The Swift Vets Versus Kerry

Matt Drudge excerpts some incendiary charges against John Kerry from the new Swift Veterans attack book, "Unfit for Command". Interestingly, the major details seems to be confirmed by Kerry's own story as told to the Boston Globe. More interestingly, Kerry's Silver Star citation (see page 7 of this .pdf file) provides an account of the action which is much closer to the Swift Vets story than to Kerry's story. Since the Globe reporter also quotes the Silver Star citation, we can not explain why he overlooked these details.

Let's start with the Drudge headline - VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL /Slaughters Animals, Burns Down Tiny Village.

According to the Silver Star citation, Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the "man" behind a hooch, and killed him. That is not quite the version told either in Drudge, or by Kerry to the Boston Globe - there, another man wounded the "teenager", who fled and was shot by Kerry. Hmm, what is the age of majority in Vietnam?

Drudge, and the Silver Star citation, make clear that Kerry was leading a three boat patrol with thirty Vietnamese soldiers per "unit" (if I am following this, a "unit" seems to be one Swift boat, although I am advised that ten soldiers per boat is more likely), so Kerry was backed by plenty of force. One would not get that from the Globe.

We have more extensive excerpts below, but let me offer a few comments - first, combat is confusing and after-action accounts differ; it is clear from the Globe that even Kerry and his crew remember many things differently. Let's go easy on the word "liar".

Secondly, the Swift Vets may be right on many (or all) of these facts, and wrong in their conclusions - for example, the Naval officers who recommended Kerry for a Silver Star were probably well aware of the circumstances in which he won it; they were also aware of the PR and morale value of recognizing a Yalie like Kerry. [UPDATE: I, on the other hand, was not aware of this affidavit and retraction story. Fortunately, my research is stronger than my commentary, so the rest of this post is not affected.]

Excerpts below.

As to the fleeing teen, Drudge excerpts additional details from Unfit For Command:

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. . . Tom Belodeau, a forward gunner, shot the Viet Cong with an M-60 machine gun in the leg as he fled. . . . Kerry and Medeiros (who had many troops in their boat) took off, perhaps with others, and followed the young Viet Cong and shot him in the back, behind a lean to."

This is how Kerry described it to the Boston Globe:

Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher.

An enemy was just feet away, holding a weapon with enough firepower to blow up the boat. Kerry's forward gunner, Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg. Then Belodeau's gun jammed, according to other crewmates (Belodeau died in 1997). Medeiros tried to fire at the Viet Cong, but he couldn't get a shot off.

In an interview, Kerry added a chilling detail.

"This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for ... I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had," Kerry recalled. "And Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."

Instead, the guerrilla got up and started running. "We've got to get him, make sure he doesn't get behind the hut, and then we're in trouble," Kerry recalled.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "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 no, 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."

In my opinion, "Absolutely not" does not mean what Kerry seems to think it means. By his own account, the kid was wounded and running away, and being shot at from several directions. At a minimum, a different observer might have a different story as to whether the teenager was shot in the back.

Drudge also provides an account of the other action in this incident - Kerry was leading a three boat patrol which came under attack. The Globe says that "On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's boat received word that a swift boat was being ambushed. As Kerry raced to the scene, his boat became another target... OK, Drudge references the Silver Star citation, which the Globe report also quotes in a different context. Drudge is right - why is the Globe wrong?

Now, how about the burned village Drudge describes, where Kerry acted like a corsair with a zippo:

George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in numerous operations with Kerry. In UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Bates recalls a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River. He is still "haunted" by the incident:

With Kerry in the lead, the boats approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around peacefully. As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It was obvious to Bates that existing policies, decency, and good sense required the boats to simply move on.

Instead, Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet.

The Boston Globe describes a similar incident - it is almost certainly not the specific incident, but I suspect it falls into the "I committed war crimes" portion of Kerry's Senate testimony:

On Feb. 20, 1969, Kerry earned his second Purple Heart after sustaining a shrapnel wound in his left thigh. According to a previously unreported Navy report on the battle, a two-boat patrol spotted three men on a riverbank who were wearing black pajamas and running and engaged them in a firefight. While not criticizing this engagement, the Navy report did challenge the decision of unnamed skippers to fire at other "targets of opportunity" in the area.

"Area seemed extremely prosperous and open to psyops action, minimum number of defensive and no offensive bunkers detected," the report said. The naval official who wrote the report concluded: "Future missions in this area should be oriented toward psyops rather than destruction."

The destruction included 40 sampans, 10 hut-style hootches, three bunkers, and 5,000 pounds of rice. The crews from two swift boats had expended more than 14,000 rounds of.50-caliber ammunition. No enemy casualties were reported.

In a recent interview, Kerry dismissed the report's questioning of firing at targets of opportunity. "The problem is ... three guys are ducking behind a bank, and you start taking arms fire," Kerry said. "At any place, at any time, anybody could turn around and kill you. That was the problem with the war."

More research is needed on this point - how many hamlets did Kerry destroy?

We can find after-action reports at Kerry's website - the website description of Feb 20 puts the action on the Dam Doi River, and seems to blame the helicopter support for the destruction. [When I can get that .pdf file open, I will know more.]

I may have to buy the book to sort this out. Kerry's military records are at his website.

Having done some work on this I can say - George Bates was with Kerry from Feb 69 on; from the Globe, Kerry's request for a transfer went out on March 17, at which time he was described as "presently on full-duty status".

From the command history of CD-11 (p. 8 of .pdf), we see that on March 18 and 19, Kerry's PCF 94 and four other boats swept two rivers, including the "Bo De", destroying many structures and bunkers but not reporting enemy contact.

We also note that the Kerry website does not provide after-action reports past March 13.

We do find change of duty orders meant to go out March 20 (p. 4), and we see that he went on leave March 28.

MORE: Oh, side point - Kerry's defenders are arguing that since these Swift Boat Veterans did not actually serve on Kerry's specific boat, they should pipe down. Would they care to square that with the notion of Kerry leading two and three boat patrols? John Cole invokes his military background to explain how this works.

Comments

[Slartibartfast]

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.

[TM]

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.

[ed]

Hmmm.

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.

[ubu]

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.

[ubu]

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.

[ed]

Hmmm.

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.

[Justin]

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.

[Anon]

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

[pseudopinion]

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.

[rivlax]

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?

[John]

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...

[ronnie]

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.

[Boatswain]

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.

[Jake]

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.

[Beldar]

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

[Beldar]

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.

[mike]

"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!

[TedL]

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?

[Bostonian]

TedL,
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
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/183220.shtml

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

[Hutch]

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!

[TM]

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.

[ed]

Hmmm.

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.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/25429.html

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.

[ed]

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.)

[Macker]

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

[wally]

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.

[Tom]

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:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pilger_breaking_the_silence_35mb.htm

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.)