Bad news for Kerry

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-04 11:10am

Odd, it worked without registration a few minutes ago. Here you go:

BY JOHN O'NEILL
Tuesday, May 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

HOUSTON--In 1971, I debated John Kerry, then a national spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for 90 minutes on "The Dick Cavett Show." The key issue in that debate was Mr. Kerry's claim that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Now, as Sen. Kerry emerges as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've chosen to re-enter the fray.

Like John Kerry, I served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. Ironically, John Kerry and I served much of our time, a full 12 months in my case and a controversial four months in his, commanding the exact same six-man boat, PCF-94, which I took over after he requested early departure. Despite our shared experience, I still believe what I believed 33 years ago--that John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades.

Neither I, nor any man I served with, ever committed any atrocity or war crime in Vietnam. The opposite was the truth. Rather than use excessive force, we suffered casualty after casualty because we chose to refrain from firing rather than risk injuring civilians. More than once, I saw friends die in areas we entered with loudspeakers rather than guns. John Kerry's accusations then and now were an injustice that struck at the soul of anyone who served there.

During my 1971 televised debate with John Kerry, I accused him of lying. I urged him to come forth with affidavits from the soldiers who had claimed to have committed or witnessed atrocities. To date no such affidavits have been filed. Recently, Sen. Kerry has attempted to reframe his comments as youthful or "over the top." Yet always there has been a calculated coolness to the way he has sought to destroy the record of our honorable service in the interest of promoting his political ambitions of the moment.

John Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage," and Dwight Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" inspired generations. Not so John Kerry, who has suppressed his book, "The New Soldier," prohibiting its reprinting. There is a clear reason for this. The book repeats John Kerry's insults to the American military, beginning with its front-cover image of the American flag being carried upside down by a band of bearded renegades in uniform--a clear slap at the brave Marines in their combat gear who raised our flag at Iwo Jima. Allow me the reprint rights to your book, Sen. Kerry, and I will make sure copies of "The New Soldier" are available in bookstores throughout America.

Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces.

John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?

Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. Nobody has recruited me to come forward. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience.

Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamist terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing--John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.

Mr. O'Neill served in Coastal Division 11 in 1969-70, winning two Bronze Stars and additional decorations for his service in Vietnam.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-04 11:32am

Master of Ossus wrote:Are you suggesting that this survey is totally invalidated by the fact that it specifically asks questions of a group of people with a particular relationship with Kerry? The survey never set out to determine how people who know John Kerry feel about his campaign. It asked veterans who served with Kerry about their feelings regarding his bid for the presidency. You cannot simply point to the fact that a survey is not definitive and therefore totally invalidate it.

You were the one who decided to invoke sample sizes and statistics, buddy. And statistical sampling follows rules. This is not a valid sample for determining the present-day integrity of John Kerry. Deal with it. All it tells us is that people he's previously served with in the military (whom he also accused of committing war crimes) don't like him. Well no fucking shit, Sherlock.

And, of course, the fact that he falsely accused these people of committing warcrimes can be dismissed since it has nothing to do with his candidacy? Regardless of their reasons for disliking Kerry, it's clear that this is more than a partisan attack.

That was a very different world for just about everyone. There's no way of really knowing if he falsely accused them of war crimes. All we know is that he shot his mouth off 30 years ago without any evidence to back up his claims. That doesn't make him a liar; it just makes him impulsive ... 30 years ago. Again, what a surprise. An impulsive 20-something year-old. Oh dear, I'm afraid the sky is falling.

I'm sure they would, also. However, if you're claiming that Kerry was an asshole and that this does nothing to affect his candidacy, then I think you're mistaken. Kerry has campaigned largely on the basis that he can somehow connect with people both in the US and abroad. If it can be shown that he's a jerk, who in fact has difficulty connecting with others, you don't think that this is going to affect his campaign?

All that's been shown is that he was a jerk 30 fucking years ago.

This has nothing to do with the validity of the survey, but only points out a few of its many limitations.

And those "limitations" happen to invalidate the survey. Since when is a biased, non-random sample a "limitation" and not a "grievous error"? Do you know anything about statistics? At all?

One veteran, however, did note a potential lack of forthrightness about the incident for which he received his first Purple Heart. They also pointed to the fact that he falsely accused them of warcrimes.

See above.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-04 03:13pm

Durandal wrote:You were the one who decided to invoke sample sizes and statistics, buddy. And statistical sampling follows rules. This is not a valid sample for determining the present-day integrity of John Kerry. Deal with it. All it tells us is that people he's previously served with in the military (whom he also accused of committing war crimes) don't like him. Well no fucking shit, Sherlock.

Nor did I ever claim that this was a valid method of determining his PRESENT DAY integrity. However, this is an issue for a campaign that has based over $25 MILLION in advertising for the expressed purpose of boasting about his military career. You seriously don't see a problem with spending $25 million hyping up something that, according to your own admission, cannot be used to determine his present-day integrity, anyway?

That was a very different world for just about everyone. There's no way of really knowing if he falsely accused them of war crimes.

Sure there is. Many of the incidents he claimed occurred were demonstrably false, as the veteran's statement above attests. Others were VERY ambiguous, and he has never once brought up any evidence to support them. Not once. Not one corroborating witness from either Vietnam or any of the soldiers.

All we know is that he shot his mouth off 30 years ago without any evidence to back up his claims. That doesn't make him a liar; it just makes him impulsive ... 30 years ago.

And guess what? People shouldn't be allowed to claim things like this, particularly about things that could potentially ruin someone else's career, willy-nilly. If he couldn't back his shit up, and he can't, then he should never have said anything about it. The veterans he served with agreed that this is cause for concern, and if you'll read the statement above rather than totally dismissing it, they have some points.

Kerry has been the one running around spending money to talk about how great his service in the military was, and how much more fit it makes him to run the country. However, the people he served with and who had the most experience with him during that time almost universally disagree. This doesn't strike you as being a serious problem with his campaign?

Again, what a surprise. An impulsive 20-something year-old. Oh dear, I'm afraid the sky is falling.

The problem isn't necessarily his impulsiveness as a 20 year old. The problem is his continued insistence that his military service makes him more qualified to run a country.

All that's been shown is that he was a jerk 30 fucking years ago.

And that he continues to THIS DAY to claim that his experience as a jerk makes him a better candidate. Last time I checked, Ted Kennedy didn't claim that running away from a car crash made him a better candidate. GW Bush didn't claim that his experience with drugs made him a better candidate. Bill Clinton did not claim that his ability to smoke pot without inhaling made him a better candidate. John Kerry IS claiming that his experience in Vietnam makes him a better candidate, but the people with him at that time almost universally disagree. Again, this doesn't strike you as being a problem?

And those "limitations" happen to invalidate the survey. Since when is a biased, non-random sample a "limitation" and not a "grievous error"? Do you know anything about statistics? At all?

You cannot judge a survey designed to measure one thing by its ability to gauge another. The survey was only INTENDED to determine what his comrades-in-arms felt about Kerry's service record. Like it or not, this IS significant, since Kerry and his campaign are insisting that his military record is a boon to his campaign. You cannot apply this to his modern-day integrity, but you CAN apply it to claims he's making about how his service as a member of the armed forces makes him a superior candidate in the upcoming elections.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-04 05:23pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Nor did I ever claim that this was a valid method of determining his PRESENT DAY integrity. However, this is an issue for a campaign that has based over $25 MILLION in advertising for the expressed purpose of boasting about his military career. You seriously don't see a problem with spending $25 million hyping up something that, according to your own admission, cannot be used to determine his present-day integrity, anyway?

We're not talking about why Kerry would make a good president; we're talking about why he would not.

Sure there is. Many of the incidents he claimed occurred were demonstrably false, as the veteran's statement above attests. Others were VERY ambiguous, and he has never once brought up any evidence to support them. Not once. Not one corroborating witness from either Vietnam or any of the soldiers.

Which makes it a matter of hearsay. In other words, there's no way for determining whether or not he lied, exaggerated or what. He simply has no evidence. That means he shot his mouth off ... 30 years ago. What's that got to do with his military service record?

And guess what? People shouldn't be allowed to claim things like this, particularly about things that could potentially ruin someone else's career, willy-nilly. If he couldn't back his shit up, and he can't, then he should never have said anything about it. The veterans he served with agreed that this is cause for concern, and if you'll read the statement above rather than totally dismissing it, they have some points.

What "points"? "We don't like him" is not a valid argument. There's been a mess of bullshit kicked up about hearsay that took place 30 years ago.

Kerry has been the one running around spending money to talk about how great his service in the military was, and how much more fit it makes him to run the country. However, the people he served with and who had the most experience with him during that time almost universally disagree. This doesn't strike you as being a serious problem with his campaign?

And I fail to see any substantial tarnishing of his service record. See below.

The problem isn't necessarily his impulsiveness as a 20 year old. The problem is his continued insistence that his military service makes him more qualified to run a country.

The only specific complaint about his service listed was "His wounds weren't that bad," which is completely unverifiable, and "He lied about war crimes after his tour had ended," which has nothing to do with his service record. What else? Was his service sub-standard? Did he fail to show up for duty on numerous occasions? Or did his comrades just not like him?

And that he continues to THIS DAY to claim that his experience as a jerk makes him a better candidate. Last time I checked, Ted Kennedy didn't claim that running away from a car crash made him a better candidate. GW Bush didn't claim that his experience with drugs made him a better candidate. Bill Clinton did not claim that his ability to smoke pot without inhaling made him a better candidate. John Kerry IS claiming that his experience in Vietnam makes him a better candidate, but the people with him at that time almost universally disagree. Again, this doesn't strike you as being a problem?

And what specific parts of his service, other than hearsay about how Kerry's wounds weren't that bad, are so damning?

You cannot judge a survey designed to measure one thing by its ability to gauge another. The survey was only INTENDED to determine what his comrades-in-arms felt about Kerry's service record.

Wrong. The survey was intended to judge Kerry's capacity to be commander in chief.

Like it or not, this IS significant, since Kerry and his campaign are insisting that his military record is a boon to his campaign. You cannot apply this to his modern-day integrity, but you CAN apply it to claims he's making about how his service as a member of the armed forces makes him a superior candidate in the upcoming elections.

And there's no substance to their claims about his service record at all. It's hearsay from people who he accused of committing war crimes 30 years ago.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-04 05:32pm

Durandal, what do you think of John O'Neill's article? (the one Joe
reposted for us)

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-04 05:40pm

The point O'Neill is missing is that the world was a completely different place, and people were completely different people. Again, Kerry may have outrightly lied or exaggerated (my understanding is that that kind of stuff did go on in Vietnam), but all we've got is people denying they ever did anything wrong. Not surprising.

Kerry's problem is the way he's handling this. He's pussy-footing around it instead of directly addressing what his former comrades have to say. That gives the impression that he has something to hide or that he's afraid. But that's a problem with his campaign, not his military service record.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-04 09:00pm

If Kerry had better political handlers (read: people with a tenth of the skill of Bush's bagmen), they would have told him to say that he saw some terrible things and they led him to say some pretty inflammatory stuff in his youth, but time has healed those wounds. However, the point would remain that when push came to shove, he was willing to risk his own life for his country while George W. Bush was busy partying, snorting coke, and driving drunk.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-05-04 10:54pm

Can I have Dean back?

I mean I still wouldn't vote for the guy but at least I could feel that I was fighting a worthy opponent. Someone that presented a set of values distinctly different from my own. I mean seriously Kerry is handling his campaign like a moron. By only responding defensively and with the wrong approach to the response he just ends up looking more and more like another Dukakis. I'll be glad to see my guy win if this continues but I really wish I could have had the fight that a Dean would have put up. You know a real passion for the job.

Bring Dean back, at least then I'll have an opponent I respect.

Oh and Kerry, still a douche for what he said.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-04 11:07pm

Durandal wrote:We're not talking about why Kerry would make a good president; we're talking about why he would not.

What bullshit. Kerry's based a substantial portion of his campaign around his military service, and how that makes him a better candidate. If that is refuted, that is a MAJOR BLOW to his campaign, which has spent tens of millions of dollars advertising his character based on the one point.

Which makes it a matter of hearsay. In other words, there's no way for determining whether or not he lied, exaggerated or what.

Something is hearsay if it's DEMONSTRABLY wrong?

Some of what Kerry said was nothing but hearsay. Some of it was unverifiable (ie. he claims it happened, no one else on either side saw it), and some of it is out-and-out lies and distortions.

He simply has no evidence. That means he shot his mouth off ... 30 years ago. What's that got to do with his military service record?

The veteran explains that he feels that Kerry has betrayed his fellow servicemen by claiming they committed warcrimes, when in fact they did not. He says that this damages Kerry's ability to be a Commander in Chief, because it damages his credibility with the military and veterans associations, and indicates that he violated the trust of his fellow soldiers by accusing literally every officer in the chain of command of committing war crimes, and that this seriously damages his ability to be the Commander in Chief.

What "points"? "We don't like him" is not a valid argument. There's been a mess of bullshit kicked up about hearsay that took place 30 years ago.

See above. Apparently, a lot of veterans still feel that his conduct does affect his ability to be C in C, even if it's just because of a trust issue.

[snip]

The only specific complaint about his service listed was "His wounds weren't that bad," which is completely unverifiable, and "He lied about war crimes after his tour had ended," which has nothing to do with his service record. What else? Was his service sub-standard? Did he fail to show up for duty on numerous occasions? Or did his comrades just not like him?

Apparently, his comrades didn't like him AND they felt that he violated the trust of the military and the esprit de corps by repeating false information about their units, men, and officers following the conflict.

And what specific parts of his service, other than hearsay about how Kerry's wounds weren't that bad, are so damning?

I don't know why 90% of the people who served with him felt he's unqualified. Again, though, doesn't this strike you as being a substantial problem for someone who's spent tens of millions of dollars claiming his military experience makes him a better candidate?

Wrong. The survey was intended to judge Kerry's capacity to be commander in chief.

And it did so by asking people who served in the military with him. When determining his ability to play a specific role, you ask people who knew him in a similar function. Kerry's grandma is not going to be able to accurately determine how his service in Vietnam was, or how it helps him as a C in C. She may be able to tell you he's a nice guy. She may be able to tell you he knows what's going on, or that he's good for legislative functions. However, the purpose of the survey was to examine whether or not Kerry would be a good candidate to run the country's armed forces, and they almost universally said no.

And there's no substance to their claims about his service record at all. It's hearsay from people who he accused of committing war crimes 30 years ago.

In other words, it doesn't bother you that Kerry took the time to accuse others of warcrimes without ANY corroborating evidence, but it's bad when they give their opinion that he would be a poor Commander in Chief?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-05-04 11:11pm

Durandal wrote:Again, Kerry may have outrightly lied or exaggerated (my understanding is that that kind of stuff did go on in Vietnam), but all we've got is people denying they ever did anything wrong. Not surprising.

Interesting how you forget the burden of proof when its convenient. It is incumbent upon Kerry to prove what he said; they don't have to prove their innocence.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-04 11:26pm

Master of Ossus wrote:What bullshit. Kerry's based a substantial portion of his campaign around his military service, and how that makes him a better candidate. If that is refuted, that is a MAJOR BLOW to his campaign, which has spent tens of millions of dollars advertising his character based on the one point.

And? What have they shown to tarnish his record?

Something is hearsay if it's DEMONSTRABLY wrong?

How is it demonstrably wrong? Kerry hasn't satisfied the burden of proof; that's it. He shot his mouth off and made statements he couldn't back up with facts.

Some of what Kerry said was nothing but hearsay. Some of it was unverifiable (ie. he claims it happened, no one else on either side saw it), and some of it is out-and-out lies and distortions.

Such as?

The veteran explains that he feels that Kerry has betrayed his fellow servicemen by claiming they committed warcrimes, when in fact they did not. He says that this damages Kerry's ability to be a Commander in Chief, because it damages his credibility with the military and veterans associations, and indicates that he violated the trust of his fellow soldiers by accusing literally every officer in the chain of command of committing war crimes, and that this seriously damages his ability to be the Commander in Chief.

In other words, it has nothing to do with his service record at all. And that service record is what he's running on.

See above. Apparently, a lot of veterans still feel that his conduct does affect his ability to be C in C, even if it's just because of a trust issue.

Which has no bearing on his military record, which is what you were claiming it did. You're expecting everyone to believe that Kerry's statements made after his tour had ended somehow change anything he did in Vietnam (you know, the record he's running on).

Apparently, his comrades didn't like him AND they felt that he violated the trust of the military and the esprit de corps by repeating false information about their units, men, and officers following the conflict.

See above.

I don't know why 90% of the people who served with him felt he's unqualified. Again, though, doesn't this strike you as being a substantial problem for someone who's spent tens of millions of dollars claiming his military experience makes him a better candidate?

Not when those people have a clear axe to grind and they don't present any information which tarnishes his military record.

And it did so by asking people who served in the military with him. When determining his ability to play a specific role, you ask people who knew him in a similar function. Kerry's grandma is not going to be able to accurately determine how his service in Vietnam was, or how it helps him as a C in C. She may be able to tell you he's a nice guy. She may be able to tell you he knows what's going on, or that he's good for legislative functions. However, the purpose of the survey was to examine whether or not Kerry would be a good candidate to run the country's armed forces, and they almost universally said no.

And apparently the people who served with him cannot offer a single reason for me to doubt anything in Kerry's otherwise admirable record aside from hearsay about his Purple Hearts. What part of this aren't you getting?

In other words, it doesn't bother you that Kerry took the time to accuse others of warcrimes without ANY corroborating evidence, but it's bad when they give their opinion that he would be a poor Commander in Chief?

It doesn't bother me that he did it 30 years ago, no. What bothers me is his pussy-footing around these accusations with jokes about going bald instead of addressing them.

Rogue 9 wrote:Interesting how you forget the burden of proof when its convenient. It is incumbent upon Kerry to prove what he said; they don't have to prove their innocence.

Gee, Sherlock, did you even read my posts? When people make statements they can't back up, we don't automatically label them liars. Or would you prefer me to call you a liar every time you profess your belief in God?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-04 11:32pm

How is it demonstrably wrong? Kerry hasn't satisfied the burden of proof; that's it. He shot his mouth off and made statements he couldn't back up with facts.

Yes, IN FRONT OF THE FUCKING SENATE.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-05-04 11:43pm

Gee, Sherlock, did you even read my posts? When people make statements they can't back up, we don't automatically label them liars. Or would you prefer me to call you a liar every time you profess your belief in God?

I'm not using my belief in God as a major platform plank in the Presidential election, nor does said belief in God threaten to ruin anyone else's career, reputation, and possibly life. Both are true of Kerry's statements. Feel free to call me a liar once I start accusing people of atrocious crimes with no corroborating evidence in order to advance my political career. Until then, your comparison is invalid. Furthermore, Kerry knows whether he saw the alleged crimes or not; I have never claimed objective knowledge or firsthand witness of God. If I ever do that, then certainly call me a liar because I will be one.

Kerry didn't just make a statement he couldn't back up. He made unfounded accusations of horrid crimes against the other men in his unit. That goes beyond your average unbackable statement. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to accuse someone of a crime like rape or torture you'd better be damn sure you can prove it. Its unethical to simply sling accusations that you can't prove in the hope of tarnishing someone's name, which is what his actions boil down to. You might not see a big deal in that. I'm sorry, I do.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-05 12:16am

All right, I'm bowing out. I've made too many conflicting statements, and I'm sick to top it off.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-05-05 12:50am

Joe wrote:
How is it demonstrably wrong? Kerry hasn't satisfied the burden of proof; that's it. He shot his mouth off and made statements he couldn't back up with facts.
Yes, IN FRONT OF THE FUCKING SENATE.

When did he testify before the Senate? I don't doubt it, but a date and reference (besides an article by one of the vets) would be wonderful. I'm dealing with some whackos on another board who keep strawmanning my position from "Kerry hasn't proven that the men in his unit committed atrocities" to "We can't prove that any soldiers in Vietnam committed atrocities," and it'll be useful to have the testimony so I know exactly what he said. (They keep interpreting "served with" to mean "everyone in the God damned theater," and it'll be nice if I can show he was a little more specific than that.)

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2004-05-05 02:41am

When you demand that a whistle-blower provide evidence of the events he witnessed, the nature of which would intrinsically mean that they would go undocumented, you are being unreasonable. We do know that atrocities did happen. It is entirely possible that Kerry witnessed some. We also know that if you ask the people who commit atrocities, they will never admit that they actually committed them.

So in effect, Kerry is being called a liar because he cannot produce a form of evidence to back up his personal observations even though that particular form of evidence would never have been created even if the atrocities did take place. It's one thing to say that he couldn't produce documented proof of his allegations beyond his own eyewitness testimony; it is quite another to say that he must be lying as a result.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-05-05 04:14am

When you demand that a whistle-blower provide evidence of the events he witnessed, the nature of which would intrinsically mean that they would go undocumented, you are being unreasonable. We do know that atrocities did happen. It is entirely possible that Kerry witnessed some. We also know that if you ask the people who commit atrocities, they will never admit that they actually committed them.

So in effect, Kerry is being called a liar because he cannot produce a form of evidence to back up his personal observations even though that particular form of evidence would never have been created even if the atrocities did take place. It's one thing to say that he couldn't produce documented proof of his allegations beyond his own eyewitness testimony; it is quite another to say that he must be lying as a result.

Would that inculded the people who he said witness other atrocities who he's never ever named but said they existed on several occasions?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-05-05 09:51pm

Link
May 5, 2004

Swift Boat Veterans for a Big Lie

A newly formed group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has called upon John Kerry to release all his Vietnam service records. They also say Kerry is "unfit to be commander-in-chief."

Let's put "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" under a microscope:

1. Their call for Kerry to release his Naval records is a little odd, because, uh, Kerry's already released all his Naval records. The original documents can be downloaded from his web site here. I emailed "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to let them know where they can find the records (although the exact words I used were slightly less polite). You may want to do the same.

2. "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" says "We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam." That's just completely false, or, more diplomatically put, "a fucking lie." "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" also says, "They all signed a letter saying he is unfit to be commander-in-chief."
Hmmm... There are 29 pages of officer evaluation reports on Kerry (scroll down to "Fitness Reports" if you want to download) that were filled out by Kerry's commanding officers while he served in the Navy. How in the world could "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" read the following descriptions from Kerry's C.O.'s as "unfit"?

October 19, 1967, evaluation from Captain Allen W. Slifer:
A top notch officer in every measurable trait. Intelligent, mature, and rich in educational background and experience, ENS Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising.

September 3, 1968, evaluation from Captain E.W. Harper, Jr.:
LTJG KERRY is an intelligent and competent young naval officer who has performed his duties in an excellent to outstanding manner.

December 18, 1969, evaluation from LCDR George M. Elliott:
In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.

LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program.

During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

Evaluation co-signed by Joseph Streuli and George M. Elliott on January 28, 1969, and March 17, 1969, respectively:
... exhibited all of the traits of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta.

March 2, 1970 evaluation from Admiral Walter F. Schlech:
... one of the finest young officers with whom I have served in a long naval career.

I could continue with more positive evaluations of Kerry's service, but quite frankly all the excellence is boring me a bit.

There aren't any negative descriptions. None.

3. Perhaps more important than Kerry's C.O. evaluations are the evaluations of the men under his command. From USA Today (a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper) [correction: I'm wrong– USA Today, as several helpful readers have pointed out, is owned by Gannett, but the point remains that they're no lefty outfit. My apologies for the mistake]:

Interviews with 18 officers and enlisted sailors who served with Kerry in Vietnam mostly portray a young leader with an aggressive command style. Many recall a warm, compassionate officer who cared deeply about his working-class crew. They also remember a warrior who ferried pregnant women and hungry villagers down river for medical care and food.

They recall how he initiated water-balloon fights to break the tension. How he asked his crew to call him "John" on the river and "sir" back at base. And how he listened to their problems in a way that foretold a career in politics.

"His concern for us was overwhelming," says Fred Short, a PCF-94 gunner's mate who would get the shakes when the adrenaline of battle wore off. "He would come around then and put his hand on your shoulder and ask if you're all right," says Short, 56, of North Little Rock "I never had another officer do that."

Even those soldiers who didn't like Kerry had respect for him:

"John was a master at looking out for John," says Larry Thurlow, a fellow boat commander. "John has never been bashful about saying, 'Man, I'm a war hero.' "

Yet, except for one crewmate, even those who felt betrayed by Kerry for later leading Vietnam Veterans Against the War and who call themselves Bush supporters acknowledge that he showed courage under fire. "He was extremely brave, and I wouldn't argue that point," Thurlow says.

Stephen Gardner is the one guy who served alongside Kerry who has negative things to say about his courage under fire (some "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" guys claim they "served with" Kerry, but actually I think it would be more accurate for them to say they served "around the same time," and perhaps on a different planet, than Kerry did):

Stephen Gardner, a gunner's mate on PCF-44, spoke out for the first time last month after hearing conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh question Kerry's war credentials. Gardner, who says "this country's in a world of trouble" if the Democrat is elected president, calls Kerry a "hesitant" commander who shunned danger.

Gardner, 56, claims Kerry retreated during a firefight under the pretense that he wanted to get Gardner medical attention. "It was a panic run," says Gardner, who calls his wound superficial. While he refuses to call Kerry a coward, he recalls "a guy who was protecting himself most of the time."

That view does not square with the recollections of eight other enlisted sailors who served with Kerry and were interviewed for this story. Kerry and other PCF-44 veterans say the shooting was over when they turned back to base.

"I never saw John back down from anything," crewmember Bill Zaladonis says.

"I have no idea where he's coming from," Kerry says of Gardner.

Rassmann also dismisses the idea of a cautious Kerry. He says he is alive today because of Kerry's courage during a vicious battle in March 1969. The special forces soldier had been blown off PCF-94 by a mine that also injured Kerry's right arm. Swimming in the river while being strafed from both banks, Rassmann was convinced he was about to die before Kerry's boat returned. As the soldier struggled to climb scramble nets draped over the boat's bow, Kerry reached down with his uninjured arm and pulled him on board.

"He was frankly nuts coming up to the bow and exposing himself" to the barrage of bullets and mortars, Rassmann says.

4. Okay, so who's behind "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"? Two really terrific guys. Meet...

Roy Hoffman

Rear Admiral Hoffman (ret.) was a Captain who headed up a Coastal Surveillance Force unit under which Kerry served. Douglas Brinkley writes about him on pages 177 and 178 in Tour of Duty:

...The new commander, hawkish Captain Roy Hoffman was ecstatic about Sealords. He knew that military reputations were made in wartime, and he was determined to make his in Vietnam. What's more, he had a genuine taste for the more unsavory aspects of warfare, and truly wanted to smoke the Viet Cong out of their tunnels, burn their jungle outposts, and annihilate them once and for all. Decades later, many Swift boat veterans under Hoffman's command would compare him with the rough-hewn colonel in the movie Apocalypse Now who boasted that he "loved the smell of napalm in the morning." In short, Captain Hoffman sought to convince his Swift boat skippers to do whatever it took to notch splashy victories in the Mekong Delta and thereby get him promoted.

Kerry would never forget how ardently Captain Hoffman lauded the exploits of one "enterprising officer" from the Danang Swift division. The officer had surprised some thirty Vietnamese who were fishing in round, floating baskets just off the shore of a peninsula in an area that was, unfortunately for them, a free fire zone. Hoffman considered it ideal military thinking that the Swift skipper had shown the presence of mind to sneak his boat in between the baskets and the shore, cutting the fisherman off from escape and then opening fire on them. All the baskets were sunk, and so were the fishermen. "Fantastic," Hoffman reportedly proclaimed upon hearing the news. Kerry himself would later hear Hoffman praise such "industriousness" at a remarkable meeting in Saigon. Clearly, the Navy had undergone a sea change. Not only were cowboy antics on the rivers of Vietnam no longer frowned upon, they were rewarded with medals.

Sounds like one hell of an American.

Months ago, Hoffman told The Boston Globe that Kerry was a problem and asked to get more specific he said:

"He was just going off on excursions that were not part of the plan at the time." But Hoffman said those problems were corrected and that he admired the gutsy way Kerry later went after the enemy.

It sounds like Hoffman values ingenuity less than gutsiness, and perhaps discretion least of all.

The other "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" point person is...

John O'Neill

After Kerry made a mark as an anti-war veteran in 1971, he earned a spot on Nixon's enemies list. On the Nixon tapes, White House special counsel Charles Colson can be heard assuring Nixon that "We'll keep hitting him [Kerry], Mr. President." In addition to putting Kerry under FBI surveillance, Colson and Nixon recruited cleancut Vietnam vet and toe-the-line right-wing ideologue John O'Neill, who had an hour-long meeting with the President in which Nixon coached him to "Give it to him, give it to him." I've seen a picture of O'Neill and Nixon sitting in front of that White House fireplace. I suppose O'Neill saw his "Kerry character assassination" assignment from Nixon as a 33 year gig.

Although O'Neill had taken over Kerry's Swift boat command after he left Vietnam, before they met on a Dick Cavett Show debate he had never seen Kerry in person. But he despised him. He admonished Kerry everywhere for standing up against Nixon: "The President does our talking for us, as with most Americans. Mr. Kerry certainly does not."

33 years ago O'Neill wanted everyone to shut up so Richard Nixon could lay down the law, just as I'm sure he'd like to crush all dissenting voices to Bush's today. John Kerry stood up then to Nixon, and he stands up now to Bush.

According to Brinkley, O'Neill "truly believed in the U.S. incursions into Cambodia and Laos." That's pretty much all you need to know about the guy, that he would provide unwavering support for a war in Cambodia that was not only blatantly illegal, entirely secret, and abhorrently inhumane, it was also a complete tactical failure. It accomplished absolutely nothing except multiples of thousands of deaths of poor Cambodians. I can't even begin to understand somebody whose ideology is so unclean that he can see goodness in that. You could take a stroll with O'Neill and spot some dogshit and he'd try to convince you that it was a delicious green apple.

Tomorrow, I'll get a little deeper into O'Neill's ideology and the roots of his hatred for Kerry...

**********

Now, take some of this with salt if you wish. But I say that unless it can be demonstrated that Kerry's military records and the fitness reports drafted by his superiors are all lies, then Swift-Boat Veterans have failed to make their case.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-05-06 10:08am

Aren't these 504 (or whatever USC number allows them to operate) organizations just lovely? They can spring into life out of nowhere and because federal finance reporting rules only require them to report their contributors quarterly rather than immediately, they can pop up, be used to slander a candidate for about a month, and then fade away and be forgotten by the public (but their slander won't be) by the time they have to release their records.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-06 12:21pm

So the allegations are all made up, the people who actually interacted with him during the war have opinions varying from 'He's neat-o keen' to 'He's a few rungs below walking on water', and in general it's all just a load of horseshit made by some people with a bug up their ass and a chip on their shoulder.

Anyone surprised? Anyone, at all?