Time To Panic?

The WaPo examined the conflicting versions of the March 13 incident that led to Kerry's Bronze Star. Although their specific conclusions were not unfavorable to Kerry, the warning shots fired by the WaPo must have set the Kerry campaign scrambling:

An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place.

...The fullest account of Kerry's experience in Vietnam is "Tour of Duty" by prominent presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. It was written with Kerry's cooperation and with exclusive access to his diaries and other writings about the Vietnam War. "Unfit for Command," by John E. O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry as commander of his Swift boat, and Jerome R. Corsi, lays out a detailed attack on Kerry's record.

The Post's research shows that both accounts contain significant flaws and factual errors.

...In "Tour of Duty," these thoughts are attributed to a "diary" kept by Kerry. But the endnotes to Brinkley's book say that Kerry "did not keep diaries in these weeks in February and March 1969 when the fighting was most intense." In the acknowledgments to his book, Brinkley suggests that he took at least some of the passages from an unfinished book proposal Kerry prepared sometime after November 1971, more than two years after he had returned home from Vietnam.

In his book, Brinkley writes that a skipper who remains friendly to Kerry, Skip Barker, took part in the March 13 raid. But there is no documentary evidence of Barker's participation. Barker could not be reached for comment.

Brinkley, who is director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans, did not reply to messages left with his office, publisher and cell phone. The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry's journals and other writings to The Post, saying the senator remains bound by an exclusivity agreement with Brinkley. A Kerry spokesman, Michael Meehan, said he did not know when Kerry wrote down his reminiscences.

...Much information is available from the Web sites of the Kerry campaign and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the Navy archives. But both the Kerry and anti-Kerry camps continue to deny or ignore requests for other relevant documents, including Kerry's personal reminiscences (shared only with biographer Brinkley), the boat log of PCF-94 compiled by Medeiros (shared only with Brinkley) and the Chenoweth diary.

Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages.

I sense frustration at the WaPo. Incomplete, inaccurate disclosure, a run-around from Brinkley, a bizarre confidentiality agreement - do they smell cover-up?

And will anyone keep a straight face if Kerry criticizes the secretive Cheney energy task force, when Kerry won't even release his own war notes except to a friendly historian?

I foresee a grim week for the Kerry side, with the Republican convention as their only hope of respite.

The InstaPundit was on this on Saturday.

MORE: OK, what is on your wish list for released records? My Conventional Wisdom pick - we all want to see the paperwork for Kerry's first Purple Heart.

My long-shot pick is the after-action reports for March 18/19, which should be Kerry's last mission (Brinkley says so, although his website does not). Brinkley says Kerry was sailing to Cambodia; other evidence suggests that Swiftee George Bates was with Kerry while Kerry torched a hamlet or two. Who knows?

UPDATE: The NY Times, "Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad", By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG:

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career, Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign.

His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign...

Comments

[Pat Curley]

The Brinkley book might be the most costly hagiography ever written, when you consider that Hoffman and Elliot abandoned Kerry after reading it.

I'd like to see the Medeiros logs, myself.

[Tim]

My guess is the brainiacs at the "Kerry Campaign" are familiarizing themselves with the expression "tar baby."

This is what happens when a candidate does every possible thing, such as highlighting four months and 12 days service in Vietnam, instead of discussing his nearly nineteen year "career" and "record" in the U.S. Senate.

Who amongst us would ever expect to get a job when, in the interview, we discuss a four-month, 12 day job held 35 years ago while ignoring the job we've held for the last nineteen-plus years?

Freakish. Just absolutely freakish. What in hell was he thinking?

[Tim]

Question for Kerry voters:

Fact: News reports tell us Kerry/Edwards are whining like school-girls over the Swiftboat Vets' ads, begging Pres. Bush to make them stop.

So, if the Swiftboat Vets' can get Kerry/Edwards to whine like school-girls to Pres. Bush over a simple ad, why would anyone ever vote for these pussies on the basis they could fight the war on terror better than Bush? Who are these pussies going to whine to if bin Laden hits us again? Jacque Chirac? Gerhard Schroeder? Koffi Annan? Micael Moore? George Soros?

[Reg]

Ok, so I think we're learning that Brinkley is not a detail man:

On the one hand. Brinkley writes:

1. "The March 13 mission, Kerry's last in Vietnam, was no exception. By the time it was over, he would have earned a Bronze Star, plus his third Purple Heart, and with it the last punch on his ticket out of Southeast Asia."(Brinkley, "John Kerry's Final Mission in Vietnam", American History).

On the other hand,

2. "But after the [SEAL drop off] mission, PCF-94 was turned over to a new lieutenant..." (Brinkley, "TofD", p.328).

TM, this timing issue is probably not all that important here. Connecting it in time w/ Operation Menu is useful to back into a possible date but otherwise I don't see how this mission relates to Operation Menu or is any more or less significant than any of the other Rach Giang Thanh River/Vinh Te Canal "Market Time" Patrols.

We do have the Spot reports for the 12-14 Feb 1969 Rach Giang Thanh River/Vinh Te Canal mission. Have you looked at those?

The 12-14 Feb reports are the most definitive evidence that Kerry's PCF-94 was once very near the Cambodian border w/ SEALs.

That said like the SEAL mission descibed in "TofD" [p.324-328] there is absolutely no evidence that these missions penetrated the Cambodian border. The report gives very precise coordinates so we can trace pretty much exactly where they were on the Rach Giang Thanh during the mission. Interesting the reports describe a mission very much like but different than the Brinkley TofD description. Additionally there is no evidence in the reports that they were "highly classified" "black" missions. The Spot reports are marked "confidential" perhaps the lowest possible classification. Not exactly what one would expect from "Daniel Boone/Salem House" Cambodian cross border operations.. BTW, one wonders why the Navy or MACV would send a "Market Time" patrol over the border when MACV SOG was already running covert "deniable" cross border raids at the same time into Cambodia. Why insert a noisey ship with 5 or 6 overt US navy sailors into a operation that otherwise could have been conducted with an unmarked MACV SOG helicopter?

Furthermore, the 12-14 Feb Spot Reports indicate that Kerry's PCF-94 was with PCF-50 during the mission. At roughly the same time, TofD reports that PCF-50's OinC was Mike Bernique. It also indentifies the SEAL unit as "CTE 194.5.4.5". If anyone wants further information on this mission I would start looking at those sources. (ie Did the Seals make a sport report? If he was with Kerry on any of these missions what does Bernique remember?)

Finally, we were amused to read the following story from Kerry's own PCF-94 crewmate:

"Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry." (Boston Globe, August 18, 2004).

This story matches very closely the 13 Feb 1969 Spot report:

"5.(C) WHILE ON PSYOPS/PAO MISSION TO VS 530553 MADE THRUST UP RIVER TO VS 518565 WHERE OBSERVED MAN CARRING RICE SACKS INFIELD. WOMAN IN AREA SAID SHE HAD JUST BEEN TAXED BY THAT MAN, AND SHOWED OINC THE RECIEPT. CONDUCTED CHASE BUT CROSSED BOARDER BEFORE CAPTURE. AREA A KNOWN V.C. EXTORTION STATION. INTEND RUN SEAL OPERATION IN AREA IN NEAR FUTURE."

A SEAL operation was then run on 14 Feb. Nothing unusual or exceptional was reported.

At this time there is nothing in the public record other than Kerry's statements that would even imply that Kerry crossed the border.

Very close to Cambodia at times: Yes.

Into Cambodia: No evidence, yet. And a lot of reasons to doubt Kerry's ever changing stories.

How's that article coming Doug.

[Joanna]

>I sense frustration at the WaPo.

Also "embarrassment" (sp?)

It was the Post that ran the ridiculous adoration series about Kerry by Laura Blumenthal. I don't know how many stories were in her hagiographic series, but I've read two of them -- one in which she relates how Kerry had to tape his dogtags together on his secret missions (we sure had fun trouncing that in the comments section of Captain's Quarters). Another one in which she gave us the hilarious account of Kerry's secret compartments, magic hats and so on.

So I think this more serious attempt at real journalism on the WaPos part is (at least in part) an effort at redemption from Blumenfeld's tripe.

Since it's clear that Blumefeld is NOT a very good journalist, but is merely a P.R. hack, and that her pieces kind of make the WaPo look ridiculous, I wonder how she's doing these days at the WaPo? Wonder if she'll have to make a career move to the NYTs one of these days.

[Joanna]

>Who amongst us would ever expect to get a job when, in the interview, we discuss a four-month, 12 day job held 35 years ago while ignoring the job we've held for the last nineteen-plus years?

Also, who amongst us gives references from among our underlings and peers? We'd be a lot more likely to give references from our formers bosses and supervisors.

And -- who amongst us, if in the interview we recounted a tale about a seminal experience in our life -- that was easily proven to be a total fabrication...and they found out it ...would expect to get hired?

[Joanna]

>Who amongst us would ever expect to get a job when, in the interview, we discuss a four-month, 12 day job held 35 years ago while ignoring the job we've held for the last nineteen-plus years?

Also, who amongst us gives references from among our underlings and peers? We'd be a lot more likely to give references from our formers bosses and supervisors.

And -- who amongst us, if in the interview we recounted a tale about a seminal experience in our life -- that was easily proven to be a total fabrication...and they found out it ...would expect to get hired?

[Joanna]

Uh, that's Blumenfeld, not Blumenthal. D'oh!

[Joanna]

Looks like I'm having the same problem as "Monique" with the "double" posting problem. Dunno why that happened, but sorry.

[Bostonian]

I couldn't figure out what the WaPo thought the SBVT had withheld.

[J Mann]

Here's a Kerry question.

When Nixon actually promised that we didn't have troops in Cambodia (1971 or so), Kerry was back in the states. While he was accusing the US of beheading people, why didn't Kerry also tell people that he had been to Cambodia?

(Disclaimer: I don't know the timeline, or military procedure. It might be possible that Kerry *couldn't* tell the people that he supposedly knew for a fact that the President was lieing, or that he wasn't protesting at that time.)

[themarkman]

I would like to see the medical records. Kerry and his minions have been going on and on about how he still carries shrapnel in his body from Viet Nam. All of these years, and he never had it removed? I have never seen the man limp or show physical discomfort. I have a feeling the shrapnel in his ass is about as likely as his never having heard of botox when he was asked this last winter.

[themarkman]

My bad. The Kerry Camp (Boston Globe) has reported in the past that Kerry has shrapnel in his thigh, verified by a physician that looked at a couple of medical reorts. The doctor did not examine Kerry, however. The article is based solely on previous records that will not be released to the public. There is something about a "minor, non-specifc urinary tract infection" that Kerry was treated for when he was 22. Sounds like gonhorea (sp?).
Anyway, the campaign says no more records will be forthcoming.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/24/kerrys_thigh_has_shrapnel_records_show/

[capt joe]

Interestingly enough, the left and media had no problem disparaging Dole's war record when it wanted to.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200408230910.asp

[jack risko]

Excellent points. I posted on this as well: http://www.dinocrat.com/index.php?p=418, and I agree, the WaPo reporter knows he's getting the runaround, and reporters hate that even more than anything, even Republicans.

[capt joe]

sorry to be off topic but John Kerry's retracted book "the New Soldier" is available at "http://slingsnarrows.erudite-absurdity.com/archive/002256.html"

Also this particular interview with Jim Warner is instructive

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14357

[capt joe]

Ny idea why the kerry campaign is removing some of his service records for the website:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/24/kerrys_thigh_has_shrapnel_records_show/

The Kerry campaign removed a 20-page batch of documents yesterday from its website after The Boston Globe quoted a Navy officer who said the documents wrongly portrayed Kerry's service. Edward Peck had said he -- not Kerry -- was the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 at a time when the Kerry campaign website credited the senator with serving on the boat. The website had described Kerry's boat as being hit by rockets and said a crewmate was injured in an attack. But Peck said those events happened when he was the skipper. The campaign did not respond to a request to explain why the records were removed.

Seems that there is some contradiction going on in the kerry story

[capt joe]

looks like Rood's story is not being debunked by a crewmate. But the media (Globe) already knew that since they posted the original story. Sigh!!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/21/215620.shtml

Unmentioned by Rood in his Chicago Tribune report is the account of Tom Bellodeau, who, unlike Rood, was actually aboard Kerry's boat when the VC in question leveled his grenade launcher at them.

"You know, I shot that guy," Bellodeau told the Boston Globe during a 1996 interview, correcting an earlier Globe report that echoed Kerry's claim that he alone had neutralized the enemy ambusher.

[capt joe]

curses that should read "now being debunked" not "not..."

preview is friend :(

Don't get your hopes up GT and Moni. ;)

[rick]

If the records haven't been released yet...

Bush V. Kerry - 1st debate

Bush: "Let's end this once and for all. Here's my signed form-180 (holds
it up to the camera) and here's a blank form-180 for you to sign Senator
Kerry (reaches out to give it to Kerry). You can even borrow my pen."

If the records clear Kerry's name - then Bush can say he did Kerry a
favor. If Kerry refuses to sign - he's dead.

Bush just needs to be VERY CLEAR during the debate that he wants to discuss issues facing America TODAY and that signing the SAME FORM he signed is the best way to accomplish this.

[capt joe]

going back further, the left even trashed Bush Senior's war record

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

Sorry but you have to scan down to "AND THEN IN 1992, BLUMENTHAL TRASHED BUSH'S WAR RECORD [08/23 01:23 PM]"

What really happened at Chichi Jima will never finally be resolved. Were the men really dead when Bush jumped? Did one man parachute out? Why did the intelligence report say one thing and the Finback log another? And why have Bush's versions changed over time? Bush's experience in the Good War was more tortured and his accounts more tortuous than he now admits.

So we have two decorated WW2 vets (Dole and Bush Sr) both disparaged for their war records. Why? Simply because they were running against a candidate with a record a draft dodger. Also there is the case of Adm Boorda who was driven to suicide by the press over a much simpler misunderstanding about wheter he should be wearing a specifc medal which his fellows thought he was entitled.

Now, all of a sudden this sort of thing (bashing bemedalled war heroes) is not done. Somehow I do not believe it is because of a newly acquired conscience.

Shameful and entirely morally questionable.

[John Dunshee]

With all the money and manpower the press is expending to try to find something to discredit the Swiftvets with, you would think they could expend just a little to tell us how many other people had their Vietnam tour curtailed after three Purple Hearts requiring no hospitalization.

[Joanna]

Re the band-aid wound: why doesn't Kerry show us the scar?

[capt joe]

Joanna, Given the location of one of his wounds was his butt, does America need to see that on national TV?

Ooh, skerry, very skerry. :)

[bkw]

I couldn't figure out what the WaPo thought the SBVT had withheld.

That's easy. They're withholding information that proves Kerry right.

[Mike]

bkw - and why wouldn't Kerry have that information you say the Swift Vets are withholding? It's Kerry's record that's at issue, and Kerry has control over his files.

Do you know of specific files, or are you just blowing smoke like every other Kerry supporting commenter that finds his or her way to the relevant blogs?

[robert0]

"And will anyone keep a straight face if Kerry criticizes the secretive Cheney energy task force, when Kerry won't even release his own war notes except to a friendly historian?"

This statement is extremely disingenuous. Your comparing somebody's personal notes to minutes on public policy. Superhuman leap.

As for the SBVT thing, the story is obviously false. It's funded by Texas GOP money, it's in complete defiance of official Navy records and contains nothing more factual than eye-witness accounts of people who were not on Kerry's boat. To deny such overwhelming evidence really does make these pages look like an echo chamber of hacks on the Bush payroll.

Bush must attack Kerry because reality and his own record give enormously little for him to run on. The war in Iraq is folly, needlessly burning through billions of dollars, a thousand lives and counting. Our military is stretched dangerously thin. It's under-equipped, understaffed, and in many cases undertrained.

The number of uninsured Americans is now 44 million. Enormous drug and medical cost threaten the well-being of millions more.

The Bill of Rights has gone through the shredder.

The cost of oil is through the roof, threatening to wipe clean an almost inperceptable recovery and forcing higher the cost of everday items.

We are virtually isolated on the world stage. The euro is threatening to replace the dollar as the world's currency.

The latest tax cuts for job growth packages have produced precious little, nothing even remotely close to what was predicted, and, according to Bush's own hand-picked man, they are tax cuts heavily tilted in favor of the super wealthy. In what could only be called the most irresposible tax policy in the history of our nation, we are borrowing money from our grandkids, at interest, to pay for tax cuts for ultra rich.

In the eyes of a growing majority, George W. Bush's presidency has been a spectacular failure.

He's another one-termer if ever I saw one.

[capt joe]

Is Monique ill? Is that why her understudy robert0 has subbed in?

Really, I mean, I could have sworn that was Monique up till the signature at the end.

Unfortunately, you will have to catch up on your own, Robert, because we already covered all that in pages upon pages of posts.

Well, good luck to you in your reading. ta.

[syn]

"Euro is threatening to replace the dollar as the world's currency"

With Saddam's money out of the picture, the Euro ain't going anywhere but down.

y the way RobertO, should Kerry win and I am forced to once again pay more than my fair share of taxes on behalf of others who do not pay any of their fair share of taxes, then I will lead a tax rebellion and, I will celebrate with a tea party in Boston!

[Paul Zrimsek]

If robert0 has evidence that the Republican Party of Texas is sending money to SBVT, he should post it and become famous.

If he doesn't, he should shut the hell up.

[Reg]

After posting my comment above I was astonished to read the following transcript (Chris Wallace, Foxnews Sunday August 22, 2004):
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WALLACE: I take it then the answer is no, you don't have a single crew member who will say he was in Cambodia, five miles inside Cambodia, on Christmas Eve 1968 or any other night.

HURLEY[ NATIONAL DIRECTOR,VETERANS FOR KERRY]: On other nights, yes, they will say that. On December 24th, they will not say that.

WALLACE: Who's going to say that? Because I haven't heard a crew member who's...

HURLEY: It was the 94 boat. This issue hasn't come up. And it's the reason why it hasn't been addressed. But on Christmas Eve, he was on the 44 boat. They were near the Cambodian border. They may or may not have crossed over. On a different occasion, on the 94 boat, they were five miles deep into Cambodia. It was a month later, a month and a half later. The crew will testify to that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One problem. This interview was after this was previously said:

"Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry." (Boston Globe, August 18, 2004).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We continue to be surprised at the logical boxes that the Kerry Campaign seems to be stepping into. Note the 1 1/2 months from Christmas time period mentioned by Hurley puts us very close to the 12-14 Feb 1969 mission that was talked about in my first comment above.

Are they going to argue that this was the mission? If so we look forward to answers to the following questions:

1. Was this mission authorized by COSDIV-11?
2. If not then will the special operations unit take the responsiblity? [As Meehan implied,"...on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien.]
3. Wasn't Kerry the Senior Officer who had final authority on his ship and not the sp.ops group?
4. Wasn't this action explicitly against "Marker Time" operational orders not to enter Cambodia?
5. Was this action coordinated by MACV SOG and the explicit restrictions that SOG operated under when doing cross border raids?
6. Why wasn't there a record of this action in any after action report?
7. Will Kerry say that he alone was responsible for this Cambodian operation thus explicity going back on his previous statements that say he was under orders to go into Cambodia?
8. It will be fascinating to see how Kerry works in the "...on clandestine missions to deliver weapons to anticommunist forces" (represented in US News, 2000). Will he claim the anticommunist forces are the special operation unit?

[Reg]

Ok, jaw dropping update to my comment posted above:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FoxNews Sunday w/ Chris Wallace (August 22, 2004)

WALLACE: I take it then the answer is no, you don't have a single crew member who will say he was in Cambodia, five miles inside Cambodia, on Christmas Eve 1968 or any other night.

HURLEY: On other nights, yes, they will say that. On December 24th, they will not say that.

WALLACE: Who's going to say that? Because I haven't heard a crew member who's...

HURLEY: It was the 94 boat. This issue hasn't come up. And it's the reason why it hasn't been addressed.

But on Christmas Eve, he was on the 44 boat. They were near the Cambodian border. They may or may not have crossed over. On a different occasion, on the 94 boat, they were five miles deep into Cambodia. It was a month later, a month and a half later. The crew will testify to that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As mentioned earlier this directly contradicts this previous statement:

"Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry." (Boston Globe, August 18, 2004).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Who approved this cross border operation? COSDIV-11? MACV SOG? LT. Kerry?

Why is there no supporting documentation? Is this the same 12-14 Feb 1969 mission? If so, why not mention this in the spot reports?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The internal contradictions in Kerry's story seem to be growing.

[GT]

Tom,

You really going on with this?

From today's USA Today:

Two of John Kerry's fellow swift boat commanders in Vietnam said Monday that they have been misrepresented by a group of veterans and supporters of President Bush who have attacked Kerry's war record. The men say they have tried unsuccessfully for two weeks to get the group to change its Web site to reflect their support for Kerry."

Kerry's "credentials have been questioned by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose Web site shows a photo of Kerry with 19 officers from his division. The group said only one man in the picture, Skip Barker, supports Kerry. Rich McCann and Rich Baker are among four listed as 'neutral.'

"But McCann, 60, a consultant from Chagrin Falls, Ohio, said he told the group he was neutral about whether it used his picture. 'I was never neutral about (Kerry) as president,' he said. 'If the question is whether John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief, my answer is absolutely.'

"Baker, 61, now a baker by trade, says he was never contacted by the group, perhaps because he recently moved to Pittsburgh. Kerry is 'very well fit for command,' he said. 'He was one of the most courageous and aggressive swift boat captains in the division.' Both men say they voted for Bush in 2000 but won't again."

[JeanneB]

My wish list for released records would include this:

Paperwork explaining why JOHN LEHMAN, as Secretary of the Navy, signed the last versions of both Kerry's Silver Star and his Bronze Star. LEHMAN, did not become SecNavy until 1981, shortly before Kerry's first Senate campaign.

Did Kerry apply for replacement medals, resulting in citations signed by Lehman? I'd like to see that paperwork.

[leaddog2]

Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Sadamn Hussein ..... where Millions Died!

Now EVEN the Washington Post is admitting that Hanoi John Kerry LIED about Cambodia, etc. Such actions RESULTED in the Deaths of Millions of Boat People and led DIRECTLY to the Killing Fields of Cambodia. (2 Million Plus Deaths there) "Johnny, I NEVER KNEW you loved killers like Pol Pot".

I supported War, BEFORE I supported Peace, BEFORE I voted for the $87 Billion BEFORE I Voted AGAINST the $87 Billion for the Soldiers. (Duh! Now, I am confused)! John Kerry ---- 2004)

Hanoi John Kerry's Evolving Story.... It changes FREQUENTLY! Stayed Tuned!

[capt joe]

Sorry to be off topic but I found this really funny.

Apparently, Lewis Lapham attended the RNC convention and wrote an article on it for the New Yorker. Yes, I know that the convention hasn't started yet.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/006531.shtml#006531

Neat, that you can predict the furture, Lewis.

Shouldn't there be any penalty for a media writing such blantant falsehood?

[capt joe]

I really think the whole Kerry campaign is so freaked that they start saying thing like this

http://www.celluloid-wisdom.com/pw/index.php/weblog/entry/you_decide_2004_cont1/

Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh, speaking moments ago on “Hannity and Colmes”: “George Bush betrayed his country by sending us to war on false pretenses, and George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.”

Yes. You read that right. “George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.”

"George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam."

Given an opportunity to correct this rather incredible statement, Ms. Marsh declined, arguing that she had nothing to correct—that it was a fact that George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.

Betrayed his country. By not fighting in Vietnam.

Oh vey, Now they have called every national guardsman, every draft dodger, etc. who did not go to Vietnam a traitor.

Wow, what a strategy! So sublime that I don't understand it. Imagine the DNC infering that Clinton is a traitor in order to get Bush. Oops, that did not come out quite as I intended. ;)

[smitty]

"George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Viet Nam."

So now fighting in Viet Nam has gone from a moral failure to a moral imperative.

[robert0]

If robert0 has evidence that the Republican Party of Texas is sending money to SBVT, he should post it and become famous.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2747923

If he doesn't, he should shut the hell up.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

[robert0]

If robert0 has evidence that the Republican Party of Texas is sending money to SBVT, he should post it and become famous.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2747923

If he doesn't, he should shut the hell up.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

[Paul Zrimsek]

I take the link-- which mentions two individual donors, neither of whom is the Republican Party of Texas-- to be robert0's admission that he doesn't have any evidence that SBVT is "funded by Texas GOP money".

[robert0]

Bob Perry is the number one donor to the Texas GOP. He is also the number one donor to the SBVT. That's not a connection?

[Jim in Chicago]

Uh no.

That is not evidence that THE Republican party of Texas is donating to the SBVT. He's an individual donor for crying out loud.

I recommend some sort of logic course.

[robert0]

"Other major contributors to the group include Dallas real estate executive and GOP fund-raiser Harlan Crow, who has contributed $25,000."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/
special_packages/election2004/9426467.htm?1c

[robert0]

"Other major contributors to the group include Dallas real estate executive and GOP fund-raiser Harlan Crow, who has contributed $25,000."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/
special_packages/election2004/9426467.htm?1c

[Greg F]

"Other major contributors to the group include Dallas real estate executive and GOP fund-raiser Harlan Crow, who has contributed $25,000."

Oh my! Republicans donating to the SBV! Next thing you know Democrats will be sending money to moveon.org! Sheesh... Why don't you check out this cast of charactors.

[AB]

Just a few tidbits from todays news:

What a tasty bit they had on CNN's Newsnight last night, complete with film footage of John O'Neill in the Oval Office with Richard Nixon:
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

Mr. O'Neill is looking rather fat and unhealthy these days. Hope he has the strength and finances for a protracted legal battle:
The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct state:
Rule 8.02 Judicial and Legal Officials (a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory official or public legal officer, or of a *candidate for election* or appointment to judicial or legal office.
Rule 8.04 Misconduct (a) A lawyer shall not: (1) violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer relationship; (2) commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (3) *engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation*;

[AB]

For some perspective, O'Neill's words today:
You asked about Cambodia. How do I know he's not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek. So it was a made up story. He's told it over 50 times, George, that was on the floor of the Senate. He wrote articles about it, it was a malicious story because it painted all the guys above him, all of the commanding officers, in effect, as war criminals, that had ordered him into a neutral country, it was a lie.

And from MSNBC, the Thoroughly Discredited Thurlow, on the Bronze Star he first hid, then said he took because he didn't know what it said, now says:
Thurlow: I knew it was false, but nobody else was gonna see it. I accepted it because I felt at the time I had been given the thing because I saved the wounded on the boat and saved the boat.

This one's of interest to the Oregon State Bar:
"The clash between Vietnam veterans over Sen. John Kerry and critics of his war record heated up several degrees Monday as a group of vets called on a Clackamas County deputy prosecutor to resign. 'He's hurt a lot, a lot of people,' Don Stewart, one of the organizers of a rally on the Main Street steps of the county courthouse, said of Alfred French. "It opens up a lot of wounds ... This is personal."
"Stewart of Oregon City and Don Kirsch of Canby drew about 45 people to a rally to criticize French, a senior deputy district attorney who said in an affidavit that Kerry lied about his service record. French later admitted his sworn statements were based on the accounts of others."
"French's comments have been used in anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam veterans who have said the Democratic presidential candidate lied about or exaggerated his actions during Swift boat river duty in 1969. The ad campaign has become a national issue, and French's admission to The Oregonian last week that his signed affidavit was not based on personal observations raised the emotional level of the veterans-versus-veterans debate in Oregon."

And for good measure, from the Associated Press:
"
WASHINGTON - The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry (news - web sites)'s swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics.

The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.

The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it "an enemy initiated firefight" that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry's.

Task Force 115 was commanded at the time by retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the founder of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been running ads challenging Kerry's account of the episode.

A member of the group, Larry Thurlow, said Tuesday he stood by his assertion that there was no enemy fire that day. Thurlow, the commander of another boat who also won a Bronze Star, said task force commanders probably relied on the initial report of the incident. Thurlow says Kerry wrote that report.

The document, part of thousands of pages of records housed at the Naval Historical Center, is one of several that say Kerry and other servicemen were shot at from the banks of the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. The Associated Press located the document Tuesday during a search of available records.

Earlier this month, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aired a television ad claiming Kerry lied about the circumstances surrounding his medals. Several members of the group who were aboard nearby boats that March 13 said in the ad and in affidavits that there was no enemy gunfire during the incident.

The anti-Kerry group has not produced any official Navy documents supporting that claim, however."

Damn that MSM for expecting people not to lie when they're in the process of accusing other people of lying! LIBERAL BIAS!!!!

[Greg F]

"Several members of the group who were aboard nearby boats that March 13 said in the ad and in affidavits that there was no enemy gunfire during the incident.

The anti-Kerry group has not produced any official Navy documents supporting that claim, however."

Bzzt, wrong. Physical evidence trumps eye witness accounts. The boat damage report clearly supports the "no enemy gunfire" unless you want to believe the VC couldn't hit the broad side of a swiftboat.

[AB]

BZZZT. Kindly address O'Neills secret admission to Nixon that he also had been in Cambodia. Kindly address Thurlow's bullshit. Kindly address the now admitted perjury of Alfred French.

And while you're at it explain how Thurlow's entire story is supported by his statement that Kerry wrote the after action report, a fact he apparently pulled out of his ass and for which there is no proof other than the fact that he does in fact have an ass?

It might also be good to hear Bush explain why, if he is so fervently opposed to 527s, his own campaign lawyer Ben Ginsburg, was giving them free advice?

Oh my. The swifties let this mangy little dog loose but now the smelly mutt is going to piss on whatever tree he likes.

[AB]

BZZZT. Kindly address O'Neills secret admission to Nixon that he also had been in Cambodia. Kindly address Thurlow's bullshit. Kindly address the now admitted perjury of Alfred French.

And while you're at it explain how Thurlow's entire story is supported by his statement that Kerry wrote the after action report, a fact he apparently pulled out of his ass and for which there is no proof other than the fact that he does in fact have an ass?

It might also be good to hear Bush explain why, if he is so fervently opposed to 527s, his own campaign lawyer Ben Ginsburg, was giving them free advice?

Oh my. The swifties let this mangy little dog loose but now the smelly mutt is going to piss on whatever tree he likes.

[capt joe]

Well, while you are asking Ginsburg, ask Joe Sandler who is lawyer for both MoveOn and General Counsel for the DNC.

AB, are you subbing in for Monique?

[Jim in Chicago]

While you're asking questions AB, ask yourself why the Kerry campaign has already backed away from Christmas in Cambodia.

Among other things.

[capt joe]

Oh really, Kerry was on the Daily Show and apparently he wouldn't answer a direct question about whether he was in Cambodia

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0825kerry-comedy25.html

"I'm sorry," Stewart said. "Were you or were you not in Cambodia?"

Stewart and Kerry then leaned in and stared each other down before Stewart asked about other things Kerry's opponents are saying.

Guess, he wasn't there after all.

hmmm.

[capt joe]

On, and while we are lawyer counting, what about another lawyer that works for both Kerry and ACT, Robert Bauer?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/politics/campaign/25swift.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

The campaign of Senator John Kerry shares a lawyer, Robert Bauer, with America Coming Together, a liberal group that is organizing a huge multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote drive that is far more ambitious than the Swift boat group's activities. Mr. Ginsberg said his role was no different from Mr. Bauer's....

Well ....

[Jim in Chicago]

For good measure AB, you might want to head over to QandO, where you'll find that Kerry and the navy report you cited elide two different actions that day -- 1 by troops that the Swifties ferried and which included enemy fire, and the other being the mine incident later that day, where there is still no evidence of enemy fire -- if by evidence you mean actual bullet holes in the boats.

[capt joe]

yes, very impressive info at QandO

[Jim in Chicago]

B/c this seems to be a problem for lefty commentators:

To Robert, AB, and Monique:

It takes some time for the posts to clear.

Therefore, wait a minute or two before deciding that you have to repost.

So the rest of us don't have to scroll thru a double-dose of your drivel.

Then again, maybe y'll want to double-post . . . "if I scream louder maybe what I'm saying will be true . . ."

[AB]

OK you failed to notice that I said the issue was NOT the cooperation of the lawyer, but the fact that this exposes the all too obvious hypocrisy of Bush not supporting 527s.

The Republican media machine has attempted to turn the argument to the topic of 527s when instead the argument is about the Commander in Chief allowing a veteran's history to be trashed by slander. No matter who is saying it. Don't worry. You'll get it soon enough. (Psst, all those Hugh Hewitt books are available to Democratic strategists as well.) A Commander in Chief by the way who hopped ahead of 150 candidates for the National Guard in his mad dash to escape combat duty himself. But he believed in the war. And he supports those troops who got their heads shot off in his place. 100%

Thank you for not addressing any issue you don't like. I always take that as validation.

QandO raises the question. Do conservatives ever consult the mainstream press at all, the kind held to journalistic standards, or do you rely only on archly conservative sources of news, believing that you have absolute insurance that way of only hearing the truth?

P.S. Ginsburg resigned just now.

[Jim in Chicago]

Who's allowing "a" veteran's history to be trashed?

Seems to me the Kerry people are going tooth and nail to slime about 60 vets, most of them decorated.

Oh wait, I see, it's not ok to criticize one vet named Kerry, but it's fine to go after a whole slew of them.

As long as the one is a Dem . . .

How do you know when a Kerryite is losing an argument?

When they bring up Bush's TANG service.

and I notice AB doesn't even bother to explain why the QandO analysis is incorrect ... he just slimes it as not up to journalistic standards. Ha. What woold those be I wonder.

[Cecil Turner]

The Bronze Star incident doesn't look to be provable. The charge against Kerry is that he lied in official reports to puff up his record--finding an official record supporting Kerry doesn't prove that wrong (for the accusation to be true, the after action report must support Kerry)--but neither would an after action report signed by Kerry prove it true. With as many conflicting eyewitnesses (heavy fire vs little/no fire), finding a new witness or two doesn't change the picture much--and obviously, proving there was no fire is impossible. So far there is no incontrovertible evidence (e.g., bullet holes) there was fire--but they could simply all have missed (slightly implausible, but possible)--or have been patched up without making it into the damage reports.

On the other hand, we have now have three disputes that appear to have been settled: 1) Kerry was not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968; 2) Kerry was not on the boat with Alston when he was wounded, and Alston was not on the boat with Kerry during the Silver Star action; 3) Kerry's first Purple Heart was self-inflicted (though probably unintentionally, and possibly still rating a PH under the loose standards then in effect). Score: Swifties 3, Kerry 0.

[Greg F]

AB,

Before you manage to make a bigger dope of yourself please modify your statements concerning the physical evidence, the only issue I addressed, and one you failed to address in your response to me. Your lack of rebuttal and attempt to change the subject has been noted. (Some of us actually have to work for a living, time did not permit me to address the rest of your post). I would also point out to you that what you provide as evidence, the AP story, lied by omission. Thus your next statement, “Damn that MSM for expecting people not to lie when they're in the process of accusing other people of lying! LIBERAL BIAS!!!!”, is refuted and clearly supports the MSM liberal bias charge.

[AB]

Greg F, I'll address the physical evidence question when you, or someone else, here addresses all three of the following:

1. Why did John O'Neill lie about never being in Cambodia, when he admitted in private to Richard Nixon himself that he was? Why is John O'Neill betraying his oath as an attorney?

2. Why is anyone even mentioning the idea that Kerry wrote the Bronze Star after action report, when there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that he did, not even the misbegotten memory of an aging person? He just "thinks so." That is ALL the evidence he has to explain the documented facts of the citations. How can anyone level a charge based on this statement? (And yes, answer this and the other two, and I will then address your physical evidence point. It's not that hard to do.)

3. Alfred French commited perjury. How many others committed perjury? Why should anyone be listening to a group of perjurors?

[AB]

Greg F, I'll address the physical evidence question when you, or someone else, here addresses all three of the following:

1. Why did John O'Neill lie about never being in Cambodia, when he admitted in private to Richard Nixon himself that he was? Why is John O'Neill betraying his oath as an attorney?

2. Why is anyone even mentioning the idea that Kerry wrote the Bronze Star after action report, when there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that he did, not even the misbegotten memory of an aging person? He just "thinks so." That is ALL the evidence he has to explain the documented facts of the citations. How can anyone level a charge based on this statement? (And yes, answer this and the other two, and I will then address your physical evidence point. It's not that hard to do.)

3. Alfred French commited perjury. How many others committed perjury? Why should anyone be listening to a group of perjurors?

[Cecil Turner]

AB,

1) I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody denies Swift Boats patrolled the boder, and into Cambodia--there are plenty of pictures (e.g., here)--Kerry, however, didn't in 1968--as his campaign has admitted.

2) The skippers of three of the other four boats know they didn't write the report, and believe (though obviously they aren't sure) the deceased Droz didn't either. Some of the wording in the official history matches Kerry's wording suspiciously well, which is indicative, if not proof (good analysis here).

3) I'm not sure which of French's statements you're claiming perjury on. The idea you can't call someone a liar without first-hand knowledge seems a bit silly, considering we've all done it reapeatedly in this thread.

[AB]

1. Well there seems to be a contradiction between " I was in Cambodia, sir" and "there were gunboats keeping us 50 miles away from the border." No?

2. So you can accuse someone in this country based on language that sounds kind of like the kind of thing they'd say. Interesting. Physical evidence: 3 bullet holes. Since in this game, people are allowed to pull any evidence they want completely out of their asses, any argument that it came from a previous encounter doesn't really bear any special weight. The contemporaneous eyewitness testimony of this evidence completely supports Kerry. Thurlow is a lying stooge.

3. Alfred French signed an affidavit, took an oath, saying that the things he was attesting to were true by his own personal knowledge. That's what an affidavit is. You don't sign affidavits to say someone else told me something that he swears is true. Alfred French is a lawyer. So I'm guessing he is aware of what perjury is.

[Greg F]

"Greg F, I'll address the physical evidence question when you ..."

IOW AB, you have nothing to counter the physical evidence. So rather then address that issue you attempt to change the subject once again. I find your attempt to put conditions on addressing the ONLY issue I provided a counter argument too intellectually dishonest.

[Cecil Turner]

AB,

1. O'Neill said they were operating 50 miles from Cambodia, and there were patrols at the border. Which is confirmed by every account, including Kerry's. Whose campaign also confirms he lied about the Christmas incident. Harping on this one is a loser.

2. Since all reports agree the three bullet holes were suffered in the previous firefight, they hardly support Kerry. And since the only person using the phraseology "mine exploded close aboard" (or in fact even reporting another mine) was Kerry, concluding Kerry wrote the report is hardly a stretch. But again, nobody is claiming certain knowledge, just that they "think" he wrote it. And as far as I know, Kerry never even denied he did.

3. If you are claiming perjury, you need to show what he said, that it was false, intentional, and material to the case. If we applied your standards for calling the Swifties liars and perjurers to Kerry, he wouldn't come off too well.

And again, this is a sideshow. The only proven lies so far are Kerry's: about Cambodia, Alston, and the first PH. (And I suspect he'll eventually admit the third PH was bogus as well.) The character assassination game isn't going so well, is it?

[capt joe]

I am certain the monique and AB are the same person. Look at the style

Broad generalizations, no links,

[capt joe]

Just catching up to the discussion.

AB

You may have seen this, but if not. A much more serious connection than Ginsburg's

Joe Sandler - General Counsel DNC and counsel for MoveOn

Neil Reiff - Deputy General Counsel DNC and MoveOn 527

Robert Bauer - Kerry campaign lawyer, attorney for ACT, America Coming Together

The campaign of Kerry shares the same lawyer, Robert Bauer, as America Coming Together, a liberal group organizing a massive, multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote drive that is far more ambitious than the Swift boat group's activities. Ginsberg said his role is no different from that of Bauer's.

Now that it has been shown that there are 3 DNC lawyers working for 527s what do you say about that?

I smell hypocrisy in the air. Not pleasant.

Hmmm...

[capt joe]

Speaking of those oh so high standards for journalism, what do you make of this

Lewis Lapham appears to be a precognitive. his most recent article, which appears in the latest New Yorker magazine, describes his reaction to the recent republican convention held in New York.

Apparently he wrote the article ahead of time before attending it. To his embarrassment, the New Yorker published a month ahead of schedule clearly showing him for the fraud he is.

Imagine that he expected to get away with making out his entire reportage on the event. How utter disgusting.

[capt joe]

A clarification for those reading my last post, I was being sarcastic since, obviously the convention had not happened yet.

[capt joe]

On O'Neil's "I was in Cambodia" comment.

Instapundit provides a valid reason for his comment.

This is an attempt by the Kerry campaign to confuse Kerry and O'Neil's records.

O'Neil took over after Kerry went stateside. His operational area was moved to a different part of Vietnam. During the time (1970) O'Neil was in the area, the famed Cambodian Incursion happened. It was at that time when swiftboat ops crossed the border.

O'Neil explained this in the Fox interview but funny how that explanation is downplayed.

Please see that for extensive details

[Paul Zrimsek]

Joe, I too raised that as a possibility (over at Beldar's)-- but the Fox interview, which I hadn't read at that point, does nothing to prove it. Though O'Neill's tour in Swift Boats did include the time of the official invasion, it also includes a period of about a year beforehand. He said nothing on Hannity and Colmes to nail down the time frame, but rather seemed mostly interested in waffling (via some Kerryesque "along the border" bafflegab) about whether he was in Cambodia at all. Absent clarification, I'd have to say O'Neill's critics have a point.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I took O'Neill's explanation, "It was in a conversation", to mean he first said he was IN Cambodia, and then corrected himself to Nixon as "along the border". Just a slip of the tongue, immediately corrected.

Btw, it is possible to go from Bernique's Creek a few hundred yards into Cambodia if you work at it. There is at least one narrow canal wide enough for a Swift Boat. Lt. Elmo Zumwalt III won a Bronze Star for capturing some weapons attempted to be smuggled into South Vietnam via that canal. He describes it in his, and his father's, My Father, My Son.

BUT, young Zumwalt didn't even get to Vietnam until, iirc, August of 1969, long after Kerry had returned to the US.

[GT]

It's over.

Lambert says Kerry was right and Thurlow wrong.

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0826/local/stories/01local.htm

[Reg]

Paul,

See my earlier comment (way at the top) on this issue. Here are the facts:

1. Both O'Neil and Kerry patroled the RACH GIANG THAN waterway while they were at COSDIV-11. This patrol route is a totally different waterway than the "Sa Dec" X-mas eve mission under COSDIV-13.

2. That waterway is extremely close to the Cambodian border but at no point is it "in" Cambodia. Kerry war notes specifically talk about this patrol route (see TofD p.324-328).

3. See this map for a closeup of the RACH GIANG THAN for some perspective.

4. O'Neil in a private conversation with Nixon said, "'I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border.'...In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon on June 16, 1971, but he insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.``I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months,'' O'Neill said of the conversation. ``I was about 100 yards from Cambodia.''(AP report 8/26).

5. Contrary to what some have speculated O'Neil does not claim his PCF was 'in' Cambodia as part of any 1970 Cambodia Invasion. He specifically saying he was never in Cambodia. Full Stop.

6. However, as the AP reports in one private informal conversation O'neil states at one point that he was "in" Cambodia. GASP. And then immediately clarified that he "worked along the border". With all we know about COSDIV-11 area of operations and its operation restrictions regarding Cambodia we can see that this was a simple mis-statement that was immediately clarified.

7. Contrary to Kerry, O'neil is not claiming he was ordered multiple times into Cambodia, he was not using it to make a political point in the Senate, he is not claiming he was ferrying SF forces into cambodia on black missions, he is not claiming he was running arms to anti-communist rebels inside cambodia, and he was not speaking from written text into the Congressional Record or into a Senate Report.

Sometimes in a conversation people say things that are misleading or simply mistaken.

When one immediately corrects the mistake and its consistent with the historical record these mistakes are trivial and do not denote intentional deception.

However, if the mistake is not corrected but instead it is repeated again and again, and it is totally inconsistent with the public historical record and ones command orders it can be properly be suspected that the statement may be an example of intentional deception.

O'Neil was the former; Kerry, the latter.

[AB]

Gee, you're kidding me, GT!

MORE proof that Thurlow is lying? Well, I'm sure the liberal media will be giving that the same blanket coverage that they gave to his perjurous shit slinging.

I'm grateful reading the Lambert article to see that there do still exist partisan Republicans that have some semblance of moral integrity and courage. It has certainly not been on evidence anywhere else lately.

I also thought it was really magnanimous of Bush to call for the end of all 527 ads now that he's done emptying his bowels onto the public airwaves. What integrity that man has. What respect for the American people. I certainly hope none of these young soldiers in Iraq never try to run for office against any Texas Republicans. Lord knows they'd have been better off interning in an oil company lobbyist's office. Now, THAT'S what I call service to one's country.

[AB]

Gee, you're kidding me, GT!

MORE proof that Thurlow is lying? Well, I'm sure the liberal media will be giving that the same blanket coverage that they gave to his perjurous shit slinging.

I'm grateful reading the Lambert article to see that there do still exist partisan Republicans that have some semblance of moral integrity and courage. It has certainly not been on evidence anywhere else lately.

I also thought it was really magnanimous of Bush to call for the end of all 527 ads now that he's done emptying his bowels onto the public airwaves. What integrity that man has. What respect for the American people. I certainly hope none of these young soldiers in Iraq never try to run for office against any Texas Republicans. Lord knows they'd have been better off interning in an oil company lobbyist's office. Now, THAT'S what I call service to one's country.

[GT]

I know. But I'm sure the usual loonies will come tell us this is all one great conspiracy.

[Reg]

Patrick-

Do have the quote/location on where Zumwalt's canal actually was?

As far as I can tell Zumwalt came to COSDIV-12 in Da Nang August 1969 and then was transfered to COSDIV-11 in September, 1969 to May, 1970.

The Zumwalt case is an interesting counter-example that shows us the operational restrictions PCF boats operated under along the Cambodian border:

Elmo Zumwalt(the son):At dusk one day late in 1969, we slipped under the overhanging jungle growth along a canal bank. I knew we were a few hundred yards inside Cambodia. I also knew that just by crossing into Cambodia I was in violation of direct orders. But I disobeyed the orders because I was sure the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese were infiltrating along this particular river, even though Navy intelligence said they were not. I thought this would be the best way to prove my point. Several hours later, we heard noises coming from downriver. The South Vietnamese had been warned not to be on the rivers at night, so we could be pretty damn sure it was the enemy. It was a convoy of sampans. When they drew to within 20 or so feet of our hiding place, we opened fire. We took some return fire, but then they fled, leaving behind some sampans loaded with weapons.

Admiral Zumwalt (the father) : Elmo's unauthorized but successful ambush demonstrated that the intelligence we received gave us only part of the story. Our agents had identified the infil-tration routes along the major rivers, but the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese were clever enough to switch to lesser routes. Largely as a result of Elmo's ambush, I ordered our river boats into the mouths of the smaller canals and creeks.

[AB]

I've come to see that all of this is really just the remaining obsession of Vietnam in the minds of some who could never leave it behind. There was a wonderful interview last night on Scarborough Country, between Joe Scarborough and Bob Kerrey. Kerrey made some outstanding points, about how this is so wrong to be dragging America back through the pain of Vietnam. How ironic that the "patriot" who wouldn't fight that war is the one attempting to profit off of the pain of those who would, and did. Bob Kerrey also asked the most obvious of all questions. Noting that Vietnam was the most unpopular war in all of US history, that the deaths by the late sixties had become a "meaningless slaughter", and implying (as we all know he knows all too well) that the atrocities there did indeed scar so many lives, he asked "Why aren't these guys mad at the LEADERS who took us to Vietnam and LEFT us there? What the hell are they mad at John Kerry for? He didn't do this to them!"

I know he makes a nice target, but how gruesomely misplaced this anger is. And how cowardly of the great moral coward George Bush to take advantage of it.

[capt joe]

Monique, your're back. Changed your call sign to AB, I see. Why not just stick to the old one.

[capt joe]

As to Lambert's story, I will wait a day and see.

Everytome one of these guys supporting kerry comes out of the woodwork, we end up finding out that his story isn't what he thought it was.

Remember Alston who trestified to something he was not part of?

[GT]

capt joe,

Lambert is hardly a Kerry supporter, he is not going to vote for him and thinks Kerry was wrong on what he did after the war. And he thinks Thurlow was a fine officer.

It's just that Lambert is saying that yes, there was enemy fire that day.

So now that's Kerry, Kerry's crew, Rassman, Langhofer and Russell (in another boat) and Lambert (in yet a third boat) all agreing with the official records that there was enemy fire.

Lambert is also listed in Thurlow's Bronze Star citation, which Thurlow never made public and says there was enemy fire as well, as a witness.

[capt joe]

Yes, the problem with the whole description are the many inconsistencies in the overall story.

McQ at QandO has pieced together an explanation that fits pretty well,

http://qando.net/archives/003894.htm

as well, as:

http://armor.typepad.com/bastardsword/2004/08/kerry_part_lxvi.html

[capt joe]

by inconsistencies
- Either Rasmussen was on Kerry's boat or the one behind
- either he was knocked off by a mine or a sudden sharp manuever
- either kerry's boat was hit by a mine or another boat
- kerry's diary says they did not come under enemy fire until a time later than his first purple heart
- kerry's many cambodia stories
- kerry's own clarification that contradicted Brinkley
- brinkley's now missing in action (where is he)
- you could go on for pages on this stuff.

[GT]

None of that matter one way or the other for the BS (whihc is what I was referring to).

Everyone agrees Rassman was in the water and Kerry got him out. The only debate that matters is whether there ws enemy fire or not.

[Cecil Turner]

GT,

Absent evidence showing fire actually hit something, a few eyewitnesses isn't terribly convincing. The Swifties have several who say there wasn't fire (and so far they've got a better track record for being proved right). Rassmann, by his own admission, wasn't paying much attention, and then was diving to the river bottom to avoid boat screws. The "official records" are also a bit of a laugh, since it's based on reports by commanders on the scene . . . 3/5 of which dispute it.

Rassmann also busts Kerry's story on his third PH, which is actually a more serious conflict of testimony than whether or not there was fire in the BS incident.

[Greg F]

"It's just that Lambert is saying that yes, there was enemy fire that day."

As I stated before:

"Physical evidence trumps eye witness accounts. The boat damage report clearly supports the "no enemy gunfire"..."

See this.

"Eyewitness testimony has come under increasing scrutiny in the past several years because of its unreliability. Studies have shown that eyewitness identification is wrong almost 50% of the time. This is not because the witnesses are lying or being deceptive. Rather, more often than not, they are simply mistaken."

The poor reliability of memory has been known for a very long time, in fact all our senses are easily fooled, just ask any good magician. The interesting part of the Lambert eye witness account is he says:

"He and another officer now say we weren’t under fire at that time," Lambert said Wednesday afternoon. "Well, I sure was under the impression we were."

He then says:

"Anytime you are blown out of the water like that, they always follow that up with small arms fire,"

From the previously linked article:

Factors Influencing Memory

"The acquisition stage, or the individuals perception of the event, is influenced by both "event factors" and by "witness factors". "Event factors" include lighting conditions, the duration of the event, speed and distance involved, and the presence or absence of violence. "Witness factors" include fear, stress and chronic stress (recent negative life occurrences can trigger memory deficits), expectations, and even age and gender."

Lambert's memory may actually be the result of his own expectation, there is no way for us to know. I don't think it is a question of anybody lying about what they think happened, I think they are all saying what they believe to be the truth.

My theory at this point is the VC set the mine and probably used a plunger type detonator. It seems reasonable to me that after setting off the mine they would attempt to flee the area, hit and run was the strategy. Remember the initial Swift boat strategy was to race out of the ambush area, let off soldiers to sweep back to the ambush site. This strategy, from what I have read, became less effective as the VC would be gone by the time the foot soldiers made it back to the site of the ambush. Keep in mind that Kerry's boat did leave the area after the ambush, something the VC might have noticed. It seems pretty reasonable to me that the VC would have used a brief volley of small arms fire to give themselves cover to get out of the area. Cover fire does not have to be accurate, just scary enough to make people take cover. This may explain why some to say they were under fire, albeit briefly.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"It's over.

"Lambert says Kerry was right and Thurlow wrong."

More high quality logic from GT. One man's 35 year old memories trump another's. GT, don't ever change.

[GT]

Greg and cecil,

If you don't believe all the documents that say that there was enemy fire (plus all the eyewitnesses) then why do you believe the documents that say there were no bullet holes?

Once you start down the path of not believing documents then you can't pick and choose. They are all disqualified.

By the way Cecil it's not just some witnesses. I think it's now to 7 to 2 witnesses in favor of Kerry on this one.

[Greg F]

"If you don't believe all the documents that say that there was enemy fire (plus all the eyewitnesses) then why do you believe the documents that say there were no bullet holes?"

Oh my ... {sigh}. GT, the bullet holes are physical evidence, the strongest kind of evidence. Physical evidence is the reason some people have been shown NOT TO BE GUILTY and released from prison, in spite of the eye witness accounts. The documents are just written eye witness accounts, still unreliable. Did you bother to read what I linked to?

[GT]

Greg,

Don't you get it? THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. The boats are not around anymore. We can't inspect them. All you have are reports on the boat's conditions. A report is NOT physical evidence. It's just a report that could be wrong, made up, forged, etc..

Since you don't believe all the reports that say that there was enemy fire why do you believe the reports that say there were no bullet holes?

And for extra points: If Kerry managed to forge so many reports, including Thurlow's citations, and bribe so many people to lie for him, including Thurlow's crewmate, why didn't he forge the boat reports as well?

[GT]

See if you had photos, of all the boats from all sides, that would be physical evidence. Still incomplete but evidence. But all you have are reports that, for all we know, were totally made up by some drunken sailor.

Once you impugn one report you impugn them all.

[GT]

Oh, and one last thing. Sine Lambert got a Bronze Star for exactly the same thing as Kerry, helping someone out of the water under fire, do you think Thurlow will call Lambert a liar and say he does not deserve his medal?

[Greg F]

"Don't you get it? THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. The boats are not around anymore."

Ummm ... no ... you don't get it. The reports on the boats is the physical evidence. The reports of what happened are eye witness evidence. In fact GT, eye witness accounts written down at the time of an event are more reliable then ones written even a few days later. On an even more fundamental level, there is over a century of evidence that human sensory perception is equally unreliable. Here is a simple fact. You will at times see, hear, smell, and feel things that don't exist. This doesn't make you crazy or odd, it is just part of being human.

"All you have are reports on the boat's conditions. A report is NOT physical evidence."

I see, a report on the results of DNA is not physical evidence? A report based on a eye witness account is eye witness evidence. A report based on physical damage is physical evidence. You didn't read the link, or understand, why eye witness accounts are unreliable.

[Greg F]

"Once you impugn one report you impugn them all."

This is a straw man, and if anything, proof that your unable to put your bias aside for even a moment. For one thing I did not "impugn" any report, I am pointing out that eye witness accounts are unreliable by nature. Clearly a woman that has been raped has every reason to finger the man that did it. Physical evidence (DNA) has shown that eye witness ID of the perp can and is often flawed, it is really that simple.

[Greg F]

"Sine Lambert got a Bronze Star for exactly the same thing as Kerry, helping someone out of the water under fire, do you think Thurlow will call Lambert a liar and say he does not deserve his medal?"

Non Sequitur

[GT]

OK Greg, it's a waste of time debating with you. You don't even know what physical evidence is. I suggest a dictionary.

Believe what you will. I really don't care.