bmonday.com

Hmm, "served with Kerry", indeed. Hey, my dad was working on a supply ship in Vietnam at the time. I guess he served with Kerry, too.

Why don't we get the perspective of someone who, let's say, was <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460">actually there</a>? He's only the guy Kerry pulled out of the water, or are you going to call him a liar too?

Swiftboats fought in packs. The experiences of other sailors in his unit are relevant.

Regardless, I don't think anyone is denying young Mr. Kerry pulled the guy out of the water.

Do explain how Mr. Kerry was purportedly in Cambodia, listening to President Nixon telling the nation he wasn't there? When multiple witnesses, and Mr Kerry HIMSELF on many occasions, place him nearly 60 miles away in Vietnam at the time (oh, and uh, Nixon wasn't President at the time).

Why won't he release his medical records from the time? Could it be that one of his Purple Hearts came from a *cough*self-inflicted*cough* wound that was treated with a BAND-AID?

The inconsistencies of Kerry's 4-month stay in Vietnam abound.

Okay. I took my time replying because I wanted to give an informed reply. Your comments area doesn't allow formatting, so links will be explicit, and normally blockquoted sections will be quoted. Here you go:

1. Do explain how Mr. Kerry was purportedly in Cambodia, listening to President Nixon telling the nation he wasn't there? When multiple witnesses, and Mr Kerry HIMSELF on many occasions, place him nearly 60 miles away in Vietnam at the time (oh, and uh, Nixon wasn't President at the time).

I don't think you got this quite right. First, let's examine John O'Neill's letter. In it, it quotes a speech that Kerry gave on the Senate floor:

"Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia."

And it quotes Kerry in an article in the Boston Globe in 1979:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Now, let's consider the context in which these things were said. Nixon officially denied -- in 1969 -- that there were US forces in Cambodia. Kerry is not so stupid as to forget who was the sitting President in 1968, and he knew which President made the denial and when. Years later, Kerry refers to Nixon's 1969 statement and then disputes it by saying he (Kerry) was in Cambodia in 1968, less than a year before the Nixon denial was made. This is not the order of how it was said in his remarks, but it is clear that that was the intent. This is a case of taking a quote out of context.

Next, as for Kerry's actual location on Christmas, 1968, I don't know. A couple of his crewmates have denied going into Cambodia at the time, and Kerry has mentioned it himself (most notable in his biography by Douglas Brinkley). However, let's consider a couple of things. First, we know that Kerry's boat patrolled rivers along the borders of Cambodia. We also know that in March 1969, Nixon ordered the secret bombings of Cambodia, three months after the Christmas in question. I'm not too clear on the history of when Cambodia became an "official" target, but Nixon did deny there were US military forces and/or activity there. And many books have been written how there were plenty of "unsanctioned" or illegal U.S. operations in the Vietam war. Isn't it plausible, then, that Kerry's Swift boat -- as well as others -- would have been operating in Cambodia, under orders, though not officially sanctioned? According to Kerry, among his operations, he and his crew ferried weapons to sympathetic Cambodians. Other boats (perhaps even Kerry's) ferried special forces and CIA operatives to locations within Cambodia. And after all, you need to do some recon before a bombing run can be made (if Johnson was still in office at the time, I'm sure he would have ordered the bombing). You need people on the ground at your targets to pinpoint them. Like I said, it isn't clear exactly where he was on Christmas, 1968. Maybe he was in Cambodia at the time, or maybe he was taking dramatic license. Or maybe he was offering up a lame denial of doing something "illegal" there. I mean, politics aside, his superiors among the Swift Boat group would probably the first to deny such operations since they were the ones to order those boats in there. If the official line of the Nixon administration was to deny such activities, why not continue that statement down the line of command? I just went on a little tangent. It may be a stretch, but it is valid. Regardless of where Kerry actually was on Christmas, 1968, it's a minor point. It is still more than likely that he and his crew operated in Cambodia at least once during that tour of duty.



2. Why won't he release his medical records from the time? Could it be that one of his Purple Hearts came from a *cough*self-inflicted*cough* wound that was treated with a BAND-AID?

I don't know why. However, the Kerry Campaign did release medical records to the non-partisan group, FactCheck.org (This group analyzes statements from both major political parties for accuracy). Here's their analysis of the Swift Boat group: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

In it, it says:

"...The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm..."

"...And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94..."

This second statement refers to two separate events. The first, the self-inflicted wound in the butt, caused by shrapnel when Kerry was too close to rice bin explosions caused by a grenade (or grenades) that he threw. This wound by itself would qualify for a Purple Heart because of a "friendly fire" rule:

"...In any case, even a 'friendly fire' injury can qualify for a purple heart 'as long as the friendly projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment,' according to the website (http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm) of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters..."

Kerry's arm injury was not caused by the rice/grenade incident. It was caused by a mine that damaged his boat:

"...And according to a Navy casualty report (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Spot_Kerry.pdf) released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for 'shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94,' Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury..."

Kerry's diary seems to match up with the official reports of both incidents. And as for the "superficial wound" that accounted for Kerry's first Purple Heart:

"Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because 'I treated him for that.' However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the 'person administering treatment' for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm."

"In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says 'the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.' But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson."

"Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he 'turned down the Purple Heart request,' and recalled Kerry's injury as a 'tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn.'"

"That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel 'lodged in Kerry's arm' (though 'barely.')"

"Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart."

"Hibbard: 'I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want'"

"Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US ."



3. The inconsistencies of Kerry's 4-month stay in Vietnam abound.

Yes, I'm sure there are -- for BOTH John Kerry, as well as his detractors. And let's not forget that Kerry's stay in Vietnam was not four months. The events that are being disputed happened on Kerry's *second* tour of duty in Vietnam.

i must say I much prefer your posts re tech. Your political 'news' and opinion is much better produced in other venues.

Actually if you have an RSS reader, you can subscribe to just the categories you are interested in, and not have to suffer my one or two political postings per month :)

By the way: Nice, thoughtful reply, Rod. I appreciate it. I think we'll just have to see how this one plays out.

Beau

Rod

Your response is based solely on Kerry's reply by the campaign. Which side would you think they would take. I guess all of the 250 mostly decorated vets are all lying.

Rod

Your response is based solely on Kerry's reply by the campaign. Which side would you think they would take. I guess all of the 250 mostly decorated vets are all lying.

Come on you guys... anyone who buys the Grand "Flip Flopper" MISTRUTHS is completely blind. This guy is definately UNFIT for Command based n all of his background from when he was in Vietnam all the way to today. He seems to be a Patahlogical LIAR simply because he can't get ANYTHING he ever says straight. That is a definate characteristic of a pathalogical liar who is willing to say anything to appease his audience at the time. This guy would turn over the power of this great country to the U.N. if he was in control.

WAKE UP, OPEN YOUR EYES. This guy is a DUD and will be defeated in November.

I totally agree with the statements made by SwiftVets.

I am also a Vietnam era vet, and I don't feel that we need to advertise every chance we get that we did serve our country. I feel that it is an obligation of every true American to serve their country when called.

This guy John Kerry flip-flops on every issue. He has made his Viet Nam service the foundation for his campaign and now he blames George Bush for this add from the SwiftVets, but somehow not the SwiftVets themselves. John Kerry has lied more since he started this campaign, than Bill Clinton did in eight years. He deserves this response by those who served with him, these vets do not want to see this guy lie any longer!!!

Keep the truth going, PLEASE!

keep up the good work

As an Ex-Navy Hospital Corpsman with two tours in Viet Nam, I am extremely hopeful that you will not "give up the ship" in terms of continuing the barrage on Kerry's record, his lies, and most importantly, the terrible betrayal which probably was instrumental in our losing that war.(1971 testimony to Congress) Too many of my buddies whose names are on the wall, must not be dishorored by that sleaze ball getting into the White House. I have contributed $500 to your organization, and will contibute more if necessary to keep these adds on the air. PLEASE don't hesitate to contact me if I am be of further assistance. SEMPER FI!!!..
Ashley M. Classen, DO, FAOCA
CDR MC USN Ret.

Wait, where are all the Kerry supporters? Ah, I see: I'm the only troll here. But unlike right wing trolls, at least I can form a thought out argument.

c baughn: I went to a great deal of trouble to cite my arguments. FactCheck.org is a credible non-partisan organization. Look it up. It checks on both sides of the aisle. The Kerry campaign gave them more records to peruse, and those records are available at the campaign website. Those are valid Navy records, certainly as valid as Bush's Guard records (more on that later). As for the other 250 vets that support the SBVfBS testimony, many of those have not only disavowed allegations against Kerry in the letter, the book, and ads, their "signatures" were put there without their knowledge or consent. So no, I'm not calling them liars. The liars in the group, well, their lies have been refuted and disproved by actual Naval records, other witnesses, and their own quotes. Let's see, was that John O'Neill on the Nixon tapes telling the president that he was in Cambodia? Shouldn't he have been court martialed?

Gerry: I love this "flip flop" thing. Did the GOP send you all a memo reminding you to parrot that phrase every time you get the chance? I also like the Clinton connection. It's amazing. If Kerry has lied more in the last two years than Clinton did in eight, then the lies must be easy to cite. I'd love to hear 'em. And do please make sure to give me something credible, other than littlegreenfootballs or captainsquarterly. Something from a valid news source, not a blog. As for blaming Bush for the SBVfBS and not the group itself, you're wrong. 527s don't officially work for any politician, but they do follow the marching orders of the group they support. Kerry and his supporters have criticized the group directly. But how do you argue that Bush's people or Bush himself is not involved when some of the vets in the SBVfBS actually work for, or are large contributors to the Bush campaign? Finally, now that it is coming into sharper focus that Bush did everything he could to avoid even minimal required service, how does that sit with you? You said:

"I feel that it is an obligation of every true American to serve their country when called."

I'm sure it galls you to no end then that the Commander-In-Chief of this country supported military involvement in Vietnam but did the following:

-- Pulled strings to put himself highest on the list, ahead of others before him, to get into a unit most unlikely to get called up
-- Refused a direct order to take a physical
-- Improperly left his unit before arranging a transfer
-- Didn't even finish his service before his commitment was up
-- Is quoted as saying that if the Guard would have been called up, maybe the war would have turned out different. Is that a backhand to the soldiers in the field, or is he suggesting that the part of military the did his best to do his least be called up? Not that it matters: he wouldn't have gone if his unit did get called up. Papa Bush would have thrown the safety net anyway.

You can read the AP or watch the 60 Minutes rerun for more details. There's a time gap in Bush's service records because he wasn't there to be on record.

I'm not going to contrast that with Kerry's service records because I already did that. How's about I use Clinton? Yes, Clinton used his connections to get out of going to Vietnam. But at least he was consistent. He was against the war. Bush was not. Cheney was not. They didn't go because they felt they had better things to do. True, Bush isn't basing his campaign largely on his military service, but he is the one who is always eager for a fight but hides and is willing to let others fight for him. Funny, it is now as it was then: using soldiers and vets. If you want your leaders to be "true" Americans, then Bush and Cheney aren't your guys.

Ashley: Your anger with Kerry is understandable, but I'm going to have to disagree with the reasoning. I'm too young to actually have been able to comprehend public opinion on the war back then, so I'll go on what I've read and have been told by protesters, vets such as yourself, and politicians who were alive then. Kerry's testimony isn't something that was instrumental in "losing" that "war". It wasn't a betrayal. Your buddies' names are on the Wall because of bad diplomacy, stubborn arrogance, fear mongering, and an underestimation of the enemy (all that sound familiar?). Please tell me how winning a tiny country in Southeast Asia would have been pivotal in beating back the "threat of Communism". What Kerry did was do his part so that as many of your buddies could come home. Yep, atrocities happened on the part of our guys. It happens in *every* war, especially when you're dealing with guerillas who can hide amongst or exploit the innocent. If you think that bringing back as many soldiers as possible who weren't among the many tens of thousands that already died as losing, then fine, we lost. If we had "won", it would have taken more time and many more troops do it, since we weren't going to nuke the place. The longer we would have stayed, the more names would have been on that wall.

I guess to you I'm against freedom and liberty, and all those cliches that your side is used to flinging around. If you want to actually discuss this civil-like, I'm game. But please, if you're going to tell me that Kerry lied or "flip flopped" then please back it up, rather than just shout it out like you think you know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure I have a reply for every one of them, and I definitely have some Bush flip flops and lies for you to munch on, too.

I learned long ago that it's pointless to try and sway the mind of a person who has his political mind made up.

You can throw fact after fact at a person, and they will find ways to discount them all.

Beau

I assume that one is aimed at me. :)

I am a 100% disabled vet. Last service was in Vietnam. I know what was going on with the Stacan Boats on the delta and rivers. Served 20 months in Navt sec. of MAAG. Was hit in the head by large plank result of sabatoge in building Junk boats for S. Vietnam Navy. Spent 11 months in hospital. Never received a Purple hart. Don't want one , but it pi++es me of that he got three for nothing. Keep his feet to the fire. Great work. George Gay (Georgeg238@aol.com)