explanation for Thurlow's Bronze Star long after his departure from the service; the personnel management system likely drew up the award from the existing documentation on that action. Documentation that seems to have been drawn up by John Kerry.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 21, 2004 10:13 AM

I see the medals issue as only the opening salvo in a four stage Swifties attack. Next, is the senate hearings, winter soldier, and the meetings with the North Vietnamese. There is enough to keep it going for a while. And it appears, the SBVT planned it this way. But, yes, the Kerry people want to keep it all about medals. It is scary as hell to see how much the media will cover and lie for this jerk.

Posted by: julie at August 21, 2004 10:26 AM

holdfasr,

John O'Neill is a graduate of Annapolis and a very solid trial lawyer. His primary goal is summed up in the title of the book "Unfit for Command". The strategy of the Swiftvets was determined by the logistical backup on hand (money) and by the temporal "window of opportunity" that the 527 legislation offered. The selection of the awards as an inital point of weakness can be described as "preparing the battlefield". In that, it has achieved its tactical purpose, the details of the tactic now become minutiae. I'm sorry for not explicating my point fully as I agree with you completely as to importance of the awards themselves.

My interest now has moved to the main battle in this sector of the campaign - Winter Soldier. I didn't send the Swifties money before, but I am today. It is my hope that a significant portion of the electorate get to see the second ad. Its importance is directly related to O'Neill's primary purpose of revealing just how hollow Kerry actually is.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 10:30 AM

When you have the evidence on your side, argue the evidence. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, shout

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 21, 2004 10:36 AM

The medals issue is far more important to those who have served in the military than our population in general. It is dishonorable to fake or exaggerate injuries and demeans the hard-won medals of those who actually died, bled, lost limbs, or suffered for their awards.

If you lost a loved one and received a posthumously-awarded purple heart, you can understand the devaluation, the injury to justice, that Kerry's uncooked rice wound inflicts.

That is in character for John Kerry. As in his testimony, he now admits he didn't realize the effect on others, so, too, his False Medals based on shrapnel from his own grenade and uncooked rice (neither requiring anything more than a bandaid) are so sickly self-serving that it calls into question his very masculinity. Let's face it, Teresa Heinz Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton have more balls than the husbands they dominate.

Posted by: Jay Rice at August 21, 2004 10:42 AM

This piece from the Chicago Tribune is the rebuttal Kaus mentions.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 10:50 AM

For those who do not wish to register, courtesy of bugmenot.com:
Chicago Tribune
Username : lopez505
Password : chitrib

Posted by: julie at August 21, 2004 10:57 AM

Rick Ballard,

I sent them money yesterday also. I'm no lawyer but I've done my share of jury duty and observed "mock trials" and local court activity. The first ad was "gardening" prepping the ground for planting. The Swifties have gotten people to listen and planted the seed of the idea that Kerry plays fast and loose with the truth. The fact that there are witnesses for the defense who can counter some of what's been put into evidence so far is immaterial to the overall case.

Next come the more damaging wintersoldier charges with the defendant himself providing some of the testimony. Look for some damaging evidence to be put onto the record here. I don't know if its a three or four phase attack, but this looks like phase two of at least three to me.

It will be interesting to watch. The Dems are accustomed to doing their threats and character assination attacks on middling civil servants and women without resources. I suspect the guys running the Swifties now how to wage war and will not be put into retreat by the occassional scrap of counter evidence from a defense witness.

Now the question is whether or not the MSM, which has clearly admitted that they cannot maintain their blackout, can be pushed into covering the story with even a pretense of evenhandedness.

It will be a fascinating next few weeks. Kerry's campaign apparently wanted no part of campaigning this month and now has to deal with this attack. And the RNC hasn't even opened up on him about his legislative record and flip-flopping yet.

BTW, did anyone notice the VFW "Bring it on!" line re: the attacks on his service record followed within 24 hours by the NEC complaint, the try to get Regnery to stop the book, and calls for the president stifle the Sifties.

Which is it, Flippie? Do you want the opposition to "bring it on" so you can show what a fighter you are or do you want the meanies to stop picking on you?

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 10:58 AM

Knuck,
I saw it yesterday, as did Fresh Air, but I was unaware that this was a common practice. I'll try to find it for you and get back.

Posted by: Mark in Mexico at August 21, 2004 11:01 AM

As usual Roger, you're correct about the limitations of the medals arguments. It's a tough sell to say all five were gamed. One, two, maybe even three using what Joe Wilson termed 'literary flair,' but five? At best it adds context.

Clearly the character flaws unearthed by the Cambodia claims and his post-war statements are devastating. This type of 'No sh*t, there I was...' storytelling is barely tolerable from the drunk at the end of the bar at the VFW. And it certainly makes the 'I don't fall down' statement more scary than funny now.

What's funny though is that contrary to what Kerry's surrogates think, the answer to this problem has nothing to do with Bush's TANG service.

In last night's rerun of the 'Rockford Files' Rockford turns to the insurance actuary that just cheated him out of a finders fee and said 'You know what you are?....Yeah, I guess you do.'

Posted by: devildog at August 21, 2004 11:02 AM

Folks on this thread might want to go over to Captain's Quarters to see the Oliphant cartoon that Captain Ed has posted. Ed is not exaggerating when he says it verges on Ted Rall's style. Proof that the Left doesn't understand the military at all.

Roger, thanks for everything you do on this blog.

Posted by: Connecticut Yankee at August 21, 2004 11:19 AM

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that the Kerry campaign, and even the MSM, has been knocked back onto their heels. The Swifties have them reacting rather than getting out in front and leading the story.

I sometimes like to wonder about what we aren't hearing as well as what we are. For example, we have this from the Cleveland Plain Dealer and a story in the Chicago Tribune (I can't get at that and I'm sick to death of registering for stupid online newspapers!). I can't tell if these are different or the same stories. Assuming they are different, that suggests the MSM is out beating the bushes for sources to counter the Swifties. Yet they don't seem to be following up with the Swifties themselves. Why isn't some portion of the MSM putting some resources on this to go out and interview a few dozen Swifties to tell the story of why they are doing what they are doing? I can only speculate that they don't want us to hear what they believe they'd discover.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 11:22 AM

Knucklehead:
That's why I posted the fake Chicago Tribune Id and password. No registration needed.

Posted by: julie at August 21, 2004 11:28 AM

Julie,

I tried it and it got me to someplace that seemed anything but a path to the story. I don't want to poke around using somebody else's login, so I just exited.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 11:30 AM

William Rood's comments in the Chicago Tribune on the Silver Star are obviously invalid. He wasn't on Kerry's boat. Only those guys who were on Kerry's boat can comment. Isn't that what you said, Kerry Campaign?

Posted by: themarkman at August 21, 2004 11:35 AM

Sorry, Knucklehead. I should have explained to hit the menu bar where it says "news." I understand your confusion. It will take you to a news page with a hyperlink to the stories. I am doing this by memory since I now seem to have access without registering. You really should look at the Trib spread.

Posted by: julie at August 21, 2004 11:36 AM

Here's a link to the Rood story. I think Roger was prescient.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-21-2004::12:46|reuters.html

Posted by: vnjagvet at August 21, 2004 11:44 AM

Sammy, Mike, etal.

I think you are onto it. John O'Neill has been building this since 1971. I think we are being priveleged to see some world class payback. Stay tuned.

I think the MSM types aren't really up to speed, regardless of camp. Some lefty bloggers are cursing them and coaching, but even they are weak. ref http://drlimerick.mydd.com/story/2004/8/7/14440/69263

This Newsweek article, 'Fighting a Phony War' - by Eleanor Clift is a good example
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5772260/site/newsweek/

Her subtext claims the article is about diverting attention from Iraq, but she basically then jumps into the catfight and doesn't mention Iraq until the last word of the article.

I corresponded to her, I doubt she'll ever read it.

"Never mind that almost daily there?s a retraction or a new story to discredit what these veterans are saying."

Nice try, but circular - reporting her own flack, or pablum like the NYT pieces, as a reason that her flack is valid.

"Flanked by firefighters in Boston, Kerry stripped the mask of patriotic valor from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by pointing out the source of their funding: a Texas Republican who wrote two checks for $100,000 to the group."

This won't fly either. Who did she think would help them, George Soros? Just check out the comparative dollars spent by 527's at OpenSecrets.org (hint: others are).

She should admit that these guys with $500,000 have made a dent like MoveOn.org with its $17,000,000 spent so far can only dream about.

While her article connects with the real anger about Kerry's 71 mouthing of the Winter Soldier smear, she is missing the point IMO that Vietnam era veterans like myself are weighing for our 2004 decision: Can Kerry be trusted?

Trust, (or honor, if you will) is big with us. This will cross over to veterans from all conflicts, not just Vietnam. I am smart enough to realize that perfect truth about Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam is highly elusive, but for me and, I suspect, many other veterans, the message coming through is that real veterans in sizable numbers are standing up and saying Kerry can't be trusted.

(I served at a San Francisco ARADCOM radar site from 70-73)

Posted by: jdwill at August 21, 2004 11:46 AM

And don't worry about using someone else's registration. It's not. And if it was, it is not a crime. Also, take a look at this: http://www.spacerook.com/archives/2004/06/05/bug-me-not/
Sorry, but I do not know how to create a link. The shame!

Posted by: julie at August 21, 2004 11:48 AM

themarkman just nailed the problem for the Kerry campaign. The story itself is OK from Kerry's viewpoint and would have been an effective damper - had it been released within 48 hours of the first Swiftvets ad. A partial closing of the barn door is not going to work now. The DNC/MSM rehabilitation process is only effective if it starts immediately. It's first aid, not a cure.

The party line on Winter Soldier, "out of context" and "he was just quoting others" is timely but draws people's attention to the story. It is not an effective rebuttal and brings up a ton of images that Kerry really doesn't want people to think about. The DNC/MSM is also a bit confounded in how to handel Winter Soldier. After all, for them, it was a glorious victory, Oliphant's cartoon exhibits that in full. The DNC/MSM has never given a damn about vets. They didn't then and they don't now. Cut n' run Kerry is perfectly emblematic for them.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 11:48 AM

Any vets on this board — Here's the Oliphant Cartoon . Pass it on, to every vet you know, every vet's widow, every vet's kid.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 21, 2004 11:49 AM

Yes, the MSM coverage sucks. But most people do not read the articles that are being churned out by them with a critical eye. The Chicago Tribune article is a major and glossy hit job. I only hope the refutations that will follow will get half the press attention. Maybe, I'm too pessimistic.

Posted by: julie at August 21, 2004 11:54 AM

vnj:

The problem is the Kerry camp is now forced to play he said, he said. Just look at all the men who were there who are willing to say something different from this gentleman but we are told that they don't count because they were not on his boat. Well, neither was this guy.

23 officers are involved in this effort to discredit Kerry and we have been told they don't count. But this one does?

In truth I think if they hit a mine and laid down fire it could have been confused enough that years later people might have differing accounts, happens all the time. But what about the other guys who pulled people out of the water and are not running for president, don't they count?

I am sure these guys had to know who was and was not there that day and on their web site they swifties said that Kerry had only one supporter among the swift boat commanders. They must be him. I doubt this was a surprise.

I think what was a surprise to a lot of people was that a guy could three purple hearts and never go to the hospital.

Posted by: Terrye at August 21, 2004 12:00 PM

Richard,

I hope that cartoon is enlarged and printed up for distribution at the American Legion convention in Nashville. I know there is a Vets against Kerry demonstration scheduled for Sept. 12 in DC but having a few hundred of the AL attendees waving posters with the cartoon on them in Nashville on the day of Kerry's speech would be amusing.

I don't know what total attendance is projected to be at Nashville but in Cincinnati only 6,000 of 15,000 attendees showed up for Kerry's speech. Perhaps a silent "no show" demonstration by AL members would be an even more effective demonstration of lack of affection for the hero of the Winter Soldier campaign.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 12:01 PM

I think there are often currents going on in our national psyhe that the polls and the media fail to pick up on until they erupt to the surface in a way that looks like they came out of nowhere, when in fact they have been brewing and boiling for a long time. And the unfinished business of the Vietnam War is turning out to be one of them.

I was thinking back to a couple of months ago when first Richard Clark's book came out in the middle of the 9/11 kangaroo court otherwise known as a commission, along with Moore's propaganda film-- and the huge play all of it got in the media, how "devastating" it all was going to be to Bush, and with each new wave of attack there would be the predictions that, yes, this was the thing that would sink his re-election bid. And yet all of that stuff--very current stuff, too--barely translated into a ripple in the polls. It was as if the national psyche stopped, looked, listened and then collectively shrugged. Then along comes a group of 250 Vietnam vets armed with a puny war chest of a couple hundred thousand dollars, a TV ad they can only afford to air in three states, a book put out by a specialty publisher, and only the alternative media to get out a story about something that happened thirty years ago--and yet somehow, someway, and in spite of the MSM blackout, and in the midst of all the other noise and all the other election hoopla, this is the one thing that manages to strike a national chord.

(The latest Rasmussen poll says that 78% of Americans have read, seen, or heard news stories about "a group of veterans raising questions about John Kerry's military service." That is just huge.)

I'm not sure why we, as a national and cultural entity, are feeling this need to go back and revisit the Vietnam War. Is it really unfinished business, or is it rather just the same ideological and cultural divide lining up again to fight the same war only on a different battlefield? Certainly a lot of the rhetoric being thrown around by both sides is reminiscent of the rhetoric back then. For instance, the peace symbol is making a big comeback here in the Bay Area--it's on more bumpers by far than Kerry stickers. And I talked to someone who watched the CSPAN replay of the Dick Cavett show where O'Neill and Kerry debated the Vietnam War, and she said that they could have been talking about Iraq today.

I think in many ways the world view that opposed the Vietnam War is the same world view opposing the war against Islamofacism today, and indeed this opposition (for all that he is trying to pretend otherwise) is even embodied in the same person of John Kerry. The difference between then and now, though, is that this time we were attacked on our own soil and will likely be attacked again, and cutting and running is not an option, if for no other reason than that there is nowhere to cut and run to. And it is that fear over the lack of real viable options for the Left side of the divide this time that is fueling all the anger and the Bush-hate.

So perhaps on some level the national psyche started quite awhile ago to figure all of this out. That it's the same darn peace/war divide of thirty years ago, and the election has finally started to boil down to a choice--war and all the uncomfortable sacrifices that might entail, or peace at any price.

Posted by: penwil at August 21, 2004 12:05 PM

Is there more meat in the Trib article than what the ling vnj gave us has:

"Before now, wanting to put memories of war and killing behind him, Rood had refused all requests for interviews on the subject, including from his own newspaper. "But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown." he wrote.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us.

"It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there," he added.

Kerry, a former Navy lieutenant, is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, and his war service is essential to his ability to challenge President Bush on issues of national security and leadership in the face of the Iraq war and terrorism threats.

There is nothing specific in the above. What is "untrue"? Who are "those of us who were there" who know the accounts to be untrue?

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 12:07 PM

Terrye:

I believe the Rood article relates only to the Silver Star incident on February 28. The first SB ad related primarily to the March 13 Bronze Star Purple Heart incident. My impression has been that there has been little emphasis on the Silver Star story.

This, I think, makes your point.

Posted by: vnjagvet at August 21, 2004 12:23 PM

Terrye

Makes a wonderful point, about the Dems alienating "the little people" they say they adore.

However many Vietnam vets there are, and however many ground combat vets, and however many knew or knew of John Kerry, my guess is that very few and maybe not a damn one of them works as a reporter or editor at any of the big papers or TV networks.

I'm in a profession, and my age group is the one that went to Vietnam. I was a draftee, and pounded the ground, and became qualified later on. Everyone else in my profession that I've ever met or talked to was either college-deferred or serving as an officer "in the rear." Never have I met anybody in my profession who lost a daddy, brother, or son in that war. I imagine the same is true in the ivied halls of CBS and them. Probably in all the upper socioeconomic groups in the USA.

There is a this-side and that-side of the track about these ads. I know they wouldn't move my upper-middle-class acquaintances much, but the trailer park in me was just blasted by the men in the first ad. The second ad, with that sonorous upper-class snotty back-east Kerry talking about things he knew nothing of, hit me differently, but in the same place.

Posted by: John Mendenhall at August 21, 2004 12:24 PM

Knuck,

I sent it to you as an untitled email - word doc attached.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 12:24 PM

vnjagvet,

Good point about Terrye's post. It's what I'm trying to say regarding minutiae. It's also why the Trb story will prove ineffective except as "Well, look at what the other fellow said." rebuttal. The tactical goal of the initial ad has been achieved. O'Neill now has the jury thinking about the defendant in a negative light. The next point - Winter Soldier - is the main basis for the prosecutorial case. Il Capitano Bragadoccio's public court martial continues with a likely verdict of "Unfit for Command" becoming ever more plausible.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 12:36 PM

John M.--

While you are no doubt right about the divide between veterans and civilians, as someone who wasn't old enough to serve in Vietnam, I find myself mesmerized by this long-deferred rematch.

How many people of my generation had even heard of "Winter Soldier" before Kerry decided to run for president? I think this battle between the vets and Kerry will prove highly educational for those of us taught that Vietnam was an unwinnable war, in which the U.S. perpetrated many senseless, wicked acts.

I would be very interested to see tracking polls for people under the age of 50 and how this has affected their opinions of Kerry and Vietnam generally.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 21, 2004 12:44 PM

John Mendenhall
As I posted earlier, I had the normal student deferment for four years. So I guess you could say I was upper middle class, but the ads hit home to me as well because they confirmed my gut feel about Kerry that was formed through 7 years of active duty. He gamed the system and did nothing but cover his own ass. We had a saying in the Air Force, "What looks good...IS good". All vets have seen this type before. No one really respects them.

The point of the Swifties ads and appearances is to leave that same impression with undecided voters. One or two incidents won't make that happen. It takes a series of stories, accounts, facts, and Kerry's own words to paint a true picture of what he stands for and is driven by.

As far as the MSM goes, I treat them like I do the Dixie Chicks. I can never again listen to one of their songs without seeing Natalie Maines and her ugly comments to a foreign audience. It totally spoils the music for me. I can't listen any to it longer. The MSM is similar. Their rabid one-sided stories leave me cold, frustrated, and sometimes angry. I can't read the crap. I'm glad some of the posters here on this blog do. They can just relay the gist in a reasonable manner. I don't read the papers or watch MSM tv news. Hell, I don't even have local cannels on my satellite service.

Posted by: sammy small at August 21, 2004 12:51 PM

Thanks, Rick. I got it. Now I have to parse it and figure out what it rebutts, if anything. So far it seems to rebutt the claim that Kerry chased down and killed a wounded teenager.

JMO, but that's a "charge" I never cared much about. If they were fired on then killing enemy whether they were retreating or not seems valid to me. Unless there is some evidence the guy was surrendering or whatever I don't much care how old he was or what he was wearing.

The tactic of charging the riverbank was apparently specifically against standing SOP and seems ill-advised to me. I don't know how often this was used, but it seems to me the type of thing that won't work more than twice and will become a nightmare by the third time its tried when the enemy turns it to their advantage and alters how they conduct their ambushes. The "brass" chose to commend it rather than pucker the perps.

Posted by: Knucklehead at August 21, 2004 1:14 PM

Speaking to the divide. It is most noticable in the press. They don't really know how to relate to vets, heres an indication why:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/articles/sidebyside-military.html

Look at the military service of the pundits. Not.
This profession has probably got the lowest veteran ratio going.

So we are either heroes who can't be besmirched ala Kerry, or Pat Oliphant's buffoons, as the case requires.

Posted by: jdwill at August 21, 2004 1:17 PM

Knuckle--

My second-hand understanding (can't wait for the book to arrive!) is that U for C says Kerry got together with the other boat captains the night before the mission that led to the Silver Star and tried to talk them into beaching their boats and going ashore in hopes of being awarded medals.

If this is true, it by far outweighs the rest of the story, IMHO.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 21, 2004 1:20 PM

Update: the Arizona Republic article via Donald Sensing at One Hand Clapping has an update showing some dis serve.
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/08/war-party.html

Posted by: jdwill at August 21, 2004 1:20 PM

I disagree that the medal issue is unimportant. Kerry established two main personas in this narrative. The extremely competent amd couragous LtJg who rushed into walls of enemy fire to do his duty, and the tired and cynical veteran who had seen untold horrors of war and atrocities. This second world weary Kerry was built of such stout moral fiber he would throw his own medals away and confess to his own crimes to stop the violence.

Those two Kerry's, to the extent they were connected, were connected by the epiphany that occured one Christmas while illegally in Cambodia.

That narrative already had a few problems, for example the war crimes confessed to by Kerry II that were never mentioned, or even possible, by Kerry I for example. However, the Chritmas in Cambodia story held it together enough so that one could skip over the vast contradictions between Kerry I and Kerry II.

Chritmas in Cambodia is now dead, and with it any semblance of linkage. Keep pushing events on both sides of that barrier and Present Kerry faces the contradiction presented by these two vastly different Young Kerry's. The contradiction at the heart of Present Kerry, his ability to hold both sides of an issue simultaneously, is what bothers people about him. Let it be magnified.

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 21, 2004 1:29 PM

Bah, you can tell I am not a copy editor. My first sentence should read, "I disagree that the medal issue is unsolvable, but it must be pursued."

Posted by: ambisinistral at August 21, 2004 1:31 PM

I don't believe that John O'Neil has been working on this sinced 1971. That would have been rather silly - what were the odds that it would ever be useful.

There are open issues with the Vietnam War. Many of us feel betrayed by those who caused us to betray the Vietnamese. Why spend 58,000 lives, and at a point of satisfactory victory, bail out. When Saigon fell in 1975, I felt ashamed and angry, and that anger hasn't gone away. A large amount of the blame has to fall on the MSM and the anti-war movement. In fact, the enemy strategy after 1968 specifically targetted those groups with the (successful)intent of breaking the US will to fight.

It will be interesting to me to see how the silver start issue plays out. That is the one that has seemed the murkiest. Also, it's been a long time, but I think there are several medals between the silver start and the MOH.

Another interesting question is whether Kerry's meetings with the enemy will become part of the campaign. I don't know who said what, but Kerry's 1971 speech contained some items that seem likely to have come from the communists (such as the bizarre racism charges). If Kerry tailored his propaganda to match the enemies (and in late 1972 VVAW sent a person to Hanoi to operate as a liaison), then he could guilty of treason, probably too strong a charge to be made directly.

But an ad which highlights Kerry's first meeting with the enemy (a meeting where he did not meet with our ally), followed by some of the most specific phrases, which the picture of Kerry now in Saigon in the background, could be powerful.

Finally, does anyone know how these new, insane incumbent protection ("campaign finance") laws work. I hear there is some deadline after which ordinary citizens can't campaign on their own or in a 527. Does anyone know?

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at August 21, 2004 1:32 PM

John Moore--

My understanding is that 527s may not run ads within 60 days of the election. That gives the Swiftees only another 10 days to run the second ad (one reason why I don't think there will be a third ad as one of the posters suggested earlier).

I don't know about what "ordinary citizens" can or can't do relative to 527s.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 21, 2004 1:44 PM

John Moore,

I believe he (O'Neill) has at least been think about it since 1971. He describes being outraged then, when he debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett show. I believe there were other skirmishes involving O'Neill during earlier Kerry campaigns for senator.

I think Sept 2 is the deadline. Note that most of the 527's money as listed by http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp
has been spent.

PS The gray lady takes a swat:

In fairness to Mr. Kerry, his aides were faced with a strategic dilemma that has become distressingly familiar to campaigns in this era when so much unsubstantiated or even false information can reach the public through so many different forums, be it blogs or talk-show radio.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/politics/campaign/21assess.html?ex=1250740800&en=81466b5be7a46b0d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Posted by: jdwill at August 21, 2004 1:58 PM

My latest conspiracy theory: the MSM were hoping to ride this out until the 527 timeout on September 2, then begin ripping into the Swift Vets. They found out that they couldn't wait that long, and are coming out now. Can the Swift Vets counter hit journalism past Sept 2?

Posted by: Godzilla at August 21, 2004 2:19 PM

If any source could recognize "unsubstantiated or even false information" it would be the NYT.

Posted by: sammy small at August 21, 2004 2:20 PM

I've just skimmed over the ChiTrib article, having seen synopses and excerpts earlier. While Mr. Rood does answer questions surrounding the "Silver Star" incident, Roger (and others) are quite right that, at this point, the medal question is really an irrelevance, especially since most people, whether left or right, don't dispute that Kerry _is_ entitled to those medals (well, there are still some real questions about the Purple Hearts...), but Rood doesn't even touch the two real issues:

1) "Christmas in Cambodia"
2) "Winter Soldier"

As others have mentioned, Rood's article is a day late and a dollar short. It would have been _much_ more effective had it been released when the first Swiftie ad was first broadcast. It's been a characteristic of the Kerry campaign throughout this whole incident that they've been trying, and failing, to play catch-up.

Also, I agree that Kerry has blundered badly in giving the Swifties national attention by blasting them personally and having his campaign try to sic the FEC on them. Up until them, the playbook had been for the campaign to ignore them as much as possible while the MSM snowed them under with disdain. However, Kerry's blast blew that whole plan to smithereens, and the MSM was _forced_ to finally give the issue front-page coverage. It's wretched bad luck - for the Kerryites, that is - that the Swift Boaters had their _second_ ad, with its far more serious slams, ready to unleash at that very moment. What Kerry has done is guaranteed that the Swifties and their claims will be at the top of the MSM agenda for the next week, until the GOP convention, and _that_ means that a lot of people will be exposed to those ads and will have the chance to judge for themselves. Not to mention that "Unfit for Command" will become one of 2004's top bestsellers, with 500K+ copies already in print - huge for any political tome - and probably more printings to come.

Posted by: Joe at August 21, 2004 2:29 PM

Fresh Air -

At this point, the next 10 days are going to seem like a veritable eternity for the Kerry campaign. Their blunders have guaranteed that the Swifties will dominate the news cycle until the GOP convention. Given that. Mr. O'Neil et al. are probably well-content, or more than content. Even once the ads have to be withdrawn, the book will still be out there, and as a #3 entry on the NYT bestseller list and a continuing #1 on Amazon's sales list, it's going to be just as hot a topic of continuing discussion as "Fahrenheit 9/11", possibly even hotter.

Posted by: Joe at August 21, 2004 2:33 PM

I have not got the book yet and so I am getting kind of confused as to the details of all the incidents and if I am a lot of other people will also and they will not read the book so the details will be lost on most folks. What they will remember is the bad taste it will leave in their mouths.

The thing about Viet Nam is that the morale was so low they were givng medals out for things that might not have merited them in other conflicts. As if a medal could make up for all that.

I learned from Viet Nam that you can't run away.

Kerry learned there is a sucker born every minute.

The prick.

I don't know if he earned some of his medals, he may have. However a lot of the men he served with ended up hating and distrusting him enough that they had their doubts.

That tells you something. I bet Kerry's campaign has been out there beating the bushes for vets to come to his rescue and so far they have one vet in one article to add to his band of brothers.

Where is everybody else? Maybe the little lady ought to get out her checkbook.

Posted by: Terrye at August 21, 2004 2:46 PM

The past week or so we have been spending a lot of time and effort trying to figure out to what extent the Swift Boat Ads (especially the 'Winter Soldier' ad) and Unfit For Command was going to have on the election. In doing so, most have discussed these controversies in terms of how they would effect undecideds/nonpartisans and/or veterans. I'm not so sure that the effects of the Swift Boat Ads, Unfit For Command and Kerry's 'Winter Soldier' testimony are going to be limited to those two groups. In other words, I am starting to think that these controversies may start causing problems for Kerry with the very group that he (and most of us at this site) are taking for granted as in his campaign bag...the 'Anyone But Bush' crowd.

Here's why I think Kerry is headed for trouble with a significant portion of the ABBers:

As anyone who has paid attention has already noted, it is quite clear from Kerry's rightward drift on the Iraq War, the Iraq Reconstruction and the War On Terror that his internal polling is telling him that he cannot allow himself to be overtly associated with the Anti-War wing of the Democratic Party (Deaniacs, Kucinich's Klowns, etc.) or their primary stances on each of the three issues mentioned. Irrespective of the merits, the Kerry campaign understands that they must get as close as possible to the Bush Administration's positions in these three areas to have a chance to win in November.

Given that, for the ABBers, who are by definition Anti-War, Anti-Reconstruction and Anti-WOT, to be able to support Kerry in good faith, they must take the leap of faith that Kerry is lying through his teeth to Middle America about all three issues. Wasn't that the unspoken subtext of the Democratic convention? John Kerry may have "reported for duty", but he made very sure it was the outspoken Anti-War Max Cleland that introduced him, right? There was Michael Moore sitting with Jimmy Carter for all to see, and for the Anti-War ABBers to draw the appropriate conclusion as to what that really meant.

This need to appear 'as tough as Bush' while still winking at the Anti-War crowd in secret empathy lies at the heart of Kerry's strategy for winning in November. Roger and others had wondered why Kerry has chosen to emphasize his Viet Nam experience in his campaign. The answer, at least to me, is quite simple and straightforward. In a nutshell, it allows him enough wiggle room to try to satisfy two groups of voters with diametrically opposing views on the Iraq War and the War On Terror. These are the groups that he must have to win the election. If Roger has mixed feelings about Viet Nam, I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that there are a few others who feel exactly the same way. It is the combination of warfare and ambiguity that makes Viet Nam appealing to the Kerry campaign.

However, the success of all of this is predicated on the Anti-War ABB crowd being able to trust John Kerry. It is fairly clear that he does not arouse the kind of passion that Howard Dean did, but, if Kerry is willing to come through on their agenda, the ABBers are (for the most part) willing to overlook his flaws and his obvious mediocrity when it comes time to cast their votes. But the key here is the issue of trustworthiness. Being dishonest to Middle America doesn't bother the ABBers, but the potential of being dishonest to the ABBers does! If nothing else has been made clear by the separate but related controversies of Kerry?s medals, service record, 'Winter Soldier' testimony and 'War Hero' campaigning is that he will do whatever he feels necessary to advance himself. If Kerry's behaviors are sowing the seeds of doubt in the undecideds, it is probably doing the same with a portion of the ABB crowd. Some may simply walk away from him because they believe he will not actually come through for them when he is elected...in other words, he could be lying about lying.

There is another reason all of this could be damaging to Kerry with the ABBers. As anyone who has spent time talking with members of the Anti-War/ABB cadres can testify, the one thing that overwhelms all else amongst those people is their unflinching belief in their own moral superiority. Look at the prominent Anti-War bloggers such as Atrios, KOS, Marshall, Drum and Yglesias and what you see is just that...the sense moral superiority in spades. It is exactly what allows them to dismiss Bush and all Republicans as evil primitives, to vilify former comrades such as Roger Simon and Ron Silver as traitors, to gloat over each Iraqi setback we might encounter, or to feel no pain over the deaths of 'mercenaries' helping to rebuild Iraq...while remaining very, very moral indeed. At some point, and I don't know where that point is, some of the ABBers will simply not be able to reconcile that need for moral superiority with the desire to oust President Bush. At some point, Kerry's antics over the past 35 years will overwhelm their desire to see George Bush gone. At some point, it becomes clear that associating with Kerry ends up being little more than associating with the 'evils of Bush', i.e. lying, cheating stealing. When that happens, ABBers will start to drift towards either Nader, or if Nader is not available to them, towards abstaining come election day. Look at today's Doonesbury...it makes this point in no uncertain terms.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at August 21, 2004 2:58 PM

Terrye,

You can read two important chapters (5, and 6) for free online.

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/offer.html

Chapter 5 gives detail o the medals controversy

Chapter 6 lays out the issue with the Winter Soldier 'investigation' and Kerry's use of it.

Posted by: jdwill at August 21, 2004 2:59 PM

Everyone---

Interesting interview with John O'Neill at Human Events Online. He gives a little more color on the Silver Star and Bronze Star incidents.

This guy knows his stuff.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 21, 2004 3:02 PM

Dennis, you are absolutely right. In fact, I know a couple of ABB'ers on another message board that I frequent who are quite unhappy with Kerry. One of them, in fact, frequently says that when he goes into the booth on 11/2 to vote for Kerry, he'll be wearing a clothespin on his nose while he's doing so, because as much as he hates Bush, he's nearly as disgusted with Kerry. In fact, he said just the other day that while he believes Nader will repeat his spoiler role in this year's election, he's looking like a "prophet" compared to the major candidates and that Kerry had better "disinfect his campaign" soon or he'll abandon Kerry and switch to Nader. The other gentleman won't go as far, at least not yet, but he's very unhappy with the incompetence of Kerry's campaign staff.

Posted by: Joe at August 21, 2004 3:32 PM

I just caught the CBS Evening News. It was basically a hatchet job on the SBVT. The Chicago reporter who was a swift boat commander backs up Kerry's story re: Silver Star. But as Roger said (and Hugh Hewiit too) the medal count is the diversion. Teasing out the facts about medals was never the big issue. Cambodia, baby, Cambodia. He has yet to explain the stuff about the CIA drops. His Christmas carrolls have struck a false note, and everyone knows it.

Kerry has been trying to square a circle, and attempting that always has a short half life. He wants to be both the Dean anti war lefty and the gung ho take no prisoners WoT butt-kicker. The only reason he has been able to sustain it this long is how much the ABB crowd loathes Bush. I look for Kerry to throw a Hail Mary pass in the coming weeks in the guise of "reaching out" to the Vietnam vets to "heal old wounds" so we can "move the country forward again." To which many vets will say, too late buddy boy.

Posted by: Barry Dauphin at August 21, 2004 3:50 PM

Fresh Air sez:

"I have seen the Lehman-signed-the-Silver-Star-paperwork thing discussed on other blogs, and the consensus was Kerry probably requested a replacement"

Would that be a replacement for the one he either did or did not throw over the White House fence?

Posted by: rgvdh at August 21, 2004 4:02 PM

John Kerry more and more embodies the axiom that each of us is the architect of his own fate.

Years ago Mr. Kerry slimed, maligned and used as a springboard to his political career a group of American soldiers and veterans. Now members of the same group may effectuate the end of that career.

There's a certain poetic justice in that.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at August 21, 2004 4:02 PM

Re: Rick Ballard's comment Aug 21, 2004 at 10:30 AM

Rick, like you, I have been intending to send some financial support to the Swifties and haven't gotten around to it. I'm sending $100.00 right now. If everyone on this thread who hasn't contributed would do so today the SBV could buy more airtime. I'm off to my check book right now.

RayC

Posted by: RayC at August 21, 2004 4:28 PM

Excellent post, Dennis. Thank you for providing another piece of the puzzle, to wit, that part of the source of BDS is the sense of self-righteous moral superiority which these people possess. That's one of the reasons why I choose to name them Neopuritans. It takes an essentially religious conviction about one's beliefs to provide that level of confident self-righteousness.

As for having an effect, absolutely, every one of these pieces of information, as it comes in, has an effect across the full spectrum of the electorate. It is often stated that only the independents matter, but that is wrong, everyone matters and everyone is affected.

Posted by: WichitaBoy at August 21, 2004 4:33 PM

Great analysis Dennis. I'm really beginning to have doubts about the actual size of the true ABB group. I've seen claims that it exceeds 20%but I can't find any evidence of it. I think I'll stick with 13-15% and lean to the low end. I keep remembering the media clamor about the hordes of Deaniacs in Iowa in contrast to the actual result.

I would also note that there is very little "how dare you impugn the character of this fine man" type of response. Typically, I would expect to see at least a little "Look at all his wonderful accomplishments..." but I guess reality is a limiting factor.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 21, 2004 4:38 PM

rgvdh--

Would that be a replacement for the one he either did or did not throw over the White House fence?

Answer: Yes.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 21, 2004 4:48 PM

jdwl:

Thank you, I will check that out.

Barry my dear I have not watched Dan Rather in ages. Of course CBS did a hatchet job on the vets. For years I watched CBS everyday and listened to NPR every day. I have made a clean break and that is why I have time for you guys.

Wichita boy you are right. The abb people are zealots. They have reacted to this much the way the church congregation might react to catching the minister with the choir leader.

Posted by: Terrye at August 21, 2004 4:58 PM

Barry writes

I look for Kerry to throw a Hail Mary pass in the coming weeks in the guise of "reaching out" to the Vietnam vets to "heal old wounds"

This Vietnam veteran would remove the pin and throw it back.

(That's assuming I could figure out how - zoomies and hand grenades are strangers)

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at August 21, 2004 5:12 PM

Roger:

Contenitti states in his article that Thurlow has not released his records. Correct me if I am wrong somebody but I think this is not true. I believe the man said he stood by what he said and that if he got a citation then he did not deserve it either and he did agree to release his records.

Can you be named in a citation and not know about it? Could it be that he knew and just did not say anything at the time? In any event he is standing by what he has said. But you are right, thirty years is a long time to reconstruct events.

Posted by: Terrye at August 21, 2004 5:44 PM

The shorter Roger Simon:

Well, we've all had fun smearing the candidate, but the lies are starting to blow up in our faces, so we'll just declare the whole thing a draw and hope that everyone drops it before they work out what sleazy hacks we all are.

You are a disgrace.

Posted by: Mork at August 21, 2004 5:51 PM

Rick Ballard — I e-mailed the Oliphant cartoon and the CQ comments on it to the American Legion national HQ as soon as I posted here.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 21, 2004 5:53 PM

(That's assuming I could figure out how - zoomies and hand grenades are strangers)

John -- it's a lot like tossing a cold beer to your friends in the hot tub, except you pull the ring-tab first.

Oh, and it's good to toss it a little further.

Terrye:

Can you be named in a citation and not know about it? Could it be that he knew and just did not say anything at the time?

Yes to one and yes to two.

On one, it appears that the citation paperwork was filed three months after Thurlow separated. The first time he heard about it may have been when he got the medal. On the second, as a stand-alone citation it may well have been very valid; the descriptions I've read of Thurlow's conduct sound pretty impressive. But it kind of sounds like the after-action report doesn't single out Thurlow, and it was sort of "bronze stars all around".

Mork:

Well, we've all had fun smearing the candidate, but the lies are starting to blow up in our faces, so we'll just declare the whole thing a draw and hope that everyone drops it before they work out what sleazy hacks we all are.

Mork, has anyone mentioned recently that you're not just a troll, but a moronic troll?

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 21, 2004 6:02 PM

Charlie, if no one has recently, I'll say it: Mork, you are not just a troll, but a moronic troll.

Posted by: Fresh Air at August 21, 2004 6:22 PM

The Diminutive Mork:

Nothing is blowing up in anyone's face and no one is calling it a draw. These are serious matters worthy of serious review. If these allegations are lies, then they should be easy to dispatch with Mr. Kerry's signature on a Standard Form 180 and a subsequent press conference.

You are a disgrace.

Posted by: devildog at August 21, 2004 6:27 PM

Holy projection Morkman!!

"Well, we've all had fun smearing the candidate, but the lies are starting to blow up in our faces, so we'll just declare the whole thing a draw and hope that everyone drops it before they work out what sleazy hacks we all are."

1) Isn't that sorta what the Dems and the MSM did regarding the Bush AWOL thing? Yes, we all know he served the the TANG - didn's see combat and didn't claim to (take that Harkin!) - yes it was less brave than going to Vietnam - but the Chairman of the DNC accused Bush of a crime (AWOL), with no evidence to back it up (or even basic knowledge of how the ANG works). Give me a call when Gillespie or Racicot accuses Kerry of a crime (though he did admit to some in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Cmte) - until then, STFU.

2) Nobody's dropping anything. The Swift Vets scored a home-run on Christmas in Cambodia. Kerry lied, Nicaraugans died! Apparently Kerry thinks that lying to the Senate to make a political point (or at least score some points) is no biggie. He did it in the 70s and he did it again in the 80. He's totally nailed on that - and patrolling the "watery borders" from 50 miles away won't cut it. He can't get any of hi pet vets to back up the Cambodian thing - his 1986 testimony was pure BS, right out of Apocalyose Now.

3) Silver Star - There actually is not too much variation in the different accounts. I don't think what he did was particularly medal worthy, but it was not necessarily wrong either. Beldar has a great discussion on the point, so I'll leave it there, except to say that I wouldn't want to hang my case on this point.

3) Purple Heart 1 - There is a lack of conclusory evidence on this one - it seems to come down to eyewitness testimony (the crappiest kind of evidence - give me circumstantial any day). There is, however, a direct contradiction with Kerry's account of "going into battle for the first time" in the Brinkley book - several days later. Also, I think that anyone who served in the infantry or other combat arms would be disgusted at Kerry's getting the award for a scratch, even if it was an enemy-inflicted scratch. This is a personal value judgment, but voters who are ex-combat arms ought to have the info to be able to make that judgment. Some people will judge Bush harshly for avoiding service in Vietnam, others will do the same to Kerry for getting a cheesy (though possibly legitimate) purple heart.

4) The Rassman - Bronze Star / 3rd PH incident. Nothing that I've seen in the NYT or other media has convinced me that there was "heavy fire" at the time. I could conceive of some light, harassing fire, maybe, but I cannot believe that anyone would spend over an hour trying to salvage a boat on a narrow canal while under heavy fire. It just defies logic. Thurlow jumped onto a sinking boat, and in fact fell in the water - that might justify the Bronze Star, since he was in some personal danger, though seems kind of weak to me. The lack of other casulties (except possibly Kerry's bruised arm) seems to support the notion that there was no heavy fire.

Kerry advanced a thesis. The SwiftVets provided an antithesis. We are now working our way towards a synthesis. Some of the Vets' claim will likely be proven false, or at least not entirely true, but we will also unmask Kerry's lies.

Posted by: holdfast at August 21, 2004 6:30 PM

15 minutes and no further postings - did I accidently kill this thread?

Posted by: holdfast at August 21, 2004 6:46 PM

Mork:

you coward.

The disgrace is a man who would be president after he called his fellow soldiers war criminals and disgraced the men still in country as well as the tens of thousands who died. I guess respecting the vet only counts if the vet is kissing John Kerry's boney ass.

Posted by: Terrye at August 21, 2004 6:46 PM

Nice post, Holdfast

I agree about the Silver Star, in fact the whole medals controversy is just the tar baby opening.

Yet to come are the details of how dishonest the Winter Soldier testimony was, how Kerry carried it whole to the Fulbright comittee,
yet to come are the Kerry linkages to VVAW people whose names are infamous,
then the meetings with North Vietnamese officials in the light of his reserve naval officer status,
then the POW-MIA comittee and the shredded documents,
then the linkage to businessmen who stood to profit from normalization of relations with N Vietnam.
Are we to November yet? Can every MSM editor hold this back with the internet and Fox carrying it? All it took was to initially draw blood.

What puzzles me is why the Chicgo Tribune article that brings Rood to the surface is only coming out now
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040821rood,1,1611037.story?coll=chi-news-hed
This seems like a believable, straightforward rebuttal to the O'Neil version. Why didn't they get this out right away? then they might have derailed it before half the country had the meme.

Posted by: jdwill at August 21, 2004 6:53 PM

I guess respecting the vet only counts if the vet is kissing John Kerry's boney ass.

Strong letter follows.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 21, 2004 6:54 PM

Terrye:

Thanks for reviving the thread- and using the term "bony ass" - though I think "bony, lilly-white ass" might be even better : )).

i was trying to come up with the perfect descriptor for Kerry's speaking style; I settled on "Hectoring" - any other suggestions?

Posted by: holdfast at August 21, 2004 6:55 PM

C'mon Mork - I'm calling you out. Rebut by post - please! I'm no DtP, but I think I can punt a Trollette like Mork.

Posted by: holdfast at August 21, 2004 7:00 PM

John Moore and Charlie (Colorado) — And whatever you do, don't chug it...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 21, 2004 7:00 PM

This seems like a believable, straightforward rebuttal to the O'Neil version. Why didn't they get this out right away? then they might have derailed it before half the country had the meme.

Reading it, it doesn't appear as if Rood is all that thrilled about talking about it, and he says straight out that he wouldn't come forward at Kerry's personal request. Nor does it refute the idea that the maneuver was preplanned, just the opposite -- although he doesn't comment on the imputed motivation.

Rood is definitely not coming out in Kerry's favor in any way except the limited one to say the Silver Star citation was arguable.

By the way, did anyone notice this:

Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.

This sounds a lot like what we're hearing now about the Cambodia thing.

Kerry's division wasn't in the area at all, but someone else did act on the Giang Thanh River.

Sounds like a source for more confabulation.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 21, 2004 7:06 PM

So Rood, who was there but not on Kerry's boat, which according to the Kerry campaign already disqualifies him, defends Kerry's actions.

There were 18 Navy men and an unspecified number of army personnel (between the three boats, at a squad a piece, that could be over 30 men) involved in that action. Rood is the only one who leaps to Kerry’s defense aside from the problematic "band of brothers"? Don't you think those other men would be lining up to defend Kerry by now, seeing a brother vet being abused and all?

Oh, well, maybe they were busy posing for Pat Oliphant...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 21, 2004 7:16 PM

OK - I get it... pop the top and throw it a long ways, and duck.

Regarding the first purple heart, there are two special things other than the testimony of the doctor and the CO denying it:

1) It was Kerry's first but I believe it was the last to be awarded.

2) Kerry had asked both the doctor and his CO for a purple heart recomendation and been turned down.

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at August 21, 2004 7:17 PM

So Rood, who was there but not on Kerry's boat, which according to the Kerry campaign already disqualifies him, defends Kerry's actions.

Oops, that's right, Rood "didn't serve with Kerry", did he?

But seriously, it's a pretty pale, wan bit of support; Jamie, you're the MD, get out the smelling salts.

John, I can't recall -- do we know who did sign the papers for the first PH? Is that the thing the Corpsman signed?

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 21, 2004 7:27 PM

Wow. I wonder what's up: just tried to get over to swiftvets.com, and I can't get it.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 21, 2004 7:39 PM

If you read the account it seems the difference is one of degrees. That is how many enemy and how much help did Kerry have? To a large degree there is no significant difference. I mean, it is kinda thin. Rood does make the point that Kerry did not charge like the Light Brigade all by himself nor was it all his idea.

It seems that Kerry does not always lie, but he often takes poetic