Mickey Tries To Stop Kerry

Mickey Kaus is looking for ways to Stop Kerry:

Magic Anti-Kerry Solution #2? How to get John Kerry off the national stage before he wastes any more of his party's energy? One promising solution, already discussed, is Form 180, which would authorize press access to Kerry's complete military record. Kerry recently told Tim Russert on national TV that he'd sign it. (Well? ...) ... But what about Kerry's complete Vietnam diaries? As far as I know, he hasn't released them either. He's only given access to publicity-addled historian Douglas Brinkley, who has quoted from them. Democrats who don't want to be Swift-boated again have every reason to demand full press access to the Viet-era diaries. Or do you trust Brinkley to have published the most significant damaging nuggets?

The short answer - I very much do not trust Brinkley to have released all of the relevant material.

Now, how about the long answer?  Details are in this not-too-long post noting the controversies surrounding Kerry's first Purple Heart; more can be found by following the links.

The gist - there are significant controversies surrounding Kerry's first Purple Heart.  However, in both his "Tour of Duty" book, and this Salon piece defending Kerry, Brinkley relies on interviews Kerry gave to Brinkley and the Boston Globe in 2003.  (If we are following his book notes correctly, Brinkley only obtained access to Kerry's war records *after* his 2003 interview with Kerry).

SO - the evening where Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart was his first "combat" (even though he may not have been fired upon) and his first wound.  He has since described it as one of the most frightening nights of his life.

But Brinkley could find nothing in Kerry's diary or correspondence that touched on it at all?  Is that odd?  Or is it vaguely possible that Brinkley found evidence that contradicted Kerry's on-the-record interviews in 2003, and just decided to sit on it?

In Kerry's favor - he got a new boat and a new assignment right after this Purple Heart incident, so maybe he simply did not have time to write home, or to his diary.  Fine.  Sign the Form 180, release the notes, and we can see for ourselves.

Or, we can reprise all of this in 2008 (my calendar is clear).  The research has been done, the questions are ready - the only thing likely to change is that the press may not roll over for Kerry this time.  Or is Russert going to be OK if Kerry stiffs him on the Form 180 for four years?

Comments

[ed]

Hmmm.

You forgot the most intriguing question of all. Why did it take Kerry 12 years to get an Honorable Discharge from a 6 year tour? He signed up with the USNR in 1966 for a 6 year tour, got discharged in 1972 but didn't receive his Honorable Discharge until 1978.

Odd that.

[richard mcenroe]

Ed — It's more interesting than that. Kerry's "Honorable" Discharge is clearly identified as a change to a previous discharge. Now what do you change a discharge from, if you're changing it to "Honorable." The only question is what kind of other-than-honorable discharge Kerry originally received, and why.

Tim Russert will probably have a stroke on camera if he has to cover for both Kerry and Hillary in the primaries...

[Beto Ochoa]

Perhaps he fixed his discharge with the Magick Hat!

[GT]

Tom,

We really going to revisit this?

[TM]

GT: Are we actually re-hashing this? Hard to believe. A psychologist would have to guess that I am reliving past glories, rather than facing squarely the impending melt-down on Social Security. I would rather cite curiousity, and a desire to get some useful feedback on my own analysis.

But I have a bold new hook that is bound to enlist you, GT - the message is this: Dems want to denounce the Rep Propagamda Machine, yes? Armstrong Williams, James Guckert, those ghastly Swift advisors that have been hired to trash the AARP - what better way to *CRUSH* the Rep Noise Machine than to have Kerry sign the Form 180, release his War Notes, and show everyone that folks like me were just participants in (or dupes of) a nasty, cynical media manipulation?

What's the downside for Dems? Its too late for this to cost Kerry the election, and anyway, your guy is clean - release the records, hammer Rove and the Noise Machine, restore a bit of lustre to the MSM that ignored this story, save Social Security - its a win, win, win, win!

Well, unless Dems are worried that Kerry's record won't hold up. Then it looks silly for the MSM and the whole Dem nominating process.

But I am not afraid of the truth!

As to the earlier commenters wondering about Kerry's puzzling discharge - get those comments out now, before Mr. Turner arrives - he will smite you mightily.

We hashed this out last summer/fall, and I think it is fair to say that Beldar (of the Beldar blog), Mr. Turner, and myself all concluded that there are plausible, innocuous explanations to the dishonorable discharge story.

Others may differ, but I've got some heavy talent on my side on this one.

[GT]

Personally I just don't care about Kerry. He tried, he lost, end of story. He might attempt a comeback in 2008 but I doubt he has much chance. I see no need to stop him because there is nothing to stop. Right now I'm more concerned with stopping Liebermann from betraying the Dems.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Heh. Are you kidding GT? I, like many other Republicans, plan on attending many Kerry fundraising activities. Hell I'm ready to send a check to the man right the heck now.

:)

[Cecil Turner]

"It's more interesting than that. Kerry's "Honorable" Discharge is clearly identified as a change to a previous discharge."

The paperwork I saw said: "you are hereby honorably discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve effective this date." It mentioned no earlier discharge, and doesn't appear to me to be an upgrade (unless there's some other paperwork floating out there).

" . . . get those comments out now, before Mr. Turner arrives - he will smite you mightily."

I'm a lot less excited about it, now that it's an academic point. I still don't see anything remarkable, but I'm no expert on Reserves, discharges, nor general administrative matters. Also, the rules were different back then (DOPMA, implemented in 1981, changed things significantly). The way I read the manual, Kerry could have been discharged any time after 1975 (after three years inactive reserve), and 1978 seems just a bit late. But there are many possible explanations, most involving bureaucratic inertia. Obviously I can't prove there's nothing there, but so far I've seen nothing substantial to support the contention.

Making an unsubstantiated accusation is bad form, however, and extremely bad tactics. In this case, if Kerry were forced to release his records to disprove discharge allegations, any other irregularities in his service record would be inconsequential. It would also reinforce the "SwiftBoatLiars" and "right-wing smear" talking points. To me, the up side is negligible, and the potential downside significant (and would have been distinctly counterproductive during the campaign). Personally, I'd leave it alone.

[GT]

It's clear that the "Swift Boat Liars" has been amply proven by now.

[TM]

Well, I wonder whether folks here are so easily baited. Or maybe we shoukld call Tim Russert and tell him his question was irrelevant.

[GT]

Tom, please. There are parts that are open to debate such as Cambodia. But on the medals, which are the heart of the SV attacks, they have been shown to be made up or simply unprovable one way or the other.

This includes the 1st PH where Kerry's 2 crewmates support him and don't recall Hofman (was it him?) being there. Or the SS where Kerry has like 10 witnesses on his side. Or the BS where the Swifties don't have a single witness.

[Crank]

Personally, I think the whole issue is, if nothing else, of great relevance and interest for historians writing about the 2004 election, and Kerry should be pressed to sign the Form 180 on those grounds alone. That's aside from the issue of whether he wants to run again.

[Al]

Um, isn't anyone else aware that Kerry is up for election in 2006? Are none of you from Massachusetts?

Seems to me that it is (or should be) relevant to those who could vote for him then.

[Al]

Argh. 2008, not 2006. But, in any case, it would (or should) be relevant to a Senate race then, even if Kerry does not go for the Presidency again.

[Brad R.]

Al-
As a Masshole, I can tell you- there's no way Kerry's going to lose in the Senate, *no matter what* his military records reveal (and especially if the Republicans are dumb enough to run Jerome Corsi). We still have Teddy Kennedy, don't forget.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"Or the BS where the Swifties don't have a single witness."

Except for all the surviving skippers who were right there with him at the time. And the physical evidence--no one was hit by the enemy's gun fire, not even from aluminum shrapnel.

[Steven J.]

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 1, 2005 05:02 PM:
"Except for all the surviving skippers who were right there with him at the time. "

If you are talking about Thurlow, there are at least three major problems with his story:

1) Thurlow's own BS states that they all came under fire.
2) Thurlow's own crewmate, Lambert, asserted that they were under fire
3) Lambert is the official witness on the report

[Cecil Turner]

"This includes the 1st PH where Kerry's 2 crewmates support him and don't recall Hofman (was it him?) being there."

Unfortunately for Kerry, they don't recall any enemy fire, either.

"Or the SS where Kerry has like 10 witnesses on his side."

I'm not sure there's much dispute over the facts of the SS, only the contention the reports were puffed up. Which they almost certainly were, though that's hardly unusual.

"Or the BS where the Swifties don't have a single witness."

The enemy fire in the BS incident is admittedly unprovable, but if it was intense, they sure suck at marksmanship--because they didn't score a single hit, even on a boat. The third PH is also dubious, since even Rassmann claims the shrapnel wound was from their own grenades in rice bins.

[TM]

or simply unprovable one way or the other.

Well, with the first PH, the unreleased Naval records which formed the basis for his award *normally* would include some sort of eyewitness statement describing the circumstances under which he was wounded.

Since his complete records have not been released, no one has seen such a statement, so we don't know what is in it.

But it might clear up who was in the crew (Schachte, then a Lt., who retired as a Rear Admiral, says he was; Kerry say he was not)

Personally, I would rather wait and see the records before I decided that this particular issue was "unprovable".

[Kim]

Easy to settle; just ask David Alston, the Man of God. He wouldn't lie.
========================================================================================

[Kim]

Easy to settle; just ask David Alston, the Man of God. He wouldn't lie.
========================================================================================

[Kim]

Easy to settle; just ask David Alston, the Man of God. He wouldn't lie.
========================================================================================

[GT]

Tom,

It's not just Schachte vs Kerry.

It's Schachte vs Kerry and Zaladonis and Runyon. 3 vs 1.

Unless you think Zaladonis and Runyon were bribed I think the evidence is clearly on Kerry's side.

[Beto Ochoa]

These types of exchanges where people argue over points that have been generated by KOS or the DU and are nowhere close to the actual points of contention, give blogs and commenters a bad image. People should read both Doug Brinkleys book and John O'Neils before permanently plastering their ignorance in print for all to see.

[Cecil Turner]

"It's Schachte vs Kerry and Zaladonis and Runyon. 3 vs 1."

On the completely unimportant point of which boat Schachte was on. On the single pertinent point (enemy fire), there is no disagreement: nobody saw any.

[Paul Zrimsek]

It's not just Schachte vs. Kerry. It's GT vs. GT. "Swift Boat Liars" has been amply proven by now even though nothing is provable one way or the other. Nothing is provable one way or the other even though the evidence is clearly on Kerry's side.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"It's Schachte vs Kerry and Zaladonis and Runyon. 3 vs 1."

It's Schachte, Hoffman, and the physician on duty versus Kerry and the two enlisted men. And the logic favors Schachte being in the boat training the novice Kerry.

----------quote---------
1) Thurlow's own BS states that they all came under fire.
2) Thurlow's own crewmate, Lambert, asserted that they were under fire
3) Lambert is the official witness on the report
----------endquote-------

There are three surviving skippers, plus Kerry. All three say there was no enemy fire. Thurlow didn't write his medal recommendation.

Lambert wasn't Thurlow's 'crewmate', he was an enlisted man. And, Lambert DOES NOT say there was enemy fire, he says there usually was after a mine exploded.

[GT]

Cecil,

Why is enemy fire pertinent? They all agree they saw the enemy and shot at it.

[Beto Ochoa]

No again.

[`]

Besides Kerry, and his crew, and Rassman there were at least two other witnesses (in other boats) that remmeber enemy fire.

There's Lambert, the official witness on Thurlow's medal recommendation, and Langhofer. I may be missing another.

Plus all the official documents, of course.

[Kim]

Had there been enemy fire(and I believe there may have been a few AK-47 rounds let off) then Kerry's running off down river with wounded sailors in the water was even more cowardly than if there had been no fire.
=====================================================================================================

[Kim]

Had there been enemy fire(and I believe there may have been a few AK-47 rounds let off) then Kerry's running off down river with wounded sailors in the water was even more cowardly than if there had been no fire.
=====================================================================================================

[...]

Kim,

You ever studied philosophy of science?

[Cecil Turner]

"Why is enemy fire pertinent?"

Because in general, accidents or self-inflicted wounds don't qualify (which is why Max Cleland, for example, doesn't have a PH despite truly horrendous wounds). But there's an exception:

(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.

Can you have "heat of battle" with no enemy fire? Sounds like a judgment call to me, and the earlier bit seems to leave that decision up to commanders:

3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.

In this case, that'd be Hibbard's call, and he's on record as not thinking it rated a PH. (His rationale appears to've been "scratch" rather than "self-inflicted," but that's also defensible, since the criteria is "required treatment" rather than "been treated.")

[gt]

Well, somebody disagreed with Hibbard. And someone with more authority on this particular point than Hibbard.

Kerry's crewmates are on the record saying they do recall shooting at the enemy. Sop your point b) is covered.

Bob Dole got one of his PH for a self-inflicted wound as I recall.

[kim]

I'm trying to figure out if the fundament of reality is tautology. Douglas Hofstadter is supplying the latest brain twister...er, uh, braid twister.

And CT, don't forget the Vietnamese "fleeing like gazelles' before Kerry's machine gun fire, who may have been unarmed noncombatants.
===============================================================

[Forbes]

You know GT could be right--but then we'll never know unless Kerry signs Form 180, and releases the diaries that Brinley sourced. Sounds like Kerry should honor his two promises to Tim Russert and sign the 180. Puts it all to rest, then GT can go back to really not caring about Kerry!

[TM]

Unless you think Zaladonis and Runyon were bribed I think the evidence is clearly on Kerry's side.

Well, the testimony is on his side, if this is to be settled by vote. And, honest injun, I don't think any of them are lying, exactly - I just think someone is deeply confused.

I say that because neither Zaledonis nor Runyon were even named in the skimmer op story until early 2004 - Kerry did not remember them, and Brinkley has not released any diary notes that might aid a refreshing of anyone's memory.

Instead, they just conveniently emerged when Kerry's story was under fire in early 2004. Bribed? Why say that? Maybe Runyon decided to trade the life of a shift-worker in Detroit for the life on the Presidential campaign trail. Maybe he went on some other skimmer op (there were about twelve), and just remembers it differently now, having spent time swapping stories with Zaledonis.

Or maybe Schachte is lying - as the unit XO, he might know that no records exist to contradict him. Motive - he hated Kerry ever since the Congressional testimony. Evidence he is lying - none.

Or maybe Schachte is confused - maybe he went on every skimmer op but this one, and remembers the details so vividly because he debriefed Kerry himself. Evidence - none.

As to Kerry's selective and self-serving memory, I have no problem disqualifying him - he is the guy who claimed he was not at the bitterly contentious VVAW meeting in Kansas City, when later FBI surveillance docs, and the accounts of a some participants put him there.) Look, Kerry's memory is a bit hazy on KC meeting question, the Christmas in Cambodia point, and perhaps other details as well.

However, evidence may exist, in both Kerry's War Notes, and the Purple Heart application, that could settle this. I would like to see it. The Official Dem Position, as taken by GT, is what?

Oh, on the matter of enemy fire and the first Purple Heart - GT and I are roughly on the same side of this, which is the modified Turner position - a self-inflicted wound in the heat of combat can qualify.

Still, where is the witness account of the evening's activities that supports that story? Ahh, in the Navy files...

[Cecil Turner]

"Well, somebody disagreed with Hibbard. And someone with more authority on this particular point than Hibbard."

Who? Are you sure it wasn't a hospital commander to whom Kerry presented a treatment record? (Which, though perfectly legal, would tend to support the swiftVets' story better than Kerry's.) We need to know! Sign the 180!

"Kerry's crewmates are on the record saying they do recall shooting at the enemy. Sop your point b) is covered."

"Shooting" (at someone in the dark whom you think might be the enemy)="heat of battle"? Again, sounds like a judgment call.

"Bob Dole got one of his PH for a self-inflicted wound as I recall. "

The enemy was also shooting back. It's also a bit less negligent to throw a grenade and catch a piece, than it is to shoot an M-79 and catch one.

[Harry Arthur]

Some of you have been in actual combat. Some have not. Those who have been, understand implicitly the concept of the "fog of war" and those who haven't may or may not understand that concept. I am willing to posit that everyone involved believes their version of the events and that no one is lying, i.e., intentionally deceiving another. The Swift Boat Veterans have earned the right to this assumption as has John Kerry.

I am also personally aware of the tendancy to believe a story you tell often enough whether it might be completely true, an exageration, slightly true, mostly fabricated, or even someone else's story that you just liked to tell. It is also a fact that eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, though in the aggregate it can be very informative.

Thus, the only real evidence that can and should be discussed is contemporaneous to the events and that evidence, folks, is in the totality of the Naval records and even Kerry's and any other crewmembers' diaries. Everything else is nothing but opinion - and as we used to say in the Army - everyone has one.

[Kim]

I think the fact that Brinkley, who has had the greatest access to the historical record, has not refuted anything the Swifties have said speaks volumes.
==========================================================================================