Powered by TypePad

« Spinsanity Searches For The Truth | Main | He MUST Be A Kerry Guy! »

August 06, 2004



I think it's irrelevant whether Kerry shot the guy in the back, side, front, top, or foot. I'd think you'd shoot any enemy combatant that's not surrenduring.


Well, yeah. I need to find this darn affidavit, but if that is really what they are hinging this on, it's ridiculous. I would have thought the fact that someone else wounded him first would be a lot more significant.

And it is all Elliot talks about in explaining his retracton, which is also ridiculous.



I think it would have been better if Elliot had never signed the paper in the first place. Now his retraction is the story.

What an idiot.


Now Drudge Report has it that he's NOT retracting the story, but was misquoted by the Boston Globe... specifically by the reporter who penned the offical book about the campaign.

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmm.


oops! "penned the official book about the _Kerry/Edwards_ campaign."

Sorry for any confusion!

Larry J

There may be less to the retraction story than first meets the eye. It was written by Kerry's official biographer who still tries to be a reporter covering the campaign. Further, the Swift Boat vets call the report extremely inaccurate.

This sure looks like a Conflict of Interest.



I guess I have to retract about the retraction.

I absolutely LOVE the dog-days of summer.

There's something about the heat, the humidity and the overabundance of pig-products that seems to drive men mad.


It should quickly be pointed out that as far as I can tell George Elliott has not retracted ANYTHING, although Vietnam Vets have retracted it for him. The question is now who do you believe...and it's a moot question as someone is bound to ask Elliott himself.


The retraction is retracted? Found link on Drudge. http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html


I am no fan of Kerry and will not vote for him, but the details of this story are completely out of context.

The Vietnamese soldiers were usually very young as verified from many sources (see Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning by Eric M. Bergerud)- it was a combat situation so any recollections aren't going to be 100% accurate (fog of battle, that kind of thing) and the youth was running with an RPG - he didn't surrender and was trying to evade capture. I don't think Kerry can be faulted for this one.

Now if Kerry had run to the end of the boat, jumped off and started swimming away...

Dan P

This may sound callous, but I don't have an issue with shooting a fleeing combatant (or fleeing criminal for that matter) in the back. Where does it say that as long as you can outrun your opponent/victim you can get away with your attack/crime. An enemy that gets away is an enemy that can attack you again.


Even accepting Kerry's own explanation of the incident with the "teenager," 1) I don't fault him killing the guy, but 2) these circumstances do not add up to Silver Star-caliber heroics. By that measure, every single GI who ever killed an enemy soldier deserves a Silver Star. Doesn't anyone find this peculiar?


Determining as far as possible what happened is important because Senator Kerry has made so much of the events. He asks that we judge him by them.

Senator Edwards urges us to "talk to the men who served with John Kerry." OK,let's do that, and get as close to the truth as possible.

A question for the folks criticizing the Swift Boat Vets for Truth for speaking out: Did you also critcize Kerry's "Band of Brothers" for speaking out?

Do we all agree the media should treat this matter exactly the way they would if it involved President Bush instead of Senator Kerry?

Winston Smith

If only Kerry's military record were more like Bush's...


The thing I don't understand about the Silver Star awarded to Kerry is what's the big deal about shooting one VC? I suppose the reason for the award is the the guy had an RPG and could have taken out Kerry's boat and crew, but nothing in any of the accounts indicate that the guy was doing anything other than run away.

Robin Roberts

Actually Winston, it would be better if Kerry's current posturing about his military record were more like Bush's. I've no real problem with Kerry's actual wartime actions - only with his subsequent anti-war slanders and collaboration with the enemy and his dishonest treatment of his own past.

Ralph Hitchens

That fellow veterans would stoop so low as to question Kerry's war record in a pathetic effort to keep the frat boy in office is shameful. In Vietnam, as in other wars, the circumstances under which one guy got a medal and another didn't were often ambiguous. So far as anyone knows, John Kerry did not ask for that Silver Star, or those Hearts either. His fitness for command is reflected in his efficiency reports as well as other facts that go unnoticed, such as his being selected by his commanding officer to be the OTC of a group of swift boats on a combat patrol. These "swifties for Bush" ought to step back, remember who put his pink body in the line of fire and who didn't even bother to complete a national guard obligation, and dredge up enough self-respect to confine their political opposition to the voting booth. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the guys I flew with in Vietnam are Republicans, and if any of them ran for office I sure as hell wouldn't turn my back on them the way these swifties did on John Kerry.


I think that is what we are saying... his record is more like Bush's- he is no war hero- I dont have a problem with him shooting Cong in the back- I dont care if he shot "teenage" combatants- I DO care that he falsified reports and exaggerated wounds (possibly self inflicted) to take advantage of the system- I heard a couple of these Swift Vets on the radio and these things seemed to be the pith and essence of their point (and book). I also care very much that he besmirched honorable veterans for war crimes and gave aid and comfort to the enemy (1971). He reminds us every chance he gets that he served in Vietnam- this is the scrutiny he deserves. he does not deserve the CNC role - he deserves a good old fashioned blanket party if these charges are substantiated.


Larry Thurlow - one of the swifties - claims that John K. didn't deserve his bronze star. He claims that no one was shooting at them. The problem is - Larry Thurlow received his bronze star during the same attack.

The guy that claims to be the Dr. that treated him, is not the same doctor.

John O'Neil is the guy behind this. He debated Kerry in 1971 on the Dick Cavett show. C-Span recently replayed this.

These guys being pissed of because of Kerry's post war activity is one thing. Not being able to back up their story is another. If they would have left it all up to their opinion they would have been more effective.


Mr. Hitchens, you have got to be kidding. Who started the "war criminal" stuff?


Jakes writes, "John O'Neil is the guy behind this."

I've had the opportunity to cross-examine John O'Neill under oath on the witness stand, as a witness called by my opponents. If you're interested in Mr. O'Neill's background, reputation, credibility, and my first-hand experience with him as a witness, the story is here.


"Kerry earned his Silver Star by killing a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong in a loincloth." That is the claim as reported in Drudge.
Absolute tosh! This post recommends reading page 7 of the Silver Star citation but it doesn't seem that many have bothered.
Read it (and page 8) and you will see the reasons for the award are clearly laid out.
This sort of stuff is pathetic and it's spread by people sitting on the butts all day in front of a computer about a man who, whatever you think of his politics, fought for his damn country and risked his neck. All most of you guys risk is snagging a nail on your keyboard. Jeeez!


So, John McCain defending Kerry's record doesn't cut it for people?

I suppose he, too, is the willing tool of the vast left-wing conspiracy?


McCain is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion seems to be that these men are lying.

They were there, and McCain was not.

Lloyd Frost

see August 5,2004 NewsMax

Your story uses McCain as the honest arbiter of right and wrong in Viet Nam. Well, in 1969 he was calling Kerry North Viet Nam puppet


My biggest problem with readng both Kerry's account and the Swift Boat Vets account is with the willful violation of the Geneva Convention that happened, regardless of which version you believe. One account says the VC was shot with an M-60 and another says he was shot with a .50 cal. Either way, if you shoot someone in the leg, as is told in one account, he's not going to go far. If the VC was shot with the .50 cal. then that is the first violation of the Geneva Convention. To subsequently run after a wounded person, VC or not, and then kill them is a direct violation of Chapter 2, Article 12. So, when Kerry said on Dick Cavett that he committed violations of the Geneva Convention and committed attrocities, he's actually telling the truth. Whether he got the Silver Star or not from this is not relevant. What is relevant is whether someone who blatently violated the Laws of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention should even be considered as CINC.

Peter Fusscas

All the Swiftboatvets.com'ers are decorated war heros no better or worse than Kerry. Doesn't anyone think that calling these war heros liars and trying to supress their freedom of speach through legal action is frightening to the principles that all vets fought for?
Can we place the power of the Presidency in the hands of a man like Kerry?

John McLaughlin

Readings of multiple blogs strongly indicated that the Viet Cong "teenager" killed by JFJ II fired the RPG round that hit his craft. It is impossible to NOT be able to tell whether an RPG is loaded. The the projectile protrudes from the muzzle of the launcher w/only the propellant tube inserted into the launcher tube.

I would have relieved JFK II of command for leaving his boats, crew, and embarked troops for such reckless grandstanding! The commander's position is where he can best control his subordinates and respond to developing situation. Not delivering the coup de gras to a fleeing VC armed with a spent rocket launcher!


Mr. Hitchens - (a) what Beldar said;

(b) these aren't "Swifties for Bush"; these are "Swifties Against Kerry", becuase of whathe said during his anti-wardays. These guys did not like being described as warcriminals. Go figure.

(c) You said that So far as anyone knows, John Kerry did not ask for that Silver Star, or those Hearts either.

Not so:

He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in questionand that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

But, Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

And I don't know either. But words like "persisted" make me think Kerry asked.



Here's an interesting site with some applicable comments. I don't vouch for the site, as I just ran across it, but it does shed a little light.


Personally it seems strange that the commander of a boat would personally beach the boat, jump off, run down a wounded enemy and shoot him.

I'd add more but the link does such a nice job of explaining things that I'll leave it to him.

"John Kerry did not ask for that Silver Star, or those Hearts either."

Sorry but you're wrong. As the commanding officer of his boat he would have to be the one to fill out the commendation request for his crew. So Lt. Kerry received his awards due to the diligent paperwork of .... Lt. Kerry.


Ok everyone repeat after me:

Toricelli! Toricelli! Toricelli!

(Toricelli was the Democrat Senator of New Jersey that was so corrupt that he was about to lose his re-election. A couple weeks after the election cut-off date, when a person can get on the ballot, Toricelli abandoned his campaign and was replaced by Senator Lautenberg.

This bit of skullduggery was approved by the Democrat controlled State Supreme Court. Which, much like the similar Florida State Supreme Court, decided that the rules don't actually apply to Democrats.

Which of course is why the Democrats don't want to give up any control over judicial appointments.)


Um...shouldn't that be "TORCH! TORCH! TORCH!"


What is relevant is whether someone who blatently violated the Laws of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention should even be considered as CINC.
There goes that sense of irony again, whoosh!

Bruce Moomaw

Er, Ed. The GOP-controlled US Supreme Court explcitly refused to overrule the NJ State Supreme Court's decision on the matter of the Senate race there.

Bruce Moomaw

Er, Ed. The GOP-controlled US Supreme Court explicitly refused to overrule the NJ State Supreme Court's decision in the mattter of the Senate race there.

Bruce Moomaw

Sorry about the double posting, although repetition frequently seems to be necessary on this website.


Sen. Kerry has made his Vietnam war record the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Other Kerry supporters have jumped on this bandwagon. Where there is smoke there is fire. With so much at stake, it is time for the whole truth to come out. Right or wrong, I applaud the Swift Vets for coming forward and encourage anyone else with facts to speak up. The American people deserve the truth before November.

Wes Barker

Swift Vets kick ass! Obviously John 'Heinz' is lying, flip-flopping, whoring, looking like Herman Munster, etc., and should get his ass royally kicked up around his Gomer Pyle horse-face. Not unlike his wife, the 'freak from Mozambique', who's another whack-job. The media like CNN are doing their typical 'hide all the bad stories about democrats' and should also get their asses kicked. Liberals are destroying this country.

James C.C. Cody

I'd stop worrying about swiftboats and worry more about The US Patriot Act. For those of you who don't know, it allows the government's unfettered ability to conduct secret searches of a citizen's house, or you might worry about the government's current placement of old Russian style secret gulags (military prisons for non-patriots as determined by the government) around the world.

Check out "Breaking the Silence", by award winning jouranilist John Pilger and decide foryourself. You can view it online at:


And if that's not scary enough, in October one of our nation's leading pop singers will be performing concerts in support of democratic candidate John Kerry. During a recent interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline he said, "I feel the nation is in danger of devolving into an oligarchy".

Oligarchy is defined on the web by Google as a system of government in which political power is exercised by a small group of people, usually self-selected.

A brief search on Google using the keywords "Bush Family Oligarchy" returns the following article, "The Rise of the Fourth Reich, The Bush Family Oligarchy".

Go ahead and read about Bush for yourself... it's not in the mainstream media and won't be, they've already been bought.

Bruce is putting his neck on the line. Literally.

If you're comfortable as a one party patriot in this the land of the free then go ahead give Bush your vote.

Steve C

Elliott did not retract his statments, and executed a new affidavit stating so. Here is the link. http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/staticpages/index.php?page=ElliottAffadavit2

The affidavit is dated August 6, 2004

(Sorry, I don't know how to post a link.)

The comments to this entry are closed.