Critical "Swift Boat Veteran" Retracts Charges Against Kerry

[PeachMonkey]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

You'll note that this individual, Kerry's former commanding officer, who now claims he made a "terrible mistake" signing an affidavit accusing Kerry of being "undeserving" of the Silver Star, was the *only Swift Boat Veteran appearing in recent campaign ads who actually served with Kerry*.

Now, isn't lying on an affidavit considered perjury?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee, a group of Republicans lied and essentially slandered somebody they politically disagreed with, against a background of their President's having used his daddy's connections to weasel out of the very service he now trumpets?

Color me shocked. But I am looking forward to the apologies (ha!) and the statements from people who recognize (that'll be the day!!) that such events create a few problems for their world-view and their political affiliations.

Remember:

Geo. Bush Sr.: WWII carrier pilot; shot down in combat.
Bob Dole: Lost use of right arm, WWII.
Colin Powell: Vietnam-era combat service, and all that followed.
George McGovern: B-24 pilot, 50 missions over Italy.
Jimmy Carter: Navy nuclear engineer.
Max Cleland: Vietnam vet; lost both legs and an arm.
Bob Kerrey: served in Vietnam as SEAL; won Medal of Honor.
John Kerry: Swift boat captain in Vietnam; three Purple hearts, Bronze Star, Silver Star.

Hey! I know!! Let's fill in the military and combat service of:

Our current VP?
Bush's cabinet?
Tom De Lay?
Any of the war-trumpeting Republicans?

 

[TwistofFat]

I am not a fan of Mr. Kerry and can not comment on the he said/he said rearding his service to our country. It was a long time ago and there is clearly hard feelings all the way around.

My commentary on this issue is this new found requirement that one must have been in combat to be qualified or have an opinion on the running of our country or military. If I remember correctly, Mr. Dole was soundly beaten by a man that did not serve (we all know his history in England) but used the military as much as any POTUS in the history of the republic. The irony is while 'morale' of the troops ebbs and flows based upon the Commander, neither Clinton or Gore were vets of combat but did not neglect the armed forces as much as popular myth (from the Brookings Institution):
The Clinton-Gore legacy on military readiness is also better than some understand. Congress deserves much of the credit for keeping readiness high in recent years too. Yet however one allocates the political credit, inflation-adjusted military pay is higher now than when the Clinton-Gore era began eight years ago.

If Kerry or Bush wins in the fall - my primary concern is that we stay onto of these murderers and kill as many of these SOB's before they hit us again.

Regards -Glenn.

 

[PeachMonkey]

My commentary on this issue is this new found requirement that one must have been in combat to be qualified or have an opinion on the running of our country or military

I have no objection to people who have not served in the military either offering opinions on the military or the country, or even leading them.

My objection comes when individuals slander the record of others based on a supposed lack of "patriotism" from either not serving (in the case of Clinton, say), from having opposed a war (in the case of Kerry, for instance), or simply to damage them politically (see McCain and Cleland), *without having actually served themselves*. This is, at best, hypocritical.

In fact, using the sacrifices of soldiers as a basis to excoriate others drives me beyond any desire to maintain a cordial nature. I will resist the words that come to mind, other than "chicken-hawk".

 

[Kane]

I think the military crew with Kerry is telling the truth, and Kerry should be exposed. Some might say it is because the troops are angry because he spoke against the US troops of Vietnam. However, if that is the case then why is Kerry so afraid to show his medical records to the people?



There is no way any person can get three purple hearts in four months. I’m sure he did some self-inflicted injuries. Either way, if Kerry got three purple hearts, the troops at Vietnam who got their arms blown off and what no should get 8 purple hearts. That goes for the Silver and Bronze star he got.

 

[jime23]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2004
Vet denies retraction
of Kerry war criticism
Boston Globe story saying he backed off 'extremely inaccurate', 'highly misleading'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 6, 2004
2:16 p.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A Vietnam veteran who appears in a television ad critical of Sen. John Kerry says a Boston Globe article asserting he retracted his criticism of the presidential candidate's war service is "extremely inaccurate" and "highly misleading."

In a statement, Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth says "Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played."

The Globe story by Michael Kranish said Elliott, in an interview yesterday, backed off one of the key contentions of a book to be released next week by the veterans group, "Unfit for Command."

Elliott, according to Kranish, said he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.

But the veterans group says the article is "particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around."

Kranish, who is covering the Kerry campaign, wrote the foreword to the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book and is listed as the lead author, the Drudge Report noted today.

Telephoned for comment, Kranish declined to speak on the record with WorldNetDaily but forwarded a statement from the Globe which said the paper stands by the story.

"The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate," said the statement by Globe Editor Martin Baron.

Baron asserted it is "completely untrue" that Kranish "was ever contracted to write for a Kerry campaign publication."

The editor explained that "earlier this summer, Kranish worked with Public Affairs, the publisher of the Boston Globe biography of Kerry, 'John Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best,' to write a short introduction to a second project: an independent, unauthorized review of publicly available documents dealing with the platform and policy statements of Kerry and Edwards. "

Baron said that when Public Affairs "subsequently struck an agreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official campaign book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended."

 

[michaeledward]

I believe that the attack by this 527 group will be interesting as it unfolds. I found an article yesterday that helped me understand better who the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are, and why they might be motivated to discredit Senator Kerry.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

In continuing to persue this course of action, I believe Persident Bush's service will also come under reviewed scrutiny. And all such reviews lead to a physical. There must be a record of Lt. Bush's physical somewhere; not just the physical to secure flight status, which he could, theoretically at least, have forgone while continue "equivilant service', but the physical required in the three months prior to his 27th birthday. As I understand it, the regulations at the time required all service personnel to complete a standard physical in order to continue their service. This record must exist if the Lt. was indeed serving his country.

So, the tally as I see it:
Three Purple Hearts, Bronze Star with V, Silver Star Versus one dentist appointment.

We will continue to watch this side show, whilst our retirement funds continue to ebb.

Mike

 

[TwistofFat]

I have no objection to people who have not served in the military either offering opinions on the military or the country, or even leading them.

My objection comes when individuals slander the record of others based on a supposed lack of "patriotism" from either not serving (in the case of Clinton, say), from having opposed a war (in the case of Kerry, for instance), or simply to damage them politically (see McCain and Cleland), *without having actually served themselves*. This is, at best, hypocritical.

In fact, using the sacrifices of soldiers as a basis to excoriate others drives me beyond any desire to maintain a cordial nature. I will resist the words that come to mind, other than "chicken-hawk".

PM - Firstly, is it not possible for people to question John Kerry that are not George Bush himself? I.E. the men who are bringing these issues to light (true or not) are men who served and were honored in VN. Several questioned Kerry 30+ years ago, debated him on TV (Dick Cavett's show, Mike Douglas) and even the great John McCann said his testamonies to congress were used by his VC wardens to demoralize him - this isn't new news. What is new is he is running for President.
I do find it ironic that when Mr. Clinton ran this was not an issue. The line then was is was military service was not important. Mr. Kerry's campaign is asking us to vote for him, in part, because as a war hero (no pun here) he will be tough on terror. Both men's service is a ligitimate issue to discuss, but not to disqualify. We have a war on now, what they did in that war 30+ years ago begins to fade in importance IMHO just as Bob Dole's valiant service 40+ years prior to his run for the office.

Regards - Glenn

 

[rmcrobertson]

Congrats; an absurd response, and a symptomatic one.

For openers--by your logic, therefore it's not OK if a Presidential candidate uses his pappy's connections to get him into the Air National Guard, despite the fact that there were over one hundred applicants ahead of him on the list, and then has more than a little trouble documenting the fact that he even showed up for duty.

Fortunately, we don't know anybody who did this, so I guess the post is merely irrelevant.

Kerrey went. Gore went, though he was a PIO. McGovern went. Carter went. Bob Kerrey went (you may have heard him on the 9/11 commission?) and won a Medal of Honor. John McClain went. Clinton did not. Subsequently, their political positions matched their service and their explanations.

Nor do I recall anybody's saying that military service didn't count when Clinton ran. Could you perhaps offer references--I use the plural, because you seem to be saying that this was a common argument, or do you just wanna stick with the total rewriting of history?

As for the absurd claim that Clinton used the military more than any other President (we call them "Presidents," and have since the founding of this Republic, as opposed to "Emperor," or "Fuehrer," or, "Maximum Leader," or some acronym bespeaking military expertise we've gleaned from a Tom Clancy novel)...Roosevelt? either one? Lyndon Johnson? Truman? Nixon? say what?

Again, I note that Max Cleland (lost both legs and an arm, Vietnam) and Bob Kerrey (Vietnam SEAL, won Medal of Honor) have been among the most maligned of Bush's opponents. And does anybody recollect the assorted crap that the RNC (Republican National Committee) put out about John McCain when he ran against Bush?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I think the military crew with Kerry is telling the truth, and Kerry should be exposed. Some might say it is because the troops are angry because he spoke against the US troops of Vietnam. However, if that is the case then why is Kerry so afraid to show his medical records to the people?



There is no way any person can get three purple hearts in four months. I’m sure he did some self-inflicted injuries. Either way, if Kerry got three purple hearts, the troops at Vietnam who got their arms blown off and what no should get 8 purple hearts. That goes for the Silver and Bronze star he got.

I think the military crew with Kerry is telling the truth, and Kerry should be exposed.

Well, that's likely not going to happen, Kane. The crew with Kerry is supporting Kerry. Every living member of his crew has verified that he saved their lives the day he performed the actions that earned his Silver Star citation. Every living member of his crew appeared on stage with him at the DNC. The Special Forces lieutenant whose life he saved spoke for him at the DNC.

Medical records? Bush's medical records hadn't been released as of June 25, 2004, either, according to NewsMax.

The information contained in there might indeed be embarrassing to Kerry or Bush. Were either treated for V.D.? Had either been treated for a cut related to a fight in a bar? Would you want it public that you have bleeding hemorrhoids?

Are you getting my drift here? There might be a number of reasons they don't want the records released.

A guy can easily get three purple hearts in four months. We could probably find a number of vets who had.

Once awarded a third purple heart, veterans were shipped out of harms way and their tour came to an end. And no, a person who gets his arm blown off shouldn't get eight. Try running that zippy idea of yours by the Korea and WWII vets who got only one for being maimed. We can't apply the "Kane Sliding Scale On Purple Hearts."

You have no evidence he self inflicted those wounds other than what you might be able to glean from men who didn't serve with him during the actions in question. But you're "sure", eh? You were there? Where did you get this crystal ball? Wal-Mart?

Note too that Republican John McCain has publicly stated that this attack on Kerry's record is stupid and unfounded. He's a man who shoots from the hip. He also might have been President had it not been for Rove and Bush's dirty tactics against him in the primaries...tactics not unlike these we're talking about.


Regards,

Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

What I find interesting about such arguments is their willful, and absolute, refusal to let either facts or the absence of facts influence their ideas.

Why not just say that you don't like Kerrey's ideas and arguments? That you don't agree with his whole approach to things like, say, government?

Why even get into the personality and character of someone you DO NOT KNOW? especially when you've got no evidence at all for claims that there must be something wrong with their personality and character?

When you do this stuff, furthermore, it completey exposes the holes and contradictions in what you're saying. Clinton sucks because he didn't go to Vietnam, and opposed that war; Bush is fine, though he avoided Vietnam and subsequently shoved the country into what sure looks like an unnecessary war. Kerrey sucks because his wife has money; Bush is fine, though he grew up in an extraordinarily-wealthy family of oil multimillionaires. Kerrey sucks because he didn't do all that much during his twenty years in the Senate, which was preceded by ten or fifteen years of public service as a prosecutor and lieutenant governor; Bush is better because of his experience, despite his record as an indifferent businessman (three failed businesses), a Texas Ranger manager (at which he was apparently very good), and an adequate one-term governor.

Huh? Why not just argue that you can't stand the ideas, the ideology, and try to explain why?

I think it's because that takes knowledge and time. Personalities are so much easier, especially when you can just make stuff up.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

This argument has deep roots...


EDITORIAL
It's Not All Fair Game

Times Headlines

The GOP's war against Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry's Vietnam record has a history. It began in 1971 when the Nixon administration tapped another Vietnam veteran, John E. O'Neill, to form an organization called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace to discredit Kerry, then a freshly minted antiwar protester. Now a new group, called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has O'Neill on its steering committee as well as other members with ties to the Republican Party, is rolling out a $500,000 ad campaign in swing states Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia to attack the Massachusetts senator's war record.

The GOP has no monopoly on deceptive tactics. But the smear campaign against Kerry relies on highly dubious accusations to sow doubts about a well-documented military record.

It's a strategy that has worked in the past. Despite his own murky stint in the National Guard, President Bush did not hesitate to allow GOP operatives to distort Republican Sen. John McCain's Vietnam POW years during the 2000 South Carolina primary by claiming that being a captive wasn't a heroic action, like actively attacking the enemy. At a campaign rally for Bush on Feb. 3, 2000, veteran Tom Burch even declared that "Sen. McCain has abandoned the veterans. He came home and forgot us." This despite McCain's tireless efforts to discover if there were any missing Americans remaining in Vietnam. Then there was the GOP's depiction of then-Georgia Sen. Max Cleland during the 2002 midterm election as soft on terrorism — not to mention far-right columnist Ann Coulter's preposterous claim that it was Cleland's own fault that he lost three limbs in Vietnam because he mishandled a grenade.

Now Kerry is coming in for similar treatment. For example, a column by the conservative National Review's Byron York raised the question of whether the wound that Kerry suffered in December 1968 was really serious enough to qualify him for his first Purple Heart, which with two other Purple Hearts "allowed" Kerry, as York puts it, to leave Vietnam "before his tour of duty was finished." Doesn't Kerry's bold action in beaching his Swift boat, grabbing his M-16 and directly attacking Viet Cong soldiers firing at him and his mates indicate bravery? Apparently not. The new ad of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth depicts Kerry, like Cleland, as an irresponsible bungler. No evidence supports this, and McCain denounced the ad campaign Thursday.

Eyewitness accounts of Kerry's actions show that he acted with decisiveness and, yes, courage. Sure, Kerry evokes his Vietnam service with metronomic regularity and skates over his later opposition to the war. His denunciation of the Vietnam War in 1971 Senate testimony and his antiwar activities are fair game for his opponents. So are his dovish Senate foreign policy stands. But his war record is not.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

This outlines how the ad campaign got "sunk".

http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/2004/sunk.htm


Regards,

Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Ah-HA! Thanks for the links. Now I have more political history research to do in the wee hours when insomnia takes me, but thought-provoking....

 

[Phoenix44]

I'll just paraphrase Jon Stewart (The Daily Show host) on the allegations:

"Well, that would be really interesting...if any of them had actually served with John Kerry."

 

[Feisty Mouse]

:lol:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Here's yet another link to a very well done riposte to these allegations...no pun intended, given the name of the site:

http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm

Check out the glowing fitness reports and the comments from his men.

This page really rips the whole Swift Boats Veterans For Truth to pieces.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Gary Crawford]

That retraction does NOT suprise me after Kerry's lawyers threatened everybody associated with the book.

 

[michaeledward]

That retraction does NOT suprise me after Kerry's lawyers threatened everybody associated with the book.

If you are speaking the truth ... then really, a threat of a lawsuit means little, dont' you think?

For those who haven't heard, the book alluded to by Gary Crawford is:

'Unfit for Command : Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry"

No doubt ... it is a herald of truth ... the exact opposite of Michael Moore's Falsenheit 911. Look for an official release date of August 15th 2004. It is sure to be on the NYTimes best seller list, and thousands of copies will make it to Richard Mellon Scaife's garage.

Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

That retraction does NOT suprise me after Kerry's lawyers threatened everybody associated with the book.

If their claims are true, let them hammer it out in court with him. If what they say is true, then it isn't libel. Kerry, being a public figure, will have to prove actual malice on the part of the SBV members. By that he will have to show the defendents knew their statements were false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of the statement. A defamation fame will probably fail if any of these requirements are not met.

If what they say is indeed false, and demonstrably so, then they face some peril in court.

From what I've read, they would do well to pull the book in the face of a suit. They've got a tad too much going against them. Too many of their allegations are contradicted by Naval records (Kerry's citations and fitness reports) and the statements of Kerry's crew.

Kerry ought to sue. It'd draw attention to the issue.


Regards,


Steve