I noticed that CNN said nothing of its content. Its a pretty devastating video. I’m surpirsed this commercial wasn’t the first out of the gate. But I suppose the first one was geared to create a stir, then as soon as Kerry looses his cool, the second ad is released.

Here’s the link:

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video2.html

Posted by: KH at August 20, 2004 04:42 PM

Apparently one of the POW vets was formerly a McCain for President State Chairman in Virginia. So I guess the vast right wing Bush attack machine has expanded to include even some media favorites.

Posted by: ter0 at August 20, 2004 04:57 PM

Whether by design or not, the timing really hammered Kerry (with his help). His response to the first ad (how dare you criticize veterans) only sharpens the impact of his slander of our troops documented in the second ad.

Anyone know the deadline in the battleground states for getting on the ballot? I wouldn’t want the dems to pull a “Toricelli” on the presidential ballot.

Posted by: Jack Okie at August 20, 2004 06:03 PM

In the CNN article I find an interesting paradox for Kerry in North Carolina, where Bush is leading…

“Kerry [will] talk about jobs in Charlotte, North Carolina. … Of course, Gov. Mike Easley, a Democrat in a tough race for re-election, has a different view of the state’s economy. In his current TV ad, Easley says North Carolina this year is “fourth in the nation in jobs created.”

Bwahahahahaaa. Is it good, or is it bad? Either way they trip over their own shoe laces in their incumbent/non-incumbent dance.

Posted by: Max Darkside at August 20, 2004 06:28 PM

Kelly tips to this letter to Mark Steyn from a vet who knew Kerry from the VVAW:

I met John Kerry when I became a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971. If I were running for office, I might be tempted to say that I joined the WAW because I was opposed to the war. The truth was less noble. I was broke, their offices were a convenient crash pad and you could meet a hell of lot of loose women by going to demonstrations as a “Vet”.

…

John was clearly on the make, but he was also a classic preppy mook. He wanted so much to be one of the people like Scott Camille who had been “stone killers” but after a few minutes of talking to him it was clear that he was one of the guys who never knew where the fire was coming from even when the enemy were using tracers.

…I missed what would have been my one and only purple heart by deciding to get a cup of coffee about 30 seconds before an RPG cut through the outer bulkhead on the O-1 level of my LST and turned the mattress I been lying on into confetti. (Mr. Roberts in reverse; ever since then, I have never turned down an opportunity for caffeine).

John’s only replay was something along the lines of “Man, it was hell.” I doubt it. There were few safer places to be in Viet-Nam than the Mekong after Tet. The VC had been pretty much wiped out, and the NVA never made any serious attempts to use the rivers.

What I do not doubt is that John successfully gamed the system to get his 3 purples and his quick ticket home. I suppose I should be bitter about it, but life is too short; and you have to look at it from the point of view of his fellow sailors. The ones who knew what they were doing also knew that a guy that arrogantly dumb was a menace. He could get you killed. Better to ship him home.

John’s current stature as a “war hero” is a measure of how few Americans - even those of the “Greatest Generation” – have ever seen the sharp end of war.
Posted by Ace at August 20, 2004 05:02 PM | TrackBack

Link

Original Link at Mark Steyn

Posted by: ter0 at August 20, 2004 07:37 PM

In case anyone is curious about Scott Camil and why JFKerry would want to emulate him, here is a Link.

Be sure and check the Winter Soldier link.

Posted by: ter0 at August 20, 2004 08:01 PM

So now Our Hero is running to the FEC to get these ads stopped, rather than releasing all available records and facing these men head on.

I’ve said it before, but it’s been a while and Senator Spineless Windsock has earned a reprise:
for a “war hero”, John Kerry sure is a whining pussy!

Posted by: TL at August 20, 2004 08:11 PM

It’s not encouraging when a Presidential candidate can’t stand up to the heat - especially when he calls for Bush to “bring it on”. I REALLY dislike his bringing the FEC into it - because if they investigate and find nothing wrong, he’s doubly screwed.

First - he wouldn’t handle the problem himself (the SwiftVets ads - which, if he’s not the bombastic fraud he’s looking more and more like would be solved by releasing his records) and

Second - he had to get lawyers involved.

If (heaven forbid) he gets elected, and then has a crisis in office, will he scream for the lawyers again?

I don’t find his actions encouraging or Presidential.

J.

Posted by: JLL3 at August 20, 2004 09:15 PM

The new ad by the Swift Boaters is terrific, and similar to the Bush campaign, in that it uses KERRY’s own words!! I still think they should make a montage of all the nasty things and flip flopping Kerry has done and produce a devastating ad. He pretends to be a war hero and treasures his awards, yet he threw the fricken things away!! What kind of patriot is that!! Holy shit, have peole in this country lost any sense of what it is to be an American. It sure is not the liberal view…since they stand for baby killing, penis penetration into any orifice, and getting God out of our lives! Yeah, like that is what we want….they need to be defeated and these proud Vets are surely going to help in that goal!! If Kerry disrespects 260 of these men and continues his smears, he will lose even more than the CBS poll showed this morning. Bring it on you commie libs…bring it on…we’re about to bury Kerry, and his ‘cousin it’ wife!!

Posted by: dickmr at August 20, 2004 09:50 PM

This is pretty disturbing to me. He is trying to stop people from expressing political opinions which are critical of him.

Bush has had scandalous and deceitful ads run against him by Moveon.org and others. He hasn’t sued to have them removed from the air.

So far, I am not impressed with the Senator from Massachusetts.

First, I question his judgment for putting his Viet Nam experience at the center of his campaign when he knew that his honor in combat would be challenged.

Then, he appears to have been an opportunist in the way he used his combat experience to give him credibility with the anti-war protestors in 1971 when he accused his comrades in arms of being war criminals, himself included.

Then, he appears to me to be an opportunist by using his combat experience now to claim himself to have been a hero in Viet Nam, and thus qualified to defend our country. Did he defend the honor of his fellow combatants in Viet Nam by calling them war criminals?

Now, he is using all of his powers to intimidate and silence those of his “Band of Brothers” who are saying that he was not what he is claiming to be in his role in the military.

He may well become the next president, given how much Bush is hated by so many on the left. I wish I had a better feeling about him.

Posted by: thedragonflies at August 20, 2004 11:07 PM

It’s getting better by the hour …

Senator [Kerry] covered up evidence of POWs left behind
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php

To back up a lot of that:
Memos of John F McCreary
http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/mccreary.html

Posted by: LissaKay at August 21, 2004 02:00 AM

In case anyone actually wants to know what Kerry said in 1971:

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html

So far, I haven’t heard anyone say, “It isn’t true.”

As for the Swift Boat group, here is what the NYTimes has on them:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820swift_graph.gif

Posted by: Forrest at August 21, 2004 02:12 AM

Senator lying coward has sunk his own ship. The stories are all starting to fly. I guess the lefty press can’t contain the damage any longer.
Just wait until the 4th- 5th and 6th ads come out.

here is a good one from msnbc:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5684108/

A normal tour of duty in Vietnam was at least one year for all personnel. Many sailors, like Tom Wright (who would later object to operating with Kerry in Vietnam) and Steven Gardner (the gunner’s mate who sat behind and above Kerry for most of his Vietnam stay and came to regard him as incompetent and dishonest), stayed for longer periods either because of the special needs of the Navy or because they had volunteered to do so. With very few exceptions in the history of Swift Boats in Vietnam, everyone served a one year tour unless he was seriously wounded. One exception was John Kerry, who requested to leave Vietnam after four months, citing an obscure regulation that permitted release of personnel with three Purple Hearts. John Kerry is also the only known Swiftee who received the Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound.

None of Kerry’s Purple Hearts were for serious injuries. They were concededly minor scratches at best, resulting in no lost duty time. Each Purple Heart decoration is very controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two of the cases, with incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the minor injuries were caused by Kerry’s own hand and were not the result of hostile fire of any kind. They are a subject of ridicule within our unit. “I did get cut a few times, but I forgot to recommend myself for a Purple Heart. Sorry about that,” wrote John Howland, a boat commander with call sign “Gremlin.” Moreover, many Swiftees have now come forth to question Kerry’s deception. “I was there the entire time Kerry was and witnessed two of his war ‘wounds.’ I was also present during the action [in which] he received his Bronze Star. I know what a fraud he is. How can I help?” wrote Van Odell, a gunner from Kerry’s unit in An Thoi. Commander John Kipp, USN (retired), of Coastal Division 13 also volunteered, “If there is anything I can do to unmask this charlatan, please let me know. He brings disgrace to all who served.”

Swiftees have remarked that, if Kerry faked even one of these awards, he owes the Navy 243 additional days in Vietnam before he runs for anything. In a unit where terribly wounded personnel like Shelton White (now an undersea film producer who records specials for National Geographic) chose to return to duty after three wounds on the same day, Kerry’s actions were disgraceful. Indeed, many share the feelings of Admiral Roy Hoffmann, to whom all Swiftees reported: “Kerry simply “bugged out” when the heat was on.”

For military personnel, no medal or award (with the exception of the Congressional Medal of Honor) holds the significance of the Purple Heart. John O’Neill remembers witnessing, as a five-year-old child, the presentation of the Purple Heart to his widowed aunt, standing with her five children, at a memorial service for his uncle, a fighter pilot lost in Korea. Many remember the Purple Heart pinned on the pillows of the badly wounded in military hospitals throughout the world during America’s wars in defense of freedom. For this reason, there were those in Coastal Division 11 who turned down Purple Hearts because, when the medals were offered, these honorable men felt they did not really deserve them. Veteran Gary Townsend wrote, “I was on PCF 3 [from] 1969 to 1970 . . . I also turned down a Purple Heart award (which required seven stitches) offered to me while in Nam because I thought a little cut was insignificant as to what others had suffered to get theirs.” To cheat by getting a Purple Heart from a self-inflicted wound would be regarded as befitting the lowest levels of military conduct. To use such a faked award to leave a combat sector early would be lower yet. Finally, to make or use faked awards as the basis for running for president of the United States, while faulting one’s political opponents for not having similar military decorations, would represent unbelievable hypocrisy and the truly bottom rung of human conduct. Anyone engaging in such conduct would be unfit for even the lowest rank in the Navy, to say nothing of the commander in chief.

The Purple Heart Adventure in the Boston Whaler

JOHN KERRY’S STORY

John Kerry’s website presents his first Purple Heart incident in typical heroic fashion: “December 2, 1968—Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury.” As Kerry described the situation to Brinkley, who recounts the event in Tour of Duty, he grew bored in his first two weeks in Vietnam while awaiting the assignment of his own boat. So he volunteered for a “special mission” on a boat the Navy calls a skimmer but which Kerry knew as a “Boston whaler.” The craft was a foam-filled boat, not a PCF Swift Boat. Kerry and two enlisted men were patrolling that night, as Kerry described it, “the shore off a Viet Cong–infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh.” Kerry claims that he and his two crew members spent the night being “scared shitless,” creeping up in the darkness on fishermen in sampans. They feared that the fishermen in sampans with no lights might be Viet Cong. According to Kerry, the action started early in the morning, around 2 or 3 a.m., when it was still dark. Here are Kerry’s words, quoted by Brinkley:

The jungle closed in on us on both sides. It was scary as hell. You could hear yourself breathing. We were almost touching the shore. Suddenly, through the magnified moonlight of the infrared “starlight scope,” I watched, mesmerized, as a group of sampans glided in toward the shore. We had been briefed that this was a favorite crossing area for VC trafficking contraband. Kerry reports that he turned off the motor and paddled the Boston Whaler out of the inlet into the bay. Then he saw the Vietnamese pull their sampans onto the beach; they began to unload something. Kerry decided to light a flare to illuminate the area.

The entire sky seemed to explode into daylight. The men from the sampans bolted erect, stiff with shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover like a herd of panicked gazelles [Kerry] had once seen on TV’s “Wild Kingdom.” We opened fire . . . The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet. That was the entire action. As Kerry explained to Brinkley, he was not about to go chasing after the Vietnamese running away. “We stayed quiet and low because we did not want to illuminate ourselves at this point,” Kerry explains.

In the dead of night, without any knowledge of what kind of force was there, we were not all about to go crawling on the beach to get our asses shot off. We were unprotected; we didn’t have ammunition; we didn’t have cover; we just weren’t prepared for that. . . . So we first shot the sampans so that they were destroyed and whatever was in them was destroyed. In the introduction of the incident in the book, Kerry said that it “was a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat, but it was my first, and that made it exciting.” Kerry and his crew loaded their gear in the Swift Boat that was there to cover them, and with the Boston Whaler in tow, they headed back to Cam Ranh Bay. Brinkley ends his discussion by quoting Kerry’s summary, an account that again paints a larger-than-life picture: “I felt terribly seasoned after this minor skirmish, but since I couldn’t put my finger on what we had really accomplished or on what had happened, it was difficult to feel satisfied,” Kerry recalled. “I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from, and the vision of the men running like gazelles haunted me. It seemed stupid. My gunner didn’t know where the people were when he first started firing. The M-16 bullets had kicked up the sand way to the right of them as he sprayed the beach, slowly walking the line of fire over to where the men had been leaping for cover. I had been shouting directions and trying to un-jam my gun. The third crewman was locked in a personal struggle with the engine, trying to start it. I just shook my head and said, ‘Jesus Christ.’ It made me wonder if a year of training was worth anything.” Nevertheless, the episode introduced

Kerry to combat with the VC and earned him a Purple Heart.

THE Boston Globe’s ACCOUNT

A somewhat different version is recounted in the Kerry biography written by the Boston Globe reporters. In this account, Kerry had emphasized that he was patrolling with the Boston Whaler in a free fire curfew zone, and that “anyone violating the curfew could be considered an enemy and shot.” By the time the Globe biography was written, questions had been raised about whether the incident involved any enemy fire at all. The Globe reporters covered this point as follows:

The Kerry campaign showed the Boston Globe a one-page document listing Kerry’s medical treatment during some of his service time. The notation said: “3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and apply Bacitracin dressing. Ret to duty.”

The Globe asked the campaign whether Kerry was certain that he received enemy fire and whether Kerry remembers the Purple Hear being questioned by a superior officer. The campaign did not respond to those specific questions and, instead, provided a written statement about the fact that the Navy did find the action worthy of a Purple Heart. The two men serving alongside Kerry that night had similar memories of the incident that led to Kerry’s first wartime injury. William Zaldonis, who was manning an M-60, and Patrick Runyon, operating the engine, said they spotted some people running from a sampan to a nearby shoreline. When they refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry’s crew began shooting. “When John told me to open up, I opened up,” Zaldonis recalled. Zaldonis and Runyon both said they were too busy to notice how Kerry was hit. “I assume they fired back,” Zaldonis said. “If you can picture me holding an M-60 machine gun and firing it—what do I see? Nothing. If they were firing at us, it was hard for me to tell.”

Runyon, too, said that he assumed the suspected Viet Cong fired back because Kerry was hit by a piece of shrapnel. “When you have a lot of shooting going on, a lot of noise, you are scared, the adrenaline is up,” Runyon said. “I can’t say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked. I couldn’t say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm.” In a separate conversation, Runyon related that he never knew Kerry was wounded. So even in the Globe biography accounting, it was not clear that there was any enemy fire, just a question about how Kerry might have been hit with shrapnel.

The Globe reporters noted that, upon the group’s return to base, Kerry’s commander, Grant Hibbard, was very skeptical about the injury. The Globe account also quoted William Schachte, the officer in command for the operation. As the Globe reporters recount, another person involved that day was William Schachte, who over saw the mission and went on to become an admiral. In 2003, Schachte responded: ‘It was not a very serious wound at all.’ Still, on Sunday, April 18, 2004, when NBC correspondent Tim Russert questioned Kerry on national television about the skimmer incident, Kerry described the incident as “the most frightening night” of his Vietnam experience. The Globe reporters noted that Kerry had declined to be interviewed about the Boston Whaler incident for their book. Kerry’s refusal to be interviewed may well have been because witnesses such as Commander Hibbard, Dr. Louis Letson, Rear Admiral William Schachte, and others had begun to surface, and Kerry’s fabricated story of “the most frightening night” had begun to unravel.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

The truth is that at the time of this incident Kerry was an officer in command (OinC) under training, aboard the skimmer using the call sign “Robin” on the operation, with now-Rear Admiral William Schachte using the call sign “Batman,” who was also on the skimmer. After Kerry’s M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade too close, causing a tiny piece of shrapnel (one to two centimeters) to barely stick in his arm. Schachte berated Kerry for almost putting someone’s eye out. There was no hostile fire of any kind, nor did Kerry on the way back mention to PCF O in C Mike Voss, who commanded the PCF that had towed the skimmer, that he was wounded. There was no report of any hostile fire that day (as would be required), nor do the records at Cam Ranh Bay reveal any such hostile fire. No other records reflect any hostile fire. There is also no casualty report, as would have been required had there actually been a casualty.

Following “the most frightening night” of his life, to the surprise of both Schachte and the treating doctor, Louis Letson, Kerry managed to keep the tiny hanging fragment barely embedded in his arm until he arrived at sickbay a number of miles away and a considerable time later, where he was examined by Dr. Letson. Dr. Letson, who has never forgotten the experience, reported it to his Democratic county chairman early in the 2004 primary campaign. When Kerry appeared at sickbay, Dr. Letson asked, “Why are you here?” in surprise, observing Kerry’s unimpressive scratch. Kerry answered, “I’ve been wounded by hostile fire.” Accompanying crewmen then told Dr. Letson that Kerry had wounded himself. Dr. Letson used tweezers to remove the tiny fragment, which he identified as shrapnel like that from an M-79 (not from a rifle bullet, etc.), and put a small bandaid on Kerry’s arm. The following morning Kerry appeared at the office of Coastal Division 14 Commander Grant Hibbard and applied for the Purple Heart. Hibbard, who had learned from Schachte of the absence of hostile fire and self-infliction of the “wound” by Kerry himself, looked down at the tiny scratch (which he said was smaller than a rose thorn prick) and turned down the award since there was no hostile fire. When we interviewed Grant Hibbard for this book, he was equally emphatic that Kerry’s slight injury, in his opinion, could not possibly merit the Purple Heart:

Q: When did you first meet John Kerry?

GH: Kerry reported to my division in November 1968. I didn’t know him from Adam.

Q: Can you describe the mission in which Kerry got his first Purple Heart?

GH: Kerry requested permission to go on a skimmer operation with Lieutenant Schachte, my most senior and trusted lieutenant, using a Boston Whaler to try to interdict a Viet Cong movement of arms and munitions. The next morning at the briefing, I was informed that no enemy fire had been received on that mission. Our units had fired on some VC units running on the beach. We were all in my office, some of the crew members, I remember Schachte being there. This was thirty-six years ago; it really didn’t seem all that important at the time. Here was this lieutenant, junior grade, who was saying “I got wounded,” and everybody else, the crew that were present were saying, “We didn’t get any fire. We don’t know how he got the scratch.” Kerry showed me the scratch on his arm. I hadn’t been informed that he had any medical treatment. The scratch didn’t look like much to me; I’ve seen worse injuries from a rose thorn.

Q: Did Kerry want you to recommend him for a Purple Heart?

GH: Yes, that was his whole point. He had this little piece of shrapnel in his hand. It was tiny. I was told later that Kerry had fired an M-79 grenade and that he had misjudged it. He fired it too close to the shore, and it exploded on a rock or something. He got hit by a piece of shrapnel from a grenade that he had fired himself. The injury was self-inflicted, that’s what made sense to me. I told Kerry to “forget it.” There was no hostile fire; the injury was self-inflicted for all I knew; besides it was nothing really more than a scratch. Kerry wasn’t getting any Purple Heart recommendation from me.

Q: How did Kerry get a Purple Heart from the incident then?

GH: I don’t know. It beats me. I know I didn’t recommend him for a Purple Heart. Kerry probably wrote up the paperwork and recommended himself, that’s all I can figure out. If it ever came across my desk, I don’t have any recollection of it. Kerry didn’t get my signature. I said “no way” and told him to get out of my office.

Amazingly, Kerry somehow “gamed the system” nearly three months later to obtain the Purple Heart that Hibbard had denied.

How he obtained the award is unknown, since his refusal to execute Standard Form 180 means that whatever documents exist are known only to Kerry, the Department of Defense, and God. It is clear that there should be numerous other documents, but only a treatment record reflecting a scratch and a certificate signed three months later have been produced. There is, of course, no “after-action” hostile fire or casualty report, as occurred in the case of every other instance of hostile fire or casualty. This is because there was no hostile fire, casualty, or action on this “most frightening night” of Kerry’s Vietnam experience. Dr. Louis Letson agreed with Grant Hibbard. Kerry’s injury was minor and probably self-inflicted:

The incident that occasioned my meeting with Lieutenant Kerry began while he was patrolling the coast at night just north of Cam Ranh Bay where I was the only medical officer for a small support base. Kerry returned from that night on patrol with an injury.

Kerry reported that he had observed suspicious activity on shore and fired a flare to illuminate the area. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a firefight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a grenade round at close range to the shore. The crewman who related this story thought that the injury was from a fragment of the grenade shell that had ricocheted back from the rocks. That seemed to fit the injury I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry’s arm. The metal fragment measured about one centimeter in length and was about two or three millimeters in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle. I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than three or four millimeters. It did not require probing to find it, nor did it require any anesthesia to remove it. It did not require any sutures to close the wound. The wound was covered with a band-aid. No other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any injury to the boat.

Lieutenant Kerry’s crew related that he had told them that he would be president one day. He liked to think of himself as the next JFK from Massachusetts. I remember that Jess Carreon was present at the time and he, in fact, made the entry into Lieutenant Kerry’s medical record. Both Hibbard and Letson wondered why Kerry had even bothered to go to the dispensary. Kerry’s report of the injury as a combat injury seemed at best to be exaggerated. The crewmen present maintained that there was no evidence of enemy fire, and their conclusion was that Kerry had been hit by a fragment of his own grenade. Kerry’s proponents have also pointed to a fitness report for Kerry that was filed by Hibbard rating Kerry “excellent” as proof that Kerry’s service in Cam Ranh was unusually good. In reality, the Kerry fitness report (which leaves fourteen of the eighteen categories, including “integrity,” marked “unobserved”) is a marginal report. Hibbard has stated that he wished to provide in the report a mediocre evaluation without permanently destroying Kerry, given his short four-week period of evaluation. At the time the report was made, Hibbard did not know of Kerry’s later-finagled first Purple Heart. Most Swiftees who were with Kerry at Cam Ranh Bay never knew until Kerry decided to run for president that he had somehow successfully maneuvered his way to this undeserved Purple Heart.

But in Kerry’s own unit, Coastal Division 14, his attempt to gain the award through fraud marked him as someone who could never be trusted. When Kerry was dispatched to go to An Thoi with Lieutenant Tedd Peck (now Captain, USNR, retired), Peck told him, “Kerry, follow me no closer than a thousand yards. If you get any closer, I’ll teach you what a real Purple Heart is.”

A Trip to An Thoi

In contrast to the pretty beaches and placid existence at Cam Ranh Bay where Kerry was stationed, Coastal Division 11 was engaged in a gritty struggle against a North Vietnamese base area, deep in the mangrove swamps in the extreme south and west of Vietnam. This area, commonly known as the U Minh and Nam Can forests, had been under North Vietnamese control since the 1940s and was used for POW camps. Most POWs never left these camps. The city of Nam Can, one of the few free outposts in the area, had been overrun by the North Vietnamese in February 1968. Swift operations in the area were supported from an offshore outpost at An Thoi, located on an island off the coast.

The ultimate commander of United States Naval and Coast Guard forces in Vietnam, Admiral Elmo “Bud” Zumwalt III developed a strategy—with enthusiastic support of then-Captain Roy Hoffmann—to use underutilized offshore naval assets to rip control of area waterways from the North Vietnamese. His model was the Mississippi River campaigns of the Civil War, which had effectively used specialized craft.

Zumwalt was deeply admired by almost all Swiftees. A hero in World War II, Zumwalt was also later known as the man who brought women to the Naval Academy and into full participation in the Navy.

He was also recognized as a crusader against racism. Zumwalt was avisionary whose sponsorship of missile ships and other innovations mark today’s Navy. He also often rode into danger with the Swiftees. Kerry’s later charge on Meet the Press in April 1971 that Zumwalt and others were war criminals cut deeply at the heart of Swiftees. Perhaps part of Kerry’s unjustifiable attack on Zumwalt was motivated by the fact that it was Zumwalt’s decision to use Swift Boats on dangerous riverine missions that ended with Kerry’s hopes of avoiding action.

THE DINNER THAT NEVER HAPPENED

Kerry’s Fictitious Journal Account

In Kerry’s account of the An Thoi transfer, he makes up an entire conversation with the skipper of the landing ship tank (LST) who Kerry claims invited him and Peck for dinner on their way to An Thoi. As Kerry told the story in Tour of Duty, the LST captain launched into a discussion about his role in what had become known as the “Bo De massacre.” According to the version of the story told by Kerry, the LST captain presented a defensive account, attempting to correct a Stars and Stripes story criticizing him for LST covering fire that had supposedly fallen short, exposing Swiftees on the mission to unnecessary casualties.

But according to Captain Peck’s recollection and that of Kerry’s crewman Steven Gardner, he and Kerry were at the LST only a few minutes for refueling, not enough time for a comfortable dinner with the LST captain—and there was no conversation about “the massacre”as described by Kerry. Even more significant, Kerry’s account of the “BoDe massacre” is a breathtaking lie. In Tour, Kerry presents the first Swift incident on the Bo De as a “massacre” of Swiftees with seventeen wounded caused by the incompetence of all commanders whom he chose to blame rather than the vagaries of war or the enemy. Kerry’s fabrication comes even though he was not there. Joe Ponder was there as a Swiftee on the mission in question. Today, still badly disabled and on crutches from the incident, Ponder says, “There were only three persons wounded—not seventeen as Kerry states—and I was the first. I do not understand his criticism of our officers. I’ve always been proud of our officers.”

Ponder maintains today that the person who truly shamed and offended him was John Kerry, whose fraudulent account of war crimes in Tour of Duty has led his own grandchildren to ask him, “Did you commit the war crimes John Kerry describes?” At the press conference held by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in Washington, D.C., on May 4, 2004, Ponder was in tears, not from his wounds or the agony of standing with his braces, but from the wounds that Kerry’s lies in Tour of Duty had left upon his heart and his family.

THE BRIEF ASSIGNMENT IN AN THOI: KERRY’S VERSION

As Kerry has admitted in Tour of Duty, he was ordered against his will to Coastal Division 11 in An Thoi in December 1968. Tedd Peck recalls Kerry’s constant griping about the transfer. In Tour of Duty, Brinkley writes that both Kerry and Peck were opposed to their assignment. Following Kerry’s account, Brinkley quotes Peck telling his men, “There was no way I was leaving Cam Ranh Bay voluntarily to go up the rivers. That was a suicide mission.” Brinkley relates a tortured explanation of why Kerry was finally forced to accept the assignment: He claims that he missed one of the division meetings held to solicit volunteers because he was at the Air Force PX. Peck remembered Kerry distinctly objecting, saying that he had not volunteered for the war that was occurring in the Nam Can and U Minh forests. Peck believed that Kerry did not belong in the Navy. In Brinkley’s account, the one guy who got Peck’s ire up the quickest was John Kerry, who he found standoffish and condescending.

“I didn’t like anything about him,” Peck proclaimed, “Nothing.” For his part, Kerry liked Peck, and decades later recalled none of this supposed animosity between them.17 At any rate, Kerry’s time at An Thoi was short. Within a week, Kerry and the crew of PCF 44 were on their way to the less hazardous CosDiv 13, at Cat Lo. Kerry has tried to make it appear that he was disappointed at being so quickly reassigned from An Thoi. Here is the account he gave to biographer Douglas Brinkley:

“I tried to fight the change—not because we wanted to stay in An Thoi and be shot at, but because we didn’t want to have to move and resettle again,” Kerry noted. “Our mail was already lost, and the trip back against the monsoon seas promised to be nothing but a bitch. It was just that.”

THE REAL REASON KERRY WAS REASSIGNED

When they got to An Thoi, Kerry continued to object to his placement in this dangerous assignment against his will, so much so that he was given routine offshore patrols not involving any possibility of action until Coastal Division 11 could figure out a way to get rid of him. Within a week, Kerry was transferred to Coastal Division 13, headquartered near the former French resort town of Vung Tau. While Coastal Division 13 had been involved in substantial action, it was less than what Kerry avoided by his transfer. What his fellow Swiftees concluded was that Kerry had a very high regard for his own wellbeing and very little nerve for facing serious combat.

According to Peck, it was simply easier to get Kerry out of An Thoi than to have to listen to his constant bellyaching about how he had not volunteered for this kind of danger. Better just to get rid of Kerry and let him be somebody else’s problem.

William Franke echoes Tedd Peck’s explanation of why Kerry was so quickly transferred out of An Thoi: Kerry vigorously protested being transferred to An Thoi, arguing that he had volunteered only for coastal patrol and not for the far more hazardous duty of missions within the inland waterways. Indeed, his objections were so strong that, upon his first assignment to An Thoi, he was transferred out within a week. So off Kerry went to Cat Lo, where the patrols were on wider, less dangerous rivers than the treacherous canals of the U Minh forest and Cau Mau peninsula.

Christmas in “Cambodia”
Vietnam, December 1968

JOHN KERRY’S STORY

If there is one story told over and over again by John Kerry since his return from Vietnam, it is the heart-wrenching tale of how he spent Christmas Eve and Christmas Day illegally in Cambodia. From the early 1970s, when he used the tale as part of his proof for war crimes in Cambodia, through the mid-1980s and the 1990s, Kerry has spoken and written again and again of how he was illegally ordered to enter Cambodia.

On the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 27, 1986, Kerry launched one of his many attacks against President Reagan—this time charging that President Reagan’s actions in Central America were leading the United States into yet another Vietnam, claiming that he could recognize the error of the administration’s ways because he had experienced firsthand the duplicity of the Nixon administration in lying about American incursions into Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Kerry charged that he had been illegally ordered into Cambodia during Christmas 1968:

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared—seared—in me. Kerry also described, for example, for the Boston Herald his vivid memories of his Christmas Eve spent in Cambodia:

I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real. As recently as July 7, 2004, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe repeated Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia story on FOX News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes, indicating that it was a critical turning point in Kerry’s life. Kranish had no knowledge, even after his extensive study of Kerry, that he was simply repeating a total fabrication by Kerry. And Kranish was right: Study of the Christmas in Cambodia story is central to understanding John Kerry.

The story is also in the pages of the 2004 biography written by Krahish and other Boston Globe reporters. As we have come to expect, the story is twisted at the end to provide justification for yet another of Kerry’s political ruses, this time used to justify what Kerry portrays as his noble and continuing distrust of government pronouncements:

To top it off, Kerry said later that he had gone into Cambodia, despite President Nixon’s assurances to the American public that there was no combat action in this neutral territory. The young sailor began to develop a deep mistrust of the U.S. government pronouncements, he later recalled. Even without minimal investigation, a critical press should have been able to spot the story as a total fabrication: Richard Nixon did not become president of the United States until twenty-six days after John Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED: CHRISTMAS IN VIETNAM

Despite the dramatic memories of his Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry’s statements are complete lies. Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. In reality, during Christmas 1968, he was more than fifty miles away from Cambodia. Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia by anyone and would have been court-martialed had he gone there.

During Christmas 1968, Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. A large sign at the border prohibited entry. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared.

All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command—Joe Streuhli (Commander of CosDiv 13), George Elliott (Commander of CosDiv 11), Adrian Lonsdale (Captain, USCG and Commander, Coastal Surveillance Center at An Thoi), Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (Commander, Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam, CTF 115), and Rear Admiral Art Price (Commander of River Patrol Force, CTF 116)—deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s PCF 44 boat—Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner—deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia. The remaining two crewmen declined to be interviewed for this book. Gardner, in particular, will never forget those days in late December when he was wounded on PCF 44, not in Cambodia, but many miles away in Vietnam. The Cambodia incursion story is not included in Tour of Duty. Instead, Kerry replaces the story with a report about a mortar attack that occurred on Christmas Eve 1968 “near the Cambodia border” in a town called Sa Dec, some fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border.

Somehow, Kerry’s secret illegal mission to Cambodia, which here counted on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1986, is now a firefight at Sa Dec and a Christmas day spent back at the base writing entries in his journal.

The truth is that Kerry made up his secret mission into Cambodia. Much like Kerry’s many other lies relating to supposed “war crimes” committed by the U.S. military in Vietnam, the lie about the illegal Cambodian incursion painted his superiors up the chain of command—men such as Commander Streuhli, Commander Elliott, Admiral Hoffmann, and Admiral Zumwalt, all distinguished Naval heroes and men of integrity—as villains faced down by John Kerry, a solitary hero in grave and exotic danger and forced illegally and against his will into harm’s way.

The same sorts of lies were repeated over and over in Kerry’s antiwar book, The New Soldier, a book filled with preposterous, false confessions of bogus war crimes committed by the participants (who were often not even real veterans) against their will and under orders from dishonest superiors. Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia typifies the sort of lie upon which Kerry has built a false persona and a political career. The story of Christmas 1968 has one final chapter. When refueling his PCF near Dong Tam, Kerry and his crew were told that the Bob Hope USO show was at the Dong Tam base. So Kerry decided to leave his station on the river and go searching for the Bob Hope Christmas show. Unable to find the show, he risked boat and crew by unknowingly blundering into one of the most dangerous canals in Vietnam, a canal that to those who knew the area was notorious for Viet Cong ambushes. Given the easy navigation by radar and map of the rivers involved—not much more difficult than driving a car—Kerry had just performed a feat of reverse navigation worthy of Wrong Way Corrigan.

There is, of course, no record that Kerry ever informed anyone of what he did, where he was, or where he was going—all required by regulations for the safety of the boat and crew. He did, however, record the Bob Hope adventure in his journal so he could be sure to share it in Tour of Duty.

The man is a liar, and worse, a lunatic. Does anyone ever wonder what he would do if a country pissed him off? Maybe he’d push the button! After all, he shot a kid in the back, and the kid was just running away, wounded, with an empty tow launcher.

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 21, 2004 03:35 AM

What you just quoted here is a whole chapter from the O’Neill book. O’Neill is hardly an objective source; he had been slamming Kerry since he was put up to it by the dirty-trickster Chuck Colson in the Nixon Administration:

Chuck Colson—who was Nixon’s political enforcer—told me, “He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O’Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O’Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.” — Joe Klein in “The New Yorker,” Jan. 5, 2004.

When we examine O’Neill’s sources, we find that they either weren’t on the scene, or that their account is contradicted by official documents or that they have changed their stories already one or more times. None of them have any evidence that would stand up in court.

Here, for example, is Larry Thurlow on “Hardball” (since you just pasted a whole chapter of the O’Neill book, I guess you won’t have any problem with the length):

MATTHEWS: Larry Thurlow, thank you very much for joining us tonight. I admire your service, certainly. Let me ask you, sir, about the quote that you have in this ad. It says—and these are your words, speaking them in the advertisement—“When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.” Why do you say that?

LARRY THURLOW, ANTI-KERRY SWIFT BOAT VETERAN: Mr. Matthews, the main reason I say that is because it became apparent early on that John Kerry had a master plan that went far beyond the service in the swift boats, and because of the fact that he was trying to engineer a record, so to speak, for himself, he was not a trustworthy member of a very tightly-knit unit that counted on each other at every second. And once it became apparent that he had this plan that kind of excluded what was required of us at certain times, it became apparent to me that you could not count on him.

MATTHEWS: When did you first become aware of this plan?

THURLOW: I became aware of it as a combination of events started to transpire, where it became apparent to me that he wasn‘t being truthful about how he reported certain incidents and how he—in his own description back then was, he was quite a cowboy, which at that particular time, that you didn‘t follow orders, did you as you pleased and you kind of just looked out for yourself and didn‘t really care about your shipmates.

MATTHEWS: Tell me about the time you discovered that he wasn‘t honest about his account of events. When did you first discover that habit of his, as you say?

THURLOW: Well, on a firsthand basis, I understood that the Purple Heart that he received at Cam Ranh Bay was fabricated and wasn‘t based on any factuality at all, but…

MATTHEWS: How did you learn that, sir?

THURLOW: I learned that from the people who had been with him at that time, when he reported that he received an injury from hostile fire, when in fact, there was none.

MATTHEWS: Who was the person who told you this, that he didn‘t deserve the Purple Heart?

THURLOW: The people—keep in mind…

MATTHEWS: Can you give me a name, sir?

THURLOW: The name I would give you, after the fact, is Dr. Letson.

MATTHEWS: No. At the time. At the time. You said at the time this happened, you discovered he had a habit of fabricating the truth.

THURLOW: I can‘t give you a specific name. It was a crew member that came from Cam Ranh Bay to our division.

MATTHEWS: But could you help us figure out who it might be? You‘re saying the man had a record of not being honest about his battle bravery. I just want to know how we know this is true or not.

THURLOW: OK. The only name that comes to mind now is a guy that is actually a member of our group. But what I‘m telling you…

MATTHEWS: What‘s his name?

THURLOW: … is the story…

MATTHEWS: We want to talk to him.

THURLOW: Steve Gardener (ph).

MATTHEWS: Since he‘s your—since he‘s your source, we just want to know who he is.

THURLOW: Steve Gardener.

MATTHEWS: Steve Gardener. And he told you at the time that John Kerry received his first Purple Heart that he didn‘t deserve it?

THURLOW: Well, what happened is he said that he received an injury due to a mistake he made when he fired an M-79 close aboard and was hit by his own shrapnel. That doesn‘t constitute a Purple Heart. You‘ve got to be injured by hostile fire.

MATTHEWS: And he told you that at the time? Steve Gardener—in other words, if I get him on the show, he‘ll say he told you, Mr. Thurlow, at the time this happened…

THURLOW: He‘s going to say…

MATTHEWS: … that he didn‘t deserve…

THURLOW: He‘s going to say…

MATTHEWS: … that John Kerry got an award he didn‘t deserve?

THURLOW: He‘s going to say that he reported—John Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart eventually. Or actually, he‘s going to tell you that John Kerry applied for a Purple Heart that he did not merit.

MATTHEWS: At the time he told you. OK, let‘s go on to the issue of the Bronze Star, which is far more important here. You received a Bronze Star in action for going back to that—or going to that ship that had—your fellow swift boat, that had hit a mine. Why did you get the Bronze Star?

THURLOW: I felt like I got the Bronze Star because I helped save the guys that were injured on there and then helped save boat from sinking.

MATTHEWS: Were you under enemy fire at this time?

THURLOW: No, I was not.

MATTHEWS: Why did your citation say so?

THURLOW: Because John Kerry had written an after-action report to cover the entire incident. And in this after-action report, he reported that we were not only under enemy fire, we were under intense enemy fire.

MATTHEWS: Did his after-action report—did that become the report that was the language in your citation? Do you know that for a fact?

THURLOW: Well…

MATTHEWS: For a fact? Do you know the—in other words, do you know for a fact that it was his account of the action that you both survived that led to the language in your citation? Do you know that for a fact, sir, Mr. Thurlow?

THURLOW: Well, because my commanding officer wrote up the citation, and the only thing he had available to him was that report, yes, the part about the hostile fire would have come from that report.

MATTHEWS: Do you know for a fact that it was John Kerry‘s words or account that led to your—the language in your citation? Do you know it for a fact? Would you swear to it? This is what we‘re getting into here. We need clear accounts of what happened with John Kerry and whether he really did deserve to get a Bronze Star or not.

THURLOW: The fact of the matter…

MATTHEWS: Can you say for a fact that he wrote himself up, that he got credit because he gave himself credit and that‘s why you got credit for taking the action you did, the brave action you did to save the men and save that boat, that fellow swift boat? You both benefited, you‘re saying to me now, because of his after-action report. You both benefited in the citations.

THURLOW: Well, actually…

MATTHEWS: You‘re saying that.

THURLOW: His after-action report reported none of the action I took about saving the men or the boat. His after-action report…

MATTHEWS: But do you know now—right now that the testimony that you were both under fire, intense enemy fire…

THURLOW: Came from his report.

MATTHEWS: … you say that was not the case—you know for a fact it was his report that led to the language in your citation? That‘s all I want to know.

THURLOW: The reason I believe it was from his report is because he‘s the only one that filed one and the fact that he—and the reason I know he filed it is because his boat was the central figure in the report. The 3 boat was the one that was mine and badly damaged, but yet the report tells about John Kerry coming back to get Rassmann under intense fire and only casually mentions anything else that even happened that day.

MATTHEWS: What I don‘t understand is why you deserve a Purple Heart for taking the action you did, and you say…

THURLOW: I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Purple Heart.

MATTHEWS: … you were not under—no—no—no, not the Purple Heart…

THURLOW: I didn‘t get a Purple Heart.

MATTHEWS: … the Bronze Star. The Bronze Star, that you deserve the Bronze Star, you were awarded the Bronze Star, fair enough, and you say you were not under enemy fire. You‘re now saying that John Kerry doesn‘t deserve the Bronze Start because he wasn‘t under enemy fire. Aren‘t you both in the same boat? Didn‘t you both do about the same thing, both get same award? And why are you complaining that he doesn‘t deserve it, if you deserved it?

THURLOW: I felt like I got the award because I saved some people‘s lives and saved the boat. What I say…

MATTHEWS: Well, he saved Rassmann‘s life, according to Rassmann‘s own account.

THURLOW: OK…MATTHEWS: Why doesn‘t he deserve the award?

THURLOW: Well, I—I don‘t—I‘m not quibbling about the award.

I‘m saying he lied about the…

MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, you are, sir!

THURLOW: … account.

MATTHEWS: You are out here in an advertisement saying, quote, “When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.”

THURLOW: That‘s exactly right.

MATTHEWS: That‘s a pretty strong—because of what are you saying this?

THURLOW: Because he had this master plan that was…

MATTHEWS: You got—give me an example.

THURLOW: … to promote his…

MATTHEWS: OK, let‘s to go your theory of the plan. Have you seen it written down? Have you heard him tell his account to someone? How do you know, in any real way, he had this plan?

THURLOW: Because of the fact that he engineered three Purple Heart incidences that allowed him to go home after he spent about one third of his tour there.

MATTHEWS: But that‘s your account of what happened. He was there for four months.

THURLOW: That‘s exactly right.

MATTHEWS: He did win the three Purple Hearts. He did get the Bronze and the Silver. And you say he had some plan to get an award as a battle hero ahead of time, but you can‘t tell me how you know he had this plan.

THURLOW: I know he had this plan because of what happened not only then but after the fact.

MATTHEWS: Did you have a plan to win the Bronze Star? You won the Bronze Star. Did you have a plan?

THURLOW: No, in fact, I didn‘t…

MATTHEWS: Why is winning the Bronze Star…

THURLOW: I didn‘t apply for it.

MATTHEWS: Why is winning the Bronze Star evidence of having had a plan to win one? I don‘t get it.

THURLOW: Well, I—we‘re not even talking about him having a plan to win the Bronze Star.

MATTHEWS: Can you honestly tell me now, sir, that you could swear in open court that you know that John Kerry, when he was a lieutenant JG in the same theater you were in had some plan for winning medals? Do you know that for a fact?

THURLOW: OK. In other words, present evidence that he had this plan?

MATTHEWS: Yes.

THURLOW: Of course, I couldn‘t.

MATTHEWS: Well, what…

THURLOW: I‘m basing it on my observations.

MATTHEWS: These are after-the-fact observations. You say he had a plan ahead of time to make himself a war hero to get elected to office.

THURLOW: I‘m saying that he had a plan that included not only being a war hero but getting an early out.

MATTHEWS: But you admit you have no tangible evidence.

THURLOW: I have my own personal observations.

MATTHEWS: Of what?

THURLOW: And you‘re right, it is not tangible evidence.

MATTHEWS: OK, so you don‘t. Let me ask you about…

THURLOW: I‘m not in a court of law here.

MATTHEWS: Well, I‘m just trying to get…

THURLOW: I‘m telling you what I…

MATTHEWS: I‘ll tell you what. You have involved yourself in a presidential election. Let me ask you this.

THURLOW: Yes, I have.

MATTHEWS: Is John Kerry‘s war record a legitimate issue in this presidential campaign?

THURLOW: I think it is because he‘s made it the central plank of his run for nomination.

MATTHEWS: Fair enough. Then should the president have a legitimate right, should he choose to do so, to talk about it?

THURLOW: Should the president?

MATTHEWS: Should the president of the United States, who‘s running against John Kerry, have the—does he have the right, as we speak, as you see it, to raise this issue in debate, if it comes up?

THURLOW: Does the president…

MATTHEWS: Is he allowed to talk about it?

THURLOW: You talking about President Bush?

MATTHEWS: That‘s right.

THURLOW: Does he have the right to bring it up?

MATTHEWS: Yes.

THURLOW: President Bush wasn‘t there. So why would he bring it up?

THURLOW: No, no. I‘m talking about, is he allowed to raise what you‘ve said about your fellow officer? Is he allowed to go into the debate and say, I hear from your fellow officers that you were not the hero you claim to be? Is that a fair enough tack for the president to take in this campaign? Is it a legitimate issue? You‘re raising it as a campaign issue. I‘m asking you, if it‘s a campaign issue, why can‘t both candidates talk about it? That‘s all I‘m asking.

THURLOW: No, I‘m not—I‘m raising the campaign—the reason I‘ve raised this issue is because I want the American people to hear the truth that I know…

MATTHEWS: Right, but you‘re…

THURLOW: … and then let them make a decision.

MATTHEWS: But isn‘t it fair to say you‘re doing this because John Kerry is a candidate for president?

THURLOW: Yes.

MATTHEWS: OK.

THURLOW: This is the first time I would have ever had a chance to vote for him.

MATTHEWS: Well, of course. Of course. That‘s fair enough. But is it fair enough for the president to counter-charge and say he doesn‘t believe John Kerry‘s the hero he claimed to be at the Democratic convention?

THURLOW: I don‘t think so because he wasn‘t there. He doesn‘t have the evidence I do.

MATTHEWS: Is he allowed to believe you?

THURLOW: He‘s allowed to believe whoever he wants.

MATTHEWS: In other words, you want everybody in the country…

THURLOW: He‘s an American citizen.

MATTHEWS: … to believe what you‘re saying right now, Mr. Thurlow…

THURLOW: Certainly.

MATTHEWS: … but not to let the president of the United States count on it as a campaign issue.

THURLOW: That‘s entirely up to him. I‘m telling you…

MATTHEWS: Oh, it is up to him. OK. I‘m (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Why do you think it‘s OK for a person who didn‘t serve in Vietnam to criticize someone who did?

THURLOW: I did serve in Vietnam.

MATTHEWS: I‘m asking you about the president. You said it‘s up to him. If it‘s up to the president whether to attack John Kerry for being in Vietnam, what did he over there, is it OK with you, that a guy who didn‘t serve criticizes a guy who did?

THURLOW: Well, I don‘t know that he has criticized…

MATTHEWS: As a veteran.

THURLOW: As a veteran?

MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you a simple question. Is this a campaign issue for both candidates to contend with or isn‘t it?

THURLOW: Well, it‘s a campaign…

MATTHEWS: Or is it just you against John Kerry as a side shot at one of the candidates?

THURLOW: … issue that John Kerry ran out there. And the thing I think is that the president wouldn‘t have any—you know, what would he base…

MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you this…

THURLOW: … the statements on?

MATTHEWS: … very simply. If President Bush the other—is asked a question, he come out and says, Well, I hear from this fellow officer, in fact, he was the commander of the swift boat, the head of the team—he says this guy didn‘t deserve all the acclaim he got at the convention. Would that be OK with you?

THURLOW: Well, it would be OK with me if he wanted to do it, but why would he want to do it?

MATTHEWS: To defeat his opponent.

THURLOW: He‘s got—he‘s got…

MATTHEWS: The same reason you want to defeat this guy. You don‘t think he should be president.

THURLOW: Well—that‘s exactly right. I don‘t think he should be president.

MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s fair enough. There‘s nothing wrong with it. Say it—you have a million times in this country a free opportunity to say so. I‘m asking you…

THURLOW: You‘re—you‘re exactly right.

MATTHEWS: … should George Bush be allowed to raise this issue in the campaign?

THURLOW: If he wants to, he…

MATTHEWS: Otherwise, it‘s just you.

THURLOW: … certainly should be able to.

MATTHEWS: In other words, it‘s OK, for you, for a guy who didn‘t serve in Vietnam to attack a guy who did? That‘s all I want to know.

THURLOW: Well, I don‘t think a guy that didn‘t serve in Vietnam should attack some guy‘s record that did serve in Vietnam, if he has no personal knowledge of it.

MATTHEWS: But if he has the knowledge because of you, should he be able to do it?

THURLOW: He has no personal knowledge. He‘s…

MATTHEWS: OK.

THURLOW: What my—what I feel…

MATTHEWS: OK, we‘re going back to your personal knowledge, sir.

THURLOW: … on him is he hasn‘t…

MATTHEWS: The problem is, you haven‘t produced any personal knowledge about this plan you talked about, Mr. Thurlow, and that‘s the problem tonight.

THURLOW: No, what I—what I…

MATTHEWS: This plan has not been authenticated. That‘s the concern I have. Anyway, thanks for coming on.

Coming up, the “Washington Post” reporter who broke the story about Larry Thurlow‘s Bronze medal and the citation accompanying it.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Michael Dobbs is the “Washington Post” reporter who broke the story today about Larry Thurlow‘s Bronze Star citation. Let‘s talk about that citation. You report on a front page story in “The Washington Post” today, Michael, that the citation for Larry Thurlow, the gentleman we just talked to, his award was—his Bronze Star was earned because of—he was—as well as other things, he was under enemy fire at the time. He denies that again today on the show, and he says not only did he not go under enemy fire when he took the action he did, the brave action he took to save those crewmen on the other swift boat, but that that language in the citation came from John Kerry. Any evidence of that?

MICHAEL DOBBS, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: There‘s no proof of that at all. It‘s based on his claim and the claim of some other swift boat veterans that it was John Kerry that wrote the after-action report. In fact, Mr. Thurlow was the senior officer in that particular engagement, so it‘s just as possible to suppose that he wrote the action—after-action report as Mr. Kerry. There‘s no evidence from the document itself as to who wrote the report. Also…

MATTHEWS: Is it a fair assumption on the part of Mr. Thurlow that it was John Kerry‘s words because he was the only one that issued a report, or submitted one, that they would have had to get that information about being under constant enemy fire, automatic weapons fire, et cetera, from the person who filed a report, if no one else did?

DOBBS: I think probably the after-action report could have been the work of several different people, each reporting on what their own boat did. I don‘t think that all the language in Mr. Thurlow‘s citation could have come from that after-action report, either. And there were many things that Mr. Thurlow was doing that are mentioned in his citation that John Kerry was not in a position to observe.

MATTHEWS: I was out in Iowa covering the campaign when Mr. Rassmann made his very dramatic appearance on the stage out there in one of the cities in Iowa during the fight for the caucuses out there. And it was very dramatic when he came out on the stage and he talked about how he was in the water, in enemy water, and he was afraid for his life, to stay least. And he saw the boat commanded by John Kerry come and save him. He said he was under fire at the time. I‘m almost positive. That has been his account right through today, that he was under enemy fire.

DOBBS: Right…

MATTHEWS: Is he to be believed? I‘m talking about Rassmann himself.

DOBBS: Well, Mr. Rassmann—he is convinced that bullets were hitting the water around him. And his account is corroborated by the crew members on John Kerry‘s boat. It‘s disputed by…

MATTHEWS: Thurlow.

DOBBS: … Thurlow and two of the other skippers who were on the river at the time.

MATTHEWS: So we have very close-in eyewitnesses, numerous eyewitnesses, including the man whose life was saved, and we have John Kerry‘s word up against the commander of another boat on the scene. And then we have to look at what was in the citation and assume that some battle commander made a decision as to who was telling the truth.

DOBBS: Well, all the boats were within a few hundred yards of each other. But I think that not a single—not—both the citations and the after-action reports were probably the work of more than just one commander…

MATTHEWS: OK.

DOBBS: … because they all mention several different boats.

MATTHEWS: What do you make of this belief that John Kerry had a plan?

I mean, it was almost doctrinal in Mr. Thurlow‘s account a couple minutes ago about he had this plan. Now, I can imagine a person having a notion they‘d like to be a notion in a war. I guess a lot of guys would like to be heroes. He may have thought somewhere down the line it might have helped him if he was politically intended somewhere along the line. But the idea he had some specific plan to doctor evidence, to try to create the notion he was a hero out of whole cloth—where‘s that notion coming from besides Mr. Thurlow?

DOBBS: Right. Well, it‘s Mr. Thurlow‘s personal opinion. Some of the other swift boat officers who are opposed to Mr. Kerry say…

MATTHEWS: Politically.

DOBBS: … something very similar. There‘s no evidence for it, you know, apart from their statements.

MATTHEWS: That‘s right. Mr. Thurlow had no tangible evidence, and he admitted that, of what he was saying. Anyway, thank you very much, Michael Dobbs of “The Washington Post.”

Up next, Senator Max Cleland on the Kerry campaign‘s new ad defending his Vietnam service and the candidate‘s accusation that ad groups are really doing the dirty work of this administration.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Former Georgia senator Max Cleland is a Vietnam veteran and a supporter of John Kerry for president.

Senator, why do you think John Kerry put up with this—he held fire for what, days now, if not weeks of these attacks on his war record. Why‘d he come back today?

MAX CLELAND (D-GA), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Well, he came back today because he‘s a real man. He is an authentic American hero. And you can put up with this stuff only for so long, and then you go out there and say, Look, you know, you want to talk about Vietnam? You want to talk about war? You want to talk about injuries? Come on, George Bush. Let‘s duke this out right now.

I mean, George Bush is hiding behind this swift boat fantasy that is funded out of Texas by multi-millionaires that support George Bush. It‘s about George Bush. And he has set Vietnam veteran against Vietnam veteran here.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CLELAND: That is not fun to watch. Now, our friend, John McCain, fellow Vietnam veteran, has said that this is dishonest and dishonorable and has called upon the president to disavow this ad.

But let‘s go directly to the couple of points just raised. First of all, you don‘t put yourself in for medals. Anywhere—Vietnam, World War II, Korea, whatever. You don‘t put yourself in for medals.

And secondly, it was Jim Rassmann who put John Kerry in for the Silver Star, not the Bronze Star with vida vise (ph). The award was downgraded by someone else. So John Kerry did not put himself in for a medal when he rescued Jim Rassmann. And secondly, the award was actually less than Jim Rassmann recommended.

Third, you don‘t go to war, at least I didn‘t, and I don‘t think John Kerry did or anybody on his crew, saying, Gee, this is a great day to get blown up. This is a terrific plan for my life. I‘m going to get blown up once. Then I‘ll get blown up twice. Then I‘ll get shot three times, and I‘m going to bring that shrapnel home so I can be a war hero. And then, finally, I‘m going to risk my life for some special forces officer in the drink that I don‘t even know.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CLELAND: But he‘s a fellow American. I‘m going to risk my life for him. And then next, here‘s a B-40 rocket with a—held by a VC, and he‘s going to blow my boat up, and I‘m going to turn in to him and I‘m going to go out and kill him.

MATTHEWS: OK.

CLELAND: Now, that‘s John Kerry at war. And I think that this is incredible, what we‘re seeing here, but it‘s further trash from the George Bush campaign. They tried to trash John McCain, and he knows how that feels.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/

Incidentally, I’ll repeat what I said above, so far I haven’t heard anyone say that Kerry’s 1971 testimony wasn’t true. Here’s the link again, if anyone wants to read it:

lists.village.virginia.edu/sixt…HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/VVAW_Kerry_Senate.html

If anyone wants to dispute what he actually said, from their personal experience, I would be interested to see it.

Posted by: Forrest at August 21, 2004 04:36 AM

When we examine O’Neill’s sources, we find that they either weren’t on the scene, or that their account is contradicted by official documents

O Neil provides affidavits and a bibliography of “official sources”.

I always hear from kerry defenders that his accounts are contradicted by “official sources”, but everyone, including you, fail to provide them. So by all means, provide them.

Kerry can simply release those records and put this to rest. he won’t because he can’t.

Also, there is simply too many kerry lies, even if he can prove ONE allegation false, there is no way he can prove them all false. The man is a liar.

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 21, 2004 06:07 AM

BTW, I read all Mathews “hardball” stuff. The man ignores the truth and simply glosses over the facts. But, he does a poor job defending kerry regardless. It’s almost commical, like watching a cheap trial lawyer.

lets see some doccumentation to back any of this stuff up.

There is only one way out for kerry, except it’s not a way out. OPEN THE FILES!

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 21, 2004 06:15 AM

From our comment policy:

“As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.”

I would argue that calling a presidential candidate a pussy and a coward is, indeed, “boorish,” and in violation of the policy.

Mind the policy, or leave the comment forum, please.

Thanks.

Posted by: Alan at August 21, 2004 11:38 AM

OK, Alan. It’s your sandbox. Could you help some of us out and let us know what would be an acceptable and un-boorish way to adequately characterize the conduct of somebody that consistently hides behind lawyers and process and offers nothing of substance, all the while posturing and selling himself as somebody who’s a hero, and trades on a reputation he appears to have lied to get? What acceptable words are there to convey the hypocrisy of a somebody who pays lip service to free speech, and then takes affirmative steps to suppress speech that he doesn’t want to engage on the merits?

I understand why you want to have your policy, but hopefully that doesn’t require us to go along with the Orwellian vogue of calling a spade a shovel.

Posted by: TL at August 21, 2004 02:56 PM

Forrest….it’s pretty deep here and I think you’re attempting to slog uphill. I’ve linked to articles with sources that were valid for 30 years or so, only to have them dismissed here as “irrelevant”. It appears that some people can look at testimony, military procedure and government documentation as fluff if it doesn’t match their predisposed view. Sure, Thurlow said great things about Kerry for decades, but within the last year he’s completely reversed himself…so that must be what he really meant all along. Same for Hoffmann and the others; they accolade and commend Kerry for his actions but now in hindsight…go directly 180. It was interesting to read Thurlow saying that anyone who wasn’t there firsthand shouldn’t be able to make the criticisms, but to completely disavow the testimony of the crew that was actually there. It seems some here are rabidly angry because of Kerry’s 1971 testimony, aren’t willing to view it in it’s entirety and context, and insist on dogmatic attacks. Why they don’t focus on his testimony as the source of their anger I don’t know…perhaps because that tact just isn’t defensible. There have been plenty of U.S. military tribunals that reported the identical things that Kerry was saying that he’d been told about as well. This is such a smoke and mirror issue….WMD’s, anyone? Even senior Republicans are saying now that they believe they were blatantly mislead into supporting our current war; no one is arguing that anything Kerry ever did cost hundreds of people their lives, and more and more lives each day.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 21, 2004 04:53 PM

>>I always hear from kerry defenders that his accounts are contradicted by “official sources”, but everyone, including you, fail to provide them. So by all means, provide them.

As I would assume you already know, there have been a multitude of documents released, far more than are available for President Bush:

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

For anyone interested in the Washington Post’s analysis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

For the origins of the anti-Kerry ad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=1

Concerning Kerry’s 1971 testimony, I have yet to hear from anyone who disputes the facts.

Incidentally, there was a new story in the Chicago Tribune today, which I think deserves its own headline. Since I don’t see one yet, I’ll post an excerpt here:

The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry’s integrity and war record.

William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune’s metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry’s receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry’s actions published in the best-selling book “Unfit for Command” are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during that 1969 mission, said Kerry came under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. He called allegations that Kerry’s accomplishments were “overblown” untrue.

“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,” Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in Sunday’s Tribune.

Rood’s recollection of what happened on that day at the southern tip of South Vietnam was backed by key military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star he earned in the battle and a glowing after-action report written by the Navy captain who commanded his and Kerry’s task force, who is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040821kerry,1,6814873.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Posted by: Forrest at August 21, 2004 05:02 PM

TL, the current President of the United States fits your description perfectly.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 21, 2004 05:10 PM

Uh huh.

I’m not a big Bush fan, but compared to Senator Windsock, the man belongs on Mount Rushmore.

Posted by: TL at August 21, 2004 07:50 PM

Oh really? It seems you’re easily impressed then…here’s more documentation (that’s official Texas National Guard documentation, btw) that Mr. Mount Rushmore was flat out AWOL and technically is still guilty of it.

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=176

I realize you’re quite unlikely to accept it, or even consider it, because whoever wrote it wasn’t wearing the right secret decoder ring or is perhaps a liberal. That doesn’t change the documentation however. There is no denying on any level that Kerry volunteered to go overseas for the U.S. military, and that Bush managed to “miss” every opportunity he had to do the same.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 21, 2004 08:55 PM

I’m no more easily impressed than you are able to effectively comprehend what you read: Bush isn’t all that impressive, UNTIL YOU COMPARE HIM TO KERRY.

Go ahead with the AWOL thing (I’ve read that link before), but the facts are that the TNG never accused or convicted Bush of being AWOL (the article infers it, incorrectly) and Bush was honorably discharged, Bush has released all of his military and military medical records and answered every question posed to him on the matter, both this year and back in 2000, when this was thoroughly investigated and found to be a non-story.

Kerry, on the other hand, has done none of that. He is ducking the press. He has yet to address any of the substantive allegations made by 250 vets that served at least as long as he did, many longer, and with just as much distinction. In fact, the Senator who whines incessantly about John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act is actually seeking to have the publisher spike the book, has threatened media outlets that would discuss the book or interview any of Kerry’s extended Band of Brothers (the 96% of the Swift Boat Vets that seem to think him worthless) and is now looking to have the FEC come in and investigate the whole thing.

Finally, Bush isn’t the one that brings up Vietnam more often than he takes a drink of water — Kerry is. For all of Bush’s ineloquence, spendthrift policies and inability to pursue the agenda he ran on, compared to Kerry, Bush is great.

Posted by: TL at August 21, 2004 10:46 PM

>> He has yet to address any of the substantive allegations made by 250 vets . . .

What substantive allegations?

“Senator Kerry is justifiably proud of his record in Vietnam and should be. It’s noble service.” — George W. Bush

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/bush.lkl/

“I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire.” — John McCain

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0810montini10.html

“I’d stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition. . . We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal [the Silver Star], a very high one, when it goes through the secretary. I feel that he deserved it.” — Sen. John Warner

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/222504p-191185c.html

I haven’t seen any “substantive allegations.” Neither have George W. Bush, John McCain or John Warner. If you know of some “substantive allegations,” you should probably tell them about it.

Posted by: Forrest at August 21, 2004 11:36 PM

>> He has yet to address any of the substantive allegations made by 250 vets . . .

What substantive allegations?

“Senator Kerry is justifiably proud of his record in Vietnam and should be. It’s noble service.” — George W. Bush

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/bush.lkl/

“I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire.” — John McCain

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0810montini10.html

“I’d stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition. . . We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal [the Silver Star], a very high one, when it goes through the secretary. I feel that he deserved it.” — Sen. John Warner

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/222504p-191185c.html

I haven’t seen any “substantive allegations.” Neither have George W. Bush, John McCain or John Warner. If you know of some “substantive allegations,” you should probably tell them about it.

Posted by: Forrest at August 21, 2004 11:38 PM

OOPS, I accidentally posted that last one twice. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Forrest at August 21, 2004 11:46 PM

Forrest,

According to the Swift Boat Vets, Senator Kerry lied on the floor of the Senate when he described a memory that had been “seared - seared into me” about being on patrol in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968. That is a substantive allegation.

According to the vets’ book, John Kerry filed for two purple hearts for wounds he accidentally inflicted upon himself rather than as the result of enemy fire. That is an allegation of a federal offense and, therefor, a substantive allegation.

There are other, quite damning allegations, substantiated by official records and sworn affidavits, in the book (check it out — if I can sit through Farenheit 911, you can read a 250-page book). Kerry has not responded to any of them or authorized the release of his military and medical records to allow others to do so.

The best thing that could happen right now is that Kerry is conclusively proved right and all of this goes away. I’ve seen nothing from him to make me expect that to happen, and Kerry has only himself to blame.

Posted by: TL at August 22, 2004 01:08 AM

>>According to the vets’ book, John Kerry filed for two purple hearts for wounds he accidentally inflicted upon himself rather than as the result of enemy fire. That is an allegation of a federal offense and, therefor, a substantive allegation.

It might be, if it came from a credible source. However, the Swift group doesn’t fall in that category:

Military records support Kerry’s account of Vietnam service

BY Joseph L. Galloway

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Military records back John Kerry’s account of his service in Vietnam and have backed at least two of his accusers into a corner.

Kerry this week was forced to defend himself against accusations by a group of fellow Navy veterans of Vietnam that he was a liar and a coward. The charges were made in a book and in an attack ad that polls show have chipped away at Kerry’s standing with veterans in three critical states - West Virginia, Wisconsin and Ohio.

The long-ago Vietnam War has suddenly become a central issue in the presidential campaign. The attacks by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have called into account Kerry’s conduct during the war, when he volunteered for one of the most dangerous duties - the so-called Brown Water Navy, which regularly penetrated Viet Cong-controlled territory via the maze of waterways in the sodden Mekong Delta.

Although the 15 veterans featured in the attack ad all state “I served with John Kerry,” none of them served on the same boat with him. Those who did, such as retired Chief Petty Officer Del Sandusky, 60, of Clearwater, Fla., praise Kerry for his leadership and credit him with keeping them alive to make it home.

“We are really upset at this stuff,” Sandusky told Knight Ridder. “They are calling us all liars. They dishonor us and they dishonor all those who died over there. They are getting awfully desperate. Last year many of them were on board with us. Now they are telling outrageous lies.”

Kerry has said that members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lied when they said he inflated his role in various combat actions in the Mekong Delta in 1968 and 1969 and had manipulated the award of three Purple Heart medals for wounds and Bronze and Silver Star medals for valor in combat.

Kerry released a stack of his military records - including after-action reports, citations for his medals, boat battle damage reports and his officer efficiency reports. These records - and the military records of at least one of his accusers - cast serious doubt on some of the more inflammatory charges raised by the group.

It didn’t help the cause of the Swift Boat Veterans group that some of them, including their leader, retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, were on the record praising Kerry for his service in Vietnam.

Kerry’s commanding officer in Vietnam, George Elliott, said in an attack ad: “John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.”

But during the Vietnam War, Elliott recommended Kerry for the Silver and Bronze Star medals for valor in combat and gave him the highest possible praise in his officer efficiency reports.

“In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTjg Kerry was unsurpassed,” Elliott wrote in 1969. He went on to rate Kerry as “calm, professional and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire.”

Elliott added: “(Kerry) emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group.” In 16 categories on Kerry’s officer efficiency report, ranging from professional knowledge to moral courage to military bearing to reliability, Elliott gave Kerry the highest possible rating - “is not exceeded” - in 11 categories, and the second highest, “one of the top 10” in five other categories.

Elliott in 1996 supported Kerry in his re-election campaign for the Senate and during an appearance in Boston declared that Kerry had earned the Silver Star “for an act of courage.”

Another critic, Larry Thurlow, a fellow Swift boat commander in the Mekong Delta in 1969, disputed Kerry’s claim that his boat and others in the five-boat patrol came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, mission that earned Kerry a Bronze Star.

Thurlow said that although one of the Swift boats was disabled by a mine explosion, there was no enemy fire from shore, as Kerry and others testified, and that Kerry’s account was “a total fabrication.” Thurlow said in an affidavit: “I never heard a shot.”

However, a citation for the Bronze Star with valor awarded to Thurlow for that same mission stated that his actions “took place under constant enemy small arms fire which (Thurlow) completely ignored” while he provided assistance to the damaged Swift boat and the wounded aboard.

Thurlow said he had lost his medal citation for that incident over two decades ago and stood by his account that there was no enemy fire at the time.

His account was further called into question by a battle damage assessment report on another Swift boat, PCF-51, involved in the March 13 action. The report listed three .30-caliber bullet holes in the superstructure of the 50-foot patrol boat.

The Swift boat veterans also have cast doubt on Kerry’s account that a second mine explosion damaged his boat, PCF-94, and blew an Army Special Forces officer, Jim Rassmann, overboard. Kerry’s Bronze Star was awarded for his rescue of Rassmann, who credited Kerry with saving his life.

Among the records was a battle damage report filed the following day, March 14, which stated that PCF-94 had three windows blown out, radios and radar inoperable, the boat’s auxiliary generator inoperable, screws curled and chipped, aft helm steerage control not working. The boat was judged incapable of executing patrols without repairs.

In the TV ad Swift Boat veteran Adrian Lonsdale declared Kerry “lacks the capacity to lead.” Yet he, too, appeared to support Kerry in 1996, saying of him: “He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers.”

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9455159.

Posted by: Forrest