A Good Comment In Defense Of Kerry's Bronze Star

Well known commenter Bruce Moomaw and I don't often see eye to eye, but he does a good job here.

The subject is the debate over the March 13 incident where Kerry got his third Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for pulling Green Beret Rassmann out of the water. A sense of the dispute is found in the Swift letter at Captain Ed's.

I am reprinting his comment, with no significant editorial oversight:

Regarding the clash between Thurlow and Rassmann over the Bronze Star Incident [here on CNN] -- which, as [Tom] remarks, resembles Rashomon (with both men flat-out calling each other liars before Judy Woodruff, and both of them apparently disagreeing with Brinkley's account), the obvious thing to do is to track down the skippers of the other three Swift Boats and find out what THEY say. According to Brinkley (if he's right), they were Rich Barker, Don Droz and Rich McCann.

Well, a 2-minute stroll through Google reveals that:

(1) Barker is an wildly enthusiastic supporter of Kerry. (See http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/politics/072804_politics_kerry_vet.html and http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1090919792168000.xml , to name just two of dozens of entries.)

(2) Droz was killed in Vietnam -- but not before sending his widow a whole series admiring letters about Kerry (whose anti-war views he shared):
http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/politics/072804_politics_kerry_vet.html

and not before (according to Brinkley's book) accompanying Kerry in his unsuccessful attempt to confront Captain Adrian Lonsdale about supposedly lousy, destructive orders by Adm. Hoffmann -- at which point, according to Kerry, Lonsdale told them he had no power to countermand those orders:
http://www.s-t.com/daily/11-96/11-04-96/d01lo120.htm

Again, there are literally dozens of Google entries about Droz and Kerry. What's especially interesting about this is that Lonsdale is now a member of SBVT on the grounds of Kerry's accusations of frequent US war crimes -- but nevertheless told "South Coast Today" in Nov. 1996: that he had known Kerry very well and that they had frequent political debates: "He was opposed to the war but it didn't make any difference in his performance...He was a very good officer."
http://www.s-t.com/daily/11-96/11-04-96/d01lo120.htm

(3) There's only one other Google entry on Rich McCann, and it's from another Kerry article Brinkley did for "Salon" this April ("Why Kerry Threw His Ribbons", cached on Google) in which he says: "Watching TV that evening was Rich McCann, who had traveled the Mekong Delta rivers with Kerry and was now a graduate student at George Washington University. 'When he threw those medals over the fence, I was pretty upset,' McCann recalled. 'I was grappling with a lot of issues myself. It was hard to accept that I had given a year of my life for a lost cause. In retrospect, however, what he did was right.' "

Now, the obvious next step is to (A) find out whether Brinkley's correct about the IDs of those three skippers, and then (B) to talk to McCann, Barker and Droz's widow (who kept her husband's handwritten letters). If Brinkley IS right about their identities, then it seems just a wee bit strange that none of them raised hell about Kerry's behavior during that incident.

I will be keen to see people's thoughts on this; my first reaction - this is a heck of a lot more interesting than the usual, which seems to be, John O'Neill is a partisan hack, and where are Bush's payroll stubs?

I should also note that my schedule today will not allow for much blogging.

Comments

[George]

It seems that Barker has been active with the Kerry campaign. Why hasn't he said anything yet?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

The usually astute Tom Maguire is wrong about Bruce Moomaw's performance. It is entirely in keeping with Bruce's admitted penchant for "appallingly sloppy reading".

There were five boats on the river that day, skippered by 1. John Kerry, 2. Larry Thurlow, 3. Jack Chenowith, and two unknown.

Thurlow, Chenowith, and enlisted man Von Odell all say there was no enemy fire from the river banks. And all are members of SBVFT.

One of the unknown would have been the skipper of PCF-3 on which everyone was either wounded or thrown into the river when the mine exploded. So that skipper would probably have nothing to add to the account. Which leaves ONE unaccounted for.

Most of what Bruce has posted is red herring.

[Mark Amerman]

So Bruce Moomaw says:

"...the obvious thing to do is to track down the skippers of the other
three Swift Boats and find out what THEY say. According to Brinkley
(if he's right), they were Rich Barker, Don Droz and Rich McCann."

While Patrick R. Sullivan says:

"There were five boats on the river that day, skippered by
1. John Kerry, 2. Larry Thurlow, 3. Jack Chenowith, and two unknown."

Someone is obviously wrong here. It makes a big difference who.

Patrick do you have a link or a reference?

[GT]

According to the anti Kerry people not only is Kerry a liar but also his crew and rassman.

Strange, huh?

To me the credibility of the accusers has been pretty much shot what with retractions and retractions of retractions, people who say one thing today but almost the opposite just a few years ago (Landsdale), the financing, and O'Neill's history.

But I think those that want to believe will continue to do so.

[BigBird]

Here is some good reading. Seems the swiftvets attorney's are not going to roll over on this one.

They seem to have the facts put out in good order. Would like to see the actual supporting documents.

Bird

PS: Life is Good

[BigBird]

Sorry...

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002203.php

[RiverRat]

Medalgate!

If any of you are wondering why 5 of Kerry’s “Band of Brother” are supporting him I offer the following:

Several days after the February 28, 1969 action, Vice Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. flew to An Thoi, South Vietnam, where he pinned the Silver Star on Kerry's chest. All records indicate the award ceremony took place on March 6th.

"In addition to Kerry's Silver Star, PCF-94's performance on February 28 also earned Bronze Stars for Tommy Belodeau and Mike Medeiros and Navy Commendation Medals with Combat V Devices for Del Sandusky, Fred Short, and Gene Thorson." - Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, page 294.

The entire crew got personal medals for valor! No wonder Kerry got a Silver Star! He probably put himself in for the Navy Cross and Zummie had to downgrade it. Kerry was given two days leave (vacation for civilians) in Saigon after 28 Feb 1969. No, Kerry was not hospitalized as has been rumored.

What's funny is that Kerry was on the flight from Saigon with Zummie for the award ceremony. What was he doing in Saigon 2 days after the action? Pandering for medals? Methinks yes.

Kerry to the crew, "Hey, guys I'll put you "all" in for medals if you'll agree that this is what I did." This was the most decorated Swift boat in the war for a single action and it was nothing more than a minor firefight.

If this is not the most outrageous piece of creative writing I will ever see....I'll eat in my Black Beret!

It's no wonder why they all support him now. They were kids bought with medals then and can’t admit it now.

This is all supported by Brinkley’s reporting in “Tour of Duty”. Only difference….objective analysis.

RiverRat

[J_Crater]

Let's make that a phony retraction, induced using Michael Moore style quote extractions.

[Tim]

The DNC doesn't need to lawyer up, Moomaw doesn't need to google search and parse Brinkley's campaign pamplet - John Kerry can clear this up real fast if he simply releases his military records, as he promised to do.

It's that simple. His unwillingness to fulfill his promis should say all we need to know.

[GT]

Phony retraction?

Hardly.

Elliot said he was misquoted, admitting that he spoke with the reporter and he said something to him. What was he misquoted on? He never tells us.

To me Elliot said what he is quoted on but then got cold feet.

In any case his 'accusation' is pretty flimsy to begin with. He has nothing to say about what happened since he was not there. And he has provided no evidence anywhere that he was 'misled'.

[TM]

GT, I would advise you to re-read what Elliott alledged in his original affidavit, and see what it is he "retracted".

After you do that, maybe you can explain your comment here:

In any case his 'accusation' is pretty flimsy to begin with. He has nothing to say about what happened since he was not there. And he has provided no evidence anywhere that he was 'misled'.

Hints - his accusation included his resistance to being lumped in with Lt. Calley - did he "retract" that?

He said he was misinformed about the circumstances of Kerry's performance that day - have you compared what he wrote on the Silver Star citation with Kerry's current version of events, from the 2003 Globe interview (of which Elliott was unaware when he backed Kerry in 1996).

Hint - "wounded" versus "not wounded"

And if Elliott has "nothing to say, since he wasn't there", does that mean the Silver Star citation is useless, too?

Look, Kranish pulled a slick lawyers trick - he led Elliott down a side alley and mugged his credibility. Good for Kranish - he got a headline.

[Jay Duffy]

Didn't Thurlow get a Silver Star the same day? Is he giving his back? Did he also "lie"?

Why did Eliot previously publicly support Kerry?

Did Jim Rassman come out of obscurity to thank Kerry for saving his life when his life wasn't in danger?

Do you guys realize how stupid you are starting to look? You have an axe to grind, but you're not fooling anyone with any brains.

In the process, you're making the USNavy look like a bunch of buffoons. Or was it only for Kerry that they bent over, since Kerry is the Anti Christ or something.

Also, if Kerry wanted fake medals for his political career, why did he come back and speak against the war...was he totally confused about what kind of political career he wanted?

[Bill]

Bronze Star Day March 13, 1969

According to the Command History pdf I downloaded from Kerry's web site the boats were PCFs 3, 51, 43, 93, and 94. Kerry's boat was 94. A mine exolding under PCF 3 was the only mention of a mine. No mention of a mine for PCF 94.

As to Rich Barker there was a Skip Barker and a Rich Baker. Barker supports Kerry. Baker's wherabouts are unknown to the SBVT.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

GT, you are definitely the poster child for true believers. Or is it non-believers? Kranish was an operative for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. He misrepresented himself to Elliot, and he made up a story about Elliott retracting.

In response, Elliot doesn't issue a press release, or call a press conference, he RE-AFFIRMS his original story. Swearing UNDER OATH.

Btw, I just now tried to correct factual misrepresentations by Max Sawicky on his blog (he call the SBVFT "liars"), and got this message:

"Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

"You are not allowed to post comments."

Here's what Max had claimed:

"Swift Boat Veterans for Lyin their Asses Off have a logical credibility problem. These are the kind I like, since they require no research into tedious facts. The logic is simply this: Soldiers don't award themselves medals. There has to be some kind of investigation and report to support an award, especially for medals beyond Purple Hearts."

My answer was to be:

"This appears to be virtually fact free. Kerry got his Silver Star within a few days of him dispatching the VC with the rocket launcher. Similarly, his third PH which allowed him to get out Vietnam. (Though the Bronze Star citation with John Lehman's signature on it is interesting).

"So far, John O'Neill's book has checked out on the Christmas in Cambodia yarn, the discrepancies between Kerry's story and the Silver Star Citation, the first Purple Heart band-aid, the third Purple Heart rice-a-roni crock, and the Kranish induced "retraction" being false.

"Yet, Max concludes that the Swift Boat Vets are the liars!"

Maxspeak, but no listen!

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

For those who CAN handle the facts:

http://www.swiftvets.com/article.php?story=20040808144320243

[Jay Duffy]

If I didn't understand that you guys are a bunch of jealous, bitter old men, I'd actually be wondering how many veterans are lying their asses off about their own medals. Or was it only John Kerry? Because obviously the process has no integrity of its own.

What's funny is not one of you would care if he hadn't spoken out about the war. And like it or not, that makes him a hero and a patriot to a great many other Americans. Including me, whose brother was in basic training in 1974 and never had to go, never had to become one of the 55,000 Americans slaughtered for absolutely nothing. Thank God some people cared enough to stop that madness before it claimed any more of our fine young men.

[Jerseylaw]

Jay, powerful political commentary; utterly irrelevant to the question of getting to the truth of what Kerry did and what he said -- the topic of this discussion.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"whose brother was in basic training in 1974 and never had to go, never had to become one of the 55,000 Americans slaughtered for absolutely nothing."

In which case, your brother was a volunteer, since the draft ended in 1973. The war itself ended in January 1973, for which you--and your brother--can thank Richard Nixon.

[John Earnest]

"What's funny is not one of you would care if he hadn't spoken out about the war. And like it or not, that makes him a hero and a patriot to a great many other Americans."

First assertion, incorrect: we're outraged he lied, grandstanded and politcally capitalized on it. The second assertion is wromg as well. He may be an idol of sorts to the usual suspects, but his charges of "war crimes" were completely fabricated and treasonous. Did you know Kerry just happened to have a friendly meeting with North Vietnamese negotiators in Paris in 1970? That news stories, tapes and films of him were used by North Vietnamese captors against American POWs for years? Did you know that today, right now, there is an adoring display about Kerry in Hanoi's war museum, detailing what a friend of the peace-loving peoples of the People's Republic of Vietnam he was, and how he betrayed his running dog lackey rulers in solidarity with The Struggle?
No, not because he spoke out; a lot of people did that. Rather, because he was and is a lying, self-aggrandizing opportunist who thought it meet to give aid and comfort to his nations's enemies in time of war. That's why.

[Jay Duffy]

I've commented on these "facts" on a different thread.

Simply put:
1. Did Thurlow also lie about being under fire when he earned his Silver Star the same day, and same way, as Kerry?

2. Why did many of these men previously speak out in praise of Kerry - including in the context of Boston political campaigns? Were they lying then or are they lying now?

3. Why do these men misrepresent themselves as serving "with" Kerry when that is not the case for most of them?

4. Who is the "doctor" who never appears on any medical reports and only "remembered" Kerry in 2003?

5. What caused Jim Rassman, a registered Republican, to come forth unbidden and - according to these guys - lie egregiously and publicly? If he was lying, wouldn't it have served him better to lay low?

6. Was this practice of allowing officers to lie their way into Purple Hearts and Silver Stars across the board in the US Navy, or was Kerry the only villain? Did he become the Navy's most infamous liar when he protested the war, or when he ran against Texas Bush for President?

There's more, but you get the point. How can you argue against Kerry's credibility when you seem to have no such standards for any of these men? And how can these facts ever be "proven" now,so many years later, with nothing but hearsay to back up any of these charges?

This is just like what was done to McCain. Plant the image of a black illegitimate child in the minds of voters known to tend towards bigotry. Plant the idea that he lost his mind in captivity. Then run away. The dirty work is done. No one cares about the facts, least of all these guys. If they were the great patriots they claim to be, they'd have come forward long, long before Kerry decided to run against Texas Bush. (Except for John Oneill of course, who came forward when Tricky Dick enlisted his services.)

[CDash]

It seems to me that a lot of the guys didn't know that Kerry had been decorated for such mundane events.

It's one thing to hear that Kerry received three Purple Hearts, A Bronze Star and a Silver Star, but not know why. Now many of the men have found out that they were there for the events and don't think Kerry's actions warranted such high decorations.

Thurlow's account seems very credible. When Rassman and Thurlow debated head to head on CNN, Thurlow was confident and persuasive, while Rassman was Clintonian -- he attacked the timing of the ad and deployed the McCain quote for cover.

Thurlow contends that Rassman (who was in Kerry's boat) was only in the water because Kerry fled the scene after another boat hit a mine. Kerry's move caused Rassman to fall off the boat. Thurlow says that Rassman was one of several guys who were it the water that day, and that there was no hostile fire. Rassman didn't dispute the fact that others were also in the water, but he did hold fast to the claim that they were under heavy enemy fire during the rescue.

Thurlow pressed him: "If we were under fire, why weren't there any bullet holes in any of the boats, and why weren't any of us hit?"

Rassman had no good answer to those questions.

Rassman put Kerry up for a Silver Star for the incident, but it was downgraded to a Bronze Star. Kerry also said he got a shrapnel wound to his ass from the mine that the other Swift Boat hit. Adm. Hoffman, a guy who seems like he would know, contends that underwater mines don't contain shrapnel.

Apparently, Kerry put in for his third purple heart for a bruise on his arm and a minor butt wound that he sustained in a non-combat injury when he blew up a rice cache with Rassman, not during the hyped rescue incident. The docs even found rice grains in Kerry's ass.

There are two other SBVFTs who come down on the Thurlow side.

Kerry's Cambodia lie and his fudging to get Purple Hearts bolster the Swifties claims. Moomaw's post is interesting but not particularly strong. Why weren't any of them shot? If Kerry has lied about other aspects of his service, isn't it likely that he embellished the Rassman rescue?

Doesn't the fact that Rassman was only in the water because of a jerky move by Kerry matter? If there was a handful of men in the water along with Rassman, does kerry pulling Rassman out of the water seem so huge?

Fellows like Thurlow didn't flee the scene after Swift Boat 3 hit the mine, they stayed on the scene, rescued the wounded (Rassman wasn't wounded, he fell in because of Kerry, not the mine explosion) and shot at the banks to suppress any fire. Once Thurlow and the other Swifties determined that there were no enemy troops in the vicinity, Kerry returned to the scene and picked up Rassman. Clearly, Rassman and Kerry have grossly inflated Kerry's role on that day.

[J.]

I do not know if Kerry deserved his medals or not,I do know thatthe awarding of many medals was a travisty in Vietnam. For career soldiers (and career politicians?)they were required for retention and promotion. For an example, my helicopter unit CO, XO, and first sergeant flew a huey to Cambodia, did Lord knows what, as there was no mission there at the time, and yes, put themselves in for medals. The requirement to get a medal was to have a creative company clerk. Ask a real viet vet who was on the wrong side of the barbed wire fence. They are the ones who got shafted in the medals game, just like they did in about everything else.

[Jerseylaw]

It's a good question, though, about why Rassman would be lying if, after all, he's a registered Republican. Here are some possible answers:

1. He's not *quite* lying.
2. McCain is also a registered Republican.
3. He's doing his best to stick to his story, on behalf of a guy he's grateful for.
4. The "I'll put you all in for ribbons" (or was it medals?!) scenario per above.

[ed]

Hmmm.

What amuses me is the contention, by Kerry defenders, that if Kerry's medal is fraudulently awarded then all medals on that day were fraudulent.

That's complete nonsense. It's definitely possible for people other than Kerry to be courageous.

Jesus. This subject really has you liberals running scared as hell. All Kerry has to do is release ALL of his records. Bush did it, so why can't Kerry?

Because he'll be shown to be a grandstanding liar maybe?

[Jay Duffy]

Bush released all his service records? Including the ones they found behind the file cabinet? How about why he failed his physical? *cough* cocaine *cough* How about why he never reported in Ark, and still managed to get an honorable discharge? *cough* daddy *cough*

You guys are hilarious. Especially the selectivity. No, all the other vets were telling the truth. All the other medals have value. ONLY Kerry's lying. And no, you're not jealous bitter old Texans scared to death your good old boy might not be able to steal another election. Not at all. Not a chance.

[furious_a]

Jay:

Why are you changing the subject? That's the first symptom that your case is crumbling. (Next is resorting to Nazi analogies)

We're not talking about Bush's NG status, but rather the Central Point and Anchor and Lodestone of Kerry's Campaign (well, that and "I'll do the same thing, only better").

It was Terry McAuliffe and Wesley Clarke, a primary candidate at the time, who after all injected Vietnam into this election, not GW Bush. And it is Candidate Kerry who has now "lawyered up" instead of releasing his own service records and facing questions squarely.

Your boy's in trouble -- Swiftgate has survived its first serious challenge, and now its messenger, the Boston Globe, is revealed as having a vested interest in the story's outcome.

Besides, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and Joe Wilson IV have all had their crack at Bush (and at pushing their books) on National news programs. Seems only fair the Swiftvets get their bite at the Apple, no?

I mean, they're at least as credible as the incredibly shrinking Joe Wilson, aren't they?

--furious

[Jay Duffy]

I'm not changing the subject, furious. The subject is Presidential "fitness". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Kerry's not fit for being a liar, then Bush is no fitter,and at least Kerry had the balls to go over there, unlike your alcoholic playboy.

As for having survived challenges, I don't know what kind of press you get down there in Texas. Here in New York, every single comment on this story calls it disgusting, questions the motives and veracity of the vets, and thinks it is backfiring on Bush, reminding voters of his dirtiness, as with McCain.

Our perceptions are colored by the culture we're living in. Down there, you may have the impression everyone believes your political pornography. But come out in the rest of the world, where a hell of a lot of those electoral votes come from, and we take a more critical eye. You can't bluster and bloviate and have it pass for proof. You also can't tell people that Bush's cowardice, alcoholism, lack of employment and corruption didn't matter, just because you don't want it to.

[TM]

2. Why did many of these men previously speak out in praise of Kerry - including in the context of Boston political campaigns? Were they lying then or are they lying now?

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself - Eliott came to Boston on Kerry's behalf in 1996 to defend Kerry's Silver Star.

Kerry gave an interview to the Boston Globe in 2003 telling a fairly different story from that which Elliott wrote up for the Citation.

In 2004, Elliott no longer supports Kerry's Silver Star, based on his understanding of Kerry's revised story.

Is that too confusing? Elliott did not know of Kerry's revised story in 1996.

Or put another way, is the alternative theory that Elliott was a loyal Dem in 1996 who has since switched parties?

[TM]

Patrick - applying Maxspeak logic, does that mean Bush is off the hook for the AWOL thing? He did get an honorable discharge, after all - they must have investigated before letting him go.

Ahh, that is a bit of a rhetorical question - PLEASE don't anyone take that as a launching point for a discussion of Bush AWOL, since my point is that these awards are NOT foolproof and fail-safe, and Dems like Max don't think so either.

[furious_a]

Jay Duffy:

I meant to list the third sign your argument is unravelling -- assuming on the basis of nothing that your tormentors are from Texas -- but you beat me to it.

Let's see if you trip Flare Number Four.

And thank you for admitting that you're attempting to change the subject. "Here in New York", ah, yes, the echo chamber effect, where Pauline Kael didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon, either.

YAAAAA--aaa--aaawnn, ok, you were funny fo a while, now you're just boring me.

--furious

[furious_a]

Jay Duffy:

At least you mentioned the Electoral College (most lib wingnuts seem to think the Popular Vote chooses the President), but I digress...

Bush got more electoral votes than Gore in '00, and thanks to reapportionment, the Red States took seven Electoral Votes from the Blue States, so...I'm sorry, you were saying about where alot of those electoral votes come from"?

--furious

[ed]

Hmmm.

"Bush released all his service records? Including the ones they found behind the file cabinet?"

So you're blaming Bush for the military's ineptitude in handling 35+ year old records?

Here's a clue for you: It's not about Bush, it's all about Kerry.

Not matter how hard you attack Bush if you're completely unable to explain Kerry's actions and past adequately then you've lost the debate.

Now back to you and your incessant and irrelevant attacks on Bush.

[Jay Duffy]

Thats true, furious. The Red States did pick up votes, and unfortunately voters from say, Wyoming, get to have a vote that counts 5 times as much as voters from New York. But Kerry's looking pretty good in a lot of these Red States this year, and is leading in all current electoral vote projections. Billionaires love Bush, but there's precious few of them left in Middle America. The big question is whether or not Jeb is willing to commit high crimes and misdemeanors when the world is really watching.

Yes, sir, I did admit I'm from New York. And extremely proud of it. Whether or not you realize it, it was OUR city that was attacked to give YOUR president something to disgustingly exploit for political profit. We are part of the USA you probably claim to love, a big part, the part that most of the world identifies with this great nation. We've made more history, generated more wealth and created more culture than Texas could ever dream about. And our high school kids get SAT scores that make your kids look disabled.

One of the most humorous attributes of redneck "patriots" is their selectivity as to what constitutes the USA. I say, if you guys want to exploit our tragedy as justification for your President's war adventures, you owe us at least the pretense of respect.

[Beldar]

Jay Duffy wrote,

(Except for John Oneill of course, who came forward when Tricky Dick enlisted his services.)

This is just wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin. O'Neill never worked in the White House; he's never been a "Republican flack" or a "Colson protege." His visit to meet Nixon in 1971 came after O'Neill had, on his own initiative, been trying for weeks to get Kerry to debate him and had finally gotten their famous debate on The Dick Cavett Show scheduled. In fact, O'Neill ruffled Nixon's feathers during that meeting when he revealed that in 1968 he'd voted for Hubert Humphrey.

I'm very familiar with the species Lawyerus Politico, and O'Neill's simply not one. He's never run for or held public office; he's never been appointed to office; he's never managed anyone's campaign; he's not a big-time campaign fundraiser; his own political contributions have been small and to local candidates. In fact, until Kerry began to run for President on his "war record," O'Neill has been amazing apolitical as compared to most other lawyers of his experience and stature.

I've met O'Neill exactly once in person, when I cross-examined him under oath as an opposing expert witness in a securities trial lawsuit in 1992. My further comments on that experience, and on O'Neill's military, academic, and professional background and reputation, are here.

[GT]

Tom,

Yes, I am only talking about the "He didn't deserve the medal" accusation. Not the "I wasn't a mass murderer" one. I always thought the second was the weakest in any case.

If Elliot wants to change his mind, that's his right. I just don't believe him and he has not provided anything of substance for me to believe him. I don't see how the VC soldier being wounded or not made any difference.

The people who were there agree that the VC soldier was armed with a weapon capable of destroying the boat and killing them all. They also agree he was running away with the weapon and had not surrendered. If he was wounded (something that you can only confirm once you are next to the guy) it certainly did not make him any less of a threat. And whether Kerry killed him from the back, the front or at a 45 degree angle makes no difference. And Kerry had no idea, when he went after the VC soldier, if the guy was alone or if there were other VCs in the vicinity.

So I don't see what new information Elliot received that could possibly make him change his mind about something so important. And even if, as you say, Kranish led him down a path, the fact is that it was a phone interview by a journalist, not a deposition by a lawyer. If it was that easy to make him say he didn't mean it to me that means he has doubts.

In the end this is not something that can be proven. Elliot has the right to change his mind and to claim he does not think Kerry should have received a medal. But the reasons he has mentioned are bogus to me.

People will believe what they want to out of this. You can see it with Patrick who still talks about Kranish working for Kerry, a debunked piece of nonsense.

[CDash]

Why Kerry's sketchy 4 months in Vietnam matter:
Because Kerry isn't just any Vietanam Vet.

Kerry is the guy that slandered good, brave men. Kerry said Nam was a bad war-- a war without heroes. He threw his medals away because he said they were meaningless-- again, he said that no American in Vietnam had done anything that deserved a medal. He said it was a dirty, illegal, immoral war.

Now Kerry is running on those medals. He says the medals make him a hero. He bugged out after four months, but he insists that he was the leader of a "Band of Brothers." What kind of fraternal obligation could he have had towards those men if he skipped out on them after only serving a third of the time he was supposed to? Answer: ZERO!!

Of course, there is an outfit like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Can anyone act surprised? This is blowback. Kerry is getting his.

I am thrilled that there are men like the Swifites who have come forward to speak out, at great personal peril, against Kerry.

If this country has a chance, a man who made his name as an antiwar, medal tossing activist cannot now reclaim those (iffy) medals and declare the war he so vehemently opposed a glorious endeavor fought by heroes.

Kerry said the troops acted in ways reminiscent of Ghengis Khan and that the war wasn't in our national interest, he cannot now claim that he was a Yankee Doodle Dandy fighting for God and Country.

Kerry needs to stand on what he said in 1971. To be sure, Kerry's '71 form isn't electorally helpful, but Kerry has to live with it. Kerry's Apple Pie and "Duty Honor, Country" campaign motif is so profoundly mendacious. Kerry has always believed that all that stuff was a bunch of hooey to be mocked.

If Kerry's record was possessed by anybody but Kerry, it's likely that there would be no 527 ads calling his record into question. But, Mr. Kerry has earned this scrutiny.

Kerry's media groupies are telling us he's a war hero, and they want us to use a 1945, unnuanced
interpretation of the word hero-- with none of the post 1971 "baby killing" baggage. But a great many Americans know better. Kerry isn't hated in America's Little Saigons for no reason. A good number of Vietnam Vets aren't haunted and repulsed by him for no reason.

The ad from the Swifties is hardly a low blow, it is precisely what Mr. Kerry deserves.

[Reid]

The Kranish hit piece is self refuting. His basic contention is:

Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book.

This is a willful misstatement of fact. In fact, the full quote reported further down in the same story is

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliot is regretting agreeing to the characterization of Kerry having shot someone in the back, NOT saying that he had changed his opinion on whether Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

[Reid]

In his affidavit clarifying his remarks, Elliot says:

I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong. For my belief that he was wounded and fleeing (and was shot in the back), I rely upon many sources, including Michael Kranish's (the Boston Globe reporter) quotation of John Kerry at page 102:

Kerry followed and fired, killing the man. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," Kerry recalled of his decision to shoot. "He was running away with a live B-40 and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous. He was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."

Michael Kranish et al., John F. Kerry: The Complere Biography By The Boston GLobe Reposrters Who Know Him Best, New York: Public Affairs, 2004, p. 102.

While I suppose the fleeing, wounded Viet Cong could have been backpedaling, I have never heard this faintly suggested by anyone, and I do not understand why he would have to turn around to face Kerry if he were fleeing backward. The difference is not material to any of my opinions. Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.

[furious_a]

Poor Jay Duffy:

Just like voters from, say, Vermont get a vote that counts "five times as much" as those from Georgia, or Delaware vs. Tennessee, or Rhode Island vs. Virginia? Sheesh, and there I gave you credit for grasping Electoral College Math.

Reduced to silly "my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad" playgroud bravado? Too bad you can't even figure out whose "dad" is whose...

Texas can defend itself, I'm sure. I'm from California, "the SIXTH! LARGEST! ECONOMY! in the WORLD!", BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I'd hazard that, as New York State lost two electoral votes and California gained one (and Texas TWO!!), that most of the world beating a path elsewhere than to New York State.

That, and our homeless don't freeze to death in the winter as your homeless do. And the runoff on our winery floors tastes better than your Upstate Jug Chablis...YUCK! And so on.

And yet one more loser's twitch from you -- the old "I'm from New York and We were Attacked so I Have More Credibility than You" dodge. GREAT! We'll all take Rudy's word as Gospel, then, when he speaks at the RNC convention later this month. Guess that means also that Rumsfeld is bulletproof since he was in his office when the Pentagon was attacked? And personally assisted in the rescue operations? Hmmmm?

Maybe you should stick to the subject at ha...oh, right, you're getting your *ss handed to you there, too. What are you going to do now?

--furious

[Jay Duffy]

I recognize you now Furious. The kind of impotent rage filled old men who crave authoritarian leaders and the illusion that they're out there "kicking ass". Explains why all those Fright Wing sights have all those Viagra ads. Why aren't any of you gung ho heroes over there driving trucks in Iraq?

If you hate New York so much, tell your President to stop using our blood to fill his coffers. Sheesh, talk about unearned medals.

[Darwin Finch]

You're ALL MISSING THE POINT.

The POINT is:

Kerry did kill a fleeing Viet Cong. Good.

Kerry did pull Rassmann out of the water. Damn good.

But true to form, he demanded outsized praise and decoration for these actions and is now demanding the White House.

Can you believe what this election has turned into? Can you imagine Roosevelt and Dewey bickering about WWI in 1944? Hell no!

McGovern (a true war hero) hardly breathed a word of his service in '72.

The Dems brought this on with McAuliffe's opening salvo and if you live by Vietnam, you may die by Vietnam.

[furious_a]

Poor, poor Jay Duffy:

And now you're a virtual clairvoyant, in addtion to a not-so-bright Electoral College Mathematologist? All Hail the Mighty Jay!

(psssst - you're manifesting two more losers twitches, projecting your own insecurities onto your opponent and crying 'chickenhawk' whenever cornered. You're a case study in Liberal Talking Point Tourette's Syndrome or LTPTS.)

New York is a FABULOUS city, it's those parochial Manhattanites whose mental map is that of the New Yorker poster showing the civilised world ending at the Hudson River's edge that draw my fire.

--furious

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Would Fieldmarshall von GT offer us the benefit of his vast expertise: Does being among a dozen or so American soldiers firing at and dispatching a single wounded VC normally qualify a combatant for valorous action (and a Silver Star)?

[GT]

Patrick,

I suggest you read the Silver Star citation. It includes more than the killing of the VC soldier.

[Jeff]

Interesting debate--particularly in the context of the larger debate over credibility and ethics of the two candidates. So Kerry may have been a glory-grubbing politician on the make, the argument goes. Let's see, for a presidential candidate that would be, what--exactly par for the course? The glory is based on actions more or less glorious, but certainly actual.

Bush, conversely, is a glory-grubbing politician who lacks these actual past glories to cite, save for the dubious "accomplishments" his staff have foisted on America over the past four years. Irrespective of what Kerry may or may not have done after his tour of duty, let's not forget that he did his tour of duty.

(The notion that it can be dismissed for being merely four months is deeply disrespectful to all those who have laid their lives on the line for the country. It takes far less that a second for one of those lives to be snuffed out. And of course, it's an absurd qualification anyway, given that Bush risked not a downy hair on his rich, pampered ass.)

From where I stand, those who question Kerry's service ought to consider that service (and whatever subsequent glory-grubbing may have ensued) ought consider it in contrast to Bush's service. You can polish accomplishments only so far.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"I suggest you read the Silver Star citation. It includes more than the killing of the VC soldier."

Duh! Yeah, GT it damn well does, and that's Elliott's point. What's in the Silver Star citation isn't true, but Elliott didn't know that in 1969.

Btw, as to the debunked allegations about Mike Kranish, do you suppose he introduced himself to Elliott as Michael Kranish, the author of "Kerry and Edwards, Their Plans and Promises" and the ghost writer of "Our Plan for America, Stronger at Home, Respected in the World", before he started questioning him?

[Earl T]

Jay,
Why attack the messengers when all you have to do is look at the facts---ALL the facts!!---Oh, that right Kerry refuses to release his entire military record. Hmmmm, wonder why?

I'm with Beldar on this one: Simple court room cross examination would show up Kerry's all too obvious foibles and prevarications (that's "lies" to youse Noo Yawkers)to any unbiased third party!

Real simple, Jay, just answer one query truthfully:

Did JF Kerry lie about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, and hearing President Nixon say there were no troops in Cambodia??? ( Now, when answering, take into account JFK's very own words as written in his very own journal and recall that Nixon was not President until 1/20/69!!!)

Ouch! Those damned facts again! What's a LLL Democrat to do?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"Irrespective of what Kerry may or may not have done after his tour of duty, let's not forget that he did his tour of duty."

He lied DURING his tour of duty, and used those lies to accumulate medals he didn't deserve.

That aside, George W. Bush did his tour of duty too. Bush enlisted to be trained as a combat fighter pilot in 1968, the year 14,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam. The fact that Bush is two years behind Kerry isn't his fault. By the time Bush is qualified to fly in a combat zone the war is winding down and he is unneeded. That's the only difference between their records.

[Earl T]

Jeff,

My man! Pray tell, where do you stand to judge the service of another? Ever read JFK"s prior comments on Swift boat service? How he thought such service would be routine coastal patrol and was disturbed when its mission was changed to far more dangerous inland waterway patrols?

And what are you implying about the service of GW? That he was afaid to expose himself to "danger and the possibility of death"?? Of course you're exactly the kind of guy who knows nothing about the reputation of the plane that GW flew as "the Flying Coffin", a plane in which he risked his life every single time he even flew a training mission! If G-Dub wanted so much to avoid risk, why didn't he take the "Al Gore approach" and sign up as a reporter, complete with bodyguard???? W's butt was on the line far more often than JFK's! W just didn't get the opportunity to back-shoot some poor wounded VC teenager----Thank God!

[CDash]

Patrick--

Bush isn't running on his NG service, he's running on his record as POTUS.

Kerry is running solely on his 4 months in Nam. That's the difference.

Unfortunately for Kerry, his time in Nam and his VVAW days make the case that he shouldn't be POTUS even on backwards day.