Powered by TypePad

« The Swift Vets Versus Kerry | Main | You Take The High Road... »

August 06, 2004



Inconsistant sworn statements on the record. Calls for the perfect cross examination question - Were you lying then or are you lying now? I think he decided to say that he is lying now.


Drudge headline says Swiftboater retracts criticism of Kerry, but Capt. Elliot is not retracting the criticism that he made himself originally, which took issue with the fact that he had not seen the atrocities that Kerry testified to, heard no one condone such activity, and that atrocities were never reported to him by Kerry or anyone else. Elliot's criticism of Kerry was for smearing the honorable men he served with, painting them all as "villains". "It just galls one to think about it", said Elliot. Nothing in what Elliot is saying now in any way retracts or softens that critique of Kerry's self-serving post-war behavior.

Timmy the Wonder  Dog

How does Michael Kranish in his book on Kerry describe the shooting in question?


I glanced through the book a while back on a different point, but it is basically a compilation of the Boston Globe reporting - I doubt he re-interviewed Kerry just to re-hash that incident for the book.

capt joe

Is it just me, or does anyone see That Mike Kranish have a huge conflict of interest?

I mean, he wrote the campaign book for Kerry Edwards and he is now in the role as a trusted arbiter of the truth!??

Well, is Michael Moore going to join the RNC next?



Is this indicative of a Jayson Blair situation in the Boston Globe?


Kerry and the Swift Vets' credibility aside, the Boston globe's credibility just took a big hit.

Patrick R. Sullivan

"Final result - Kerry is a noble veteran who served his country and would never make up stories, distort his service record, or exploit his military background for partisan purposes.

"However, if other veterans criticize him, they are just lying, partisan hacks."

That appears to be the position of our favorite Berkeley economist, who not only had to avert his eyes from the Judy Woodruff, Larry Thurlow, Jim Rassman, CNN transcript I obligingly posted to his blog yesterday, but he had to delete it so his faithful followers wouldn't have to read it either.

He made sure I'd know what he'd done (this time) by e-mailing me: "Swift Boat bs is over the line..."

Ah, such fragile flowers.


Is it just me, or does anyone see That Mike Kranish have a huge conflict of interest?

Ummm, it's not just you.

How is it possible that a "reporter" on the campaign writes the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book? I'm mystified.


"Swift Boat bs is over the line..."

Um, that precludes discussion of about 2/3 of the Democratic Convention, does it not?

This Elliott guy sounds like some of the National Guard people - never trust witnesses to anything 35 years after the fact, no matter how honest they may be.


The defense will be that the book has been canceled I'm sure... Just like with Berger "attempted" wrongdoing is a-okay.


From the Globe article:

When Kerry returned to his base, his commanding officer, George Elliott, raised an issue with Kerry: the fine line between whether the action merited a medal or a court-martial.

"When [Kerry] came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, `John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post,"' Elliott recalled in an interview.

"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that," Elliott said. A Silver Star, which the Navy said is its fifth-highest medal, commends distinctive gallantry in action.

Asked why he had raised the issue of a court-martial, Elliott said he did so "half tongue-in-cheek, because there was never any question I wanted him to realize I didn't want him to leave his boat unattended. That was in context of big-ship Navy -- my background. A C.O. [commanding officer] never leaves his ship in battle or anything else. I realize this, first of all, it was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there. On the other hand, on an operation some time later, down on the very tip of the peninsula, we had lost one boat and several men in a big operation, and they were hit by a lot more than two or three people."

Elliott stressed that he never questioned Kerry's decision to kill the Viet Cong, and he appeared in Boston at Kerry's side during the 1996 Senate race to back up that aspect of Kerry's action.

I'm not sure why you didn't notice this--the context seems to make it pretty clear that Elliott was aware of the circumstances of the VC's death. I'm not sure why the fact that the VC was in a loin cloth is thought to help Swiftboat Vets for "Truth"'s credibility, while their credibility is not thought to be harmed by the omission of the seemingly undisputed and rather relevant fact that he was carrying a grenade launcher capable of blowing up the whole boat and everyone on it. I'm not sure why a Boston Globe reporter who quotes Elliot is thought to be less credible than the Drudge Report and a press release that does not quote him.


Katherine - sorry to be thick as a brick, but is your comment addressed to me?

I'm not sure why you didn't notice, but in this post, what I said about how Kerry killed the guy was "who cares"?

I'm not sure why you didn't notice it, but in my other post, before I became aware of the affidavit and retraction, I said the Naval officers who recommended Kerry for a Silver Star were probably well aware of the circumstances in which he won it.

I did not identify a dispute between Kerry and the Swifties about the age or circumstances of the Viet Cong's death; however, the Silver Starcitation differs from the other accounts (or do you dispute that?)

As to what helps or hurts the Swifties credibility, your comment that the omission of the seemingly undisputed and rather relevant fact that he was carrying a grenade launcher baffles me.

From the Drudge bit I excerpted:

O'Neill continues: "Kerry's boat moved slightly downstream and was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade. . . .A young Viet Cong in a loincloth popped out of a hole, clutching a grenade launcher, which may or may not have been loaded. .

I'm not sure why you didn't notice that, either.

Bruce Moomaw

Maguire: "Rassmann, the Green Beret Kerry pulled from the water, does get to the heart of this at the end of the Boston Globe piece:

"Those questioning Kerry's medals, Rassmann said, are 'angry about John speaking out against the [Vietnam] war.'

"Yes, these are simply not pro-life Republicans who decided one day to make up lies about John Kerry."

Nope -- according to Rassmann during his interview by Judy Woodruff ( http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/05/ip.01.html ), they're pro-WAR Republicans who decided one day to make up lies about John Kerry. Which is what he said -- explicitly -- about Larry Thurlow in that interview. (And we may now have some corroborative evidence; see my statement on the "Kranish Is Cooked" thread.)

The comments to this entry are closed.