"truth" ???????

[Gimpy]

Commentary: Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth?"


The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are not really interested in the truth. If they were, they would be condemning Bush--not Kerry.


By Mick Youther


After John Kerry returned from Viet Nam in 1969, he began to speak out against the Nixon Administration and the war in Southeast Asia. By 1971, Nixon knew the war was already lost, but he wanted to keep it going long enough to assure his re-election. (He didn?t care how many lives might be lost in the process). Public opinion was turning against the war, and Nixon could not afford anyone bad-mouthing the war, especially a war hero. Something had to be done to counteract Kerry?s anti-war message.

? ?We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President [Nixon], and we did everything we could do to boost his group.?-- Watergate conspirator Chuck Colson, quoted in the 1/5/04 issue of The New Yorker

Thirty-five years later, history is repeating itself. John Kerry is speaking out against another paranoid Republican Administration and its inept prosecution of an unwinnable war; and the same John O?Neill has been bankrolled to help the Republicans. This time the group is ?Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,? but the goal is the same?discredit John Kerry.

? ?I think this is some of the sleaziest lies I've ever seen in politics. [John O'Neill] has been a Republican functionary for over 30 years... He?s a liar. He started with?he started with Chuck Colson. He was a pawn of Chuck Colson.?-- Albert R. Hunt, Executive editor, The Wall Street Journal, on CNN's The Capital Gang, 8/7/04

? ?[The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] are simply malcontents who have never forgiven Kerry for his actions in speaking out against the war. They seek retribution by fabricating stories to destroy him... John O'Neill has zero credibility. He was -- and still is -- Richard Nixon's patsy.?-- Douglas Brinkley, author of ?Tour of Duty?, quoted on Salon.com, 8/6/04

? ?It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me? I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire.?-- John McCain, AP, 8/5/04

I saw O?Neill on MSNBC?s Hardball with Chris Matthews (8/12/04). He claimed that John Kerry had somehow fooled the Navy into awarding him three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. He made it sound like Kerry was awarded his Silver Star for ?shooting a kid in the back??a phrase O?Neill carefully emphasized four or five times, while failing to mention that the ?kid? was carrying a rocket propelled grenade launcher and was preparing to shoot it at Kerry?s Swift Boat (according to an actual eye witness). For a lie by lie refutation of these muckraker?s claims about John Kerry?s service, go to http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm .

John O?Neill and the Bush Campaign want voters to ignore the Navy?s records, ignore the testimony of Kerry?s shipmates, and believe some people who weren?t on Kerry?s boat or, in some cases, weren?t even in Viet Nam at the same time as Kerry.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claim they were organized to ensure that ?ALL presidential candidates [are] totally honest and forthcoming regarding personal background and policy information that would help the voting public make an informed decision when choosing the next president of the United States.? That is obviously not true. If it were, they would direct some of their energy and outrage toward George W. Bush?s mysterious military career.

? ?A spokesman for the Alabama National Guard estimates there were 600 to 700 members in the unit Bush was supposed to have served with in 1972. But none of these men has ever come forward to say he remembers Bush, and Bush has not named a single one of them.?-- The New Republic, 10/16/00

? ?[Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver Colorado] then designated Bush as AWOL and a ?non-locatee? (i.e. a deserter) who had failed to satisfactorily participate in TXANG, and certified him for immediate induction through his local draft board. Once the Houston draft board got wind of the situation, strings were pulled... ?(... and once again George got a pass). The AWOL Project, see link below.

? ?Rather than only asking how a young George W. got out of the National Guard, we ought to ask how he got in when 350 American men were dying each week in Vietnam and 100,000 were on National Guard waiting lists across the country.?-- LA Weekly, 2/13/04

So come on, you Swift Boat Veterans for Truth! If you?re really looking for a Presidential candidate that shirked his military obligation, you need look no further than your Commander in Chief, George. W. ?Bring ?em on? Bush.

For the sad truth about Bush the Deserter, go to The AWOL Project .

Posted Saturday, August 14, 2004

######

[Gimpy]

Commentary: The Republican War Against Vietnam Veterans


First John McCain, then Max Cleland, and now John Kerry: the Republican attack machine slanders and insults not only these three Americans who sacrificed for their country, but all Americans.

By Stewart Nusbaumer

First they attacked a U.S. Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam who was imprisoned and tortured for five years. Shadowy Republican groups insisted he was mentally unfit to be President of the United States because he had been a POW in Vietnam. The propaganda was relentless and sneaky, eventually undermining John McCain?s credibility and his bid to be the Republican Party?s presidential nominee. The winner was George W. Bush.

Then they attacked a man who lost three limbs--two legs and one arm--on the battlefield in South Vietnam. First in Georgia and then nationally--highlighted by Ann Coulter--they proclaimed that he made no sacrifices for America and should not be respected. Max Cleland lost his Senate seat to a tough Republican patriot who somehow missed the fighting in Vietnam.

Among veterans, this election is referred to as the ?Shame of George.? If the South rises again, it is said, it will be to disgrace more honorable Americans who fought for America. Evidently, the only veterans the South wants to honor are those who attacked America, veterans of their Confederacy.

In both campaigns, Republicans sought not to educate the public but to create doubt in voters, not to discuss the issues, but to undermine the character and reputation of John McCain and then Max Cleland. Republicans successfully twisted these two men?s honorable service in Vietnam into a political liability here in America and rendered both men ineffective politically. Both combat veterans were defeated by men who supported the Vietnam War yet hid behind deferments so they would not have to personally fight in the war.

Knowing that Americans would not tolerate an obvious dirty attack on their combat veterans, the Republicans used innuendoes and slander and sneaky lies--half lies--and distorted facts. They used a shadowy network that is accountable to no one and is therefore free to say anything. This Republican attack machine attacks without restraint and without conscience and without morality. It attacks those who oppose their view of America, a view they hide as they disguise their attack.

As the ?Vietnam generation? has taken over the reigns of power, this Republican stealth attack machine has begun to focus more and more on those who fought that war. That few Republican leaders fought in Vietnam does not seem to faze these self-described tough patriots. In their eyes, they were simply too important to serve in Vietnam. ?I went to where the real war was,? Newt Gingrich told the Washington Post some years ago, ?Washington.?

But their absence from a war that they had strongly supported does bother a group of Americans. Vietnam veterans call these Republicans ?Chickenhawks?: chicken during Vietnam because they refused to fight in a war they supported and super-hawks in middle age because they are beyond draft age and very willing to send others to war. Since the Republican Party is a haven for Chickenhawks, their clandestine attack machine needed help; the truth was beginning to show. The machine needed a new public face.

New Face to Old Sleaze

To extend their successful smear and discrediting campaign against Vietnam veterans, the Republican attack machine has adopted a group of far-right Vietnam veterans as mouthpieces, as their front boys. As the Chickenhawks had others fight the Vietnam War, a war they supported, today they have Vietnam veterans fight their political war.

The ?Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? is a Republican group of right-wing veterans who are telling Americans that John Kerry did not do what he said, that John Kerry did not act honorably in Vietnam, that John Kerry is unfit to be President of the United States.

It was only a few months ago that Republicans were telling Americans that John Kerry acted dishonorably when he returned home from the war; now they want Americans to believe he also acted dishonorably in the war. Those who actually served with John Kerry, however, disagree, as does the U.S. Navy.

Wounded three times and awarded two medals for bravery: is that acting dishonorably in Vietnam? The Chickenhawks say John Kerry lies. They say all the crewmembers who served on the boats with John Kerry lie. They say that the U.S. Navy that treated John Kerry?s three wounds and gave him two medals lies. But it is Kerry, the crewmembers, and the Navy who are telling the truth.

The Republican machine attack on veterans is now fully focused on John Kerry, using the same unethical tactics used earlier against John McCain and Max Cleland. It is dissing and slandering three men who served and sacrificed for America--one a tortured prisoner, another with three limbs amputated, and another with three combat wounds. Three combat veterans are being insulted not by America?s enemies, but by supposedly good Americans.

Stealing the Heartland?

When anger reaches a certain level, one has two options: rage or repression. I?m teetering on a violent explosion, or possibly catatonic silence. I?m not sure, but I know that some injustices are too unjust to deal with rationally.

You see, I?m a disabled Vietnam veteran. One leg was amputated and the other has nerve damage, my spleen and a testicle were removed, and I have lots of shrapnel scars. But I?m just another Marine who made it home, minus a few parts. The war is over for me, a long time ago. Yet some Americans want to bring the war back, to bring it back to hurt us who fought that war. It is not the longhaired hippies of yesterday or the war protestors that marched in our streets against that divisive war that are attacking us, but supposedly patriotic Americans.

And these so-called patriotic Americans say they represent the heartland of America. But do they? I don?t think so.

By trashing these three combat veterans, two Democrats and one Republican, they have actually trashed all combat veterans of that war. Is this what Americans want? They have insulted the 58,000 Americans who died in that horrible war and also the parents, most of whom are now in their graves, who lost a son in Vietnam.

This Republican attack machine does not speak for the heartland of America; it is attacking the heart of America.

These are the same people who do not like the American working class, those struggling to make ends meet today. And they do not care about their children who suffer from the wounds of war--just look how Republicans in Congress are attempting to cut the VA budget during this war. The war on Vietnam veterans is an extension of this Republican class war, a branch of the Republican war against working Americans. Not only do these Republicans not represent the heartland of America; they don?t represent anything about this country. This is why they are attacking good Americans who sacrificed for their country.

A Few Facts

Let's look at the facts. John Kerry volunteered for the military and then volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he was wounded three times and was awarded a Silver Star and a Bronze Star for valor. George W. Bush supported the Vietnam War yet avoided fighting in that war by joining the Guard; he selected the option not to go to Vietnam, then refused to show up for his physical and lost his right to fly. He also appears to have been AWOL for many months, if not a year or more.

So who was dishonorable in their military service during the Vietnam War? It?s a simple question with a simple answer when the facts are known.

Yet the Republican Attack machine is pervasive and powerful, refining its sneak attacks and hiding its real intensions. In this election, will enough Americans conclude that John Kerry?s conduct during Vietnam was dishonorable and push a crucial battleground state or two into George Bush?s column? The Republican attack machine beat John McCain and Max Cleland. Is John Kerry next?

If enough Americans are given only the steady diet of Fox News propaganda and hear only the megaphone of corporate media, then George Bush will win. If John Kerry?s credibility as a soldier in Vietnam is destroyed, then his political credibility in America will be destroyed. So write a letter to your local newspaper, give the facts, and demand the truth. Call your television stations and tell them you are sickened by the slandering of John Kerry?s military record. Call your radio stations and tell them to forbid innuendoes and slander to stab our Vietnam veterans in the back.

This is your country, not the country of these Republicans. But you must be willing to fight for your country, or it will become their country.


Posted Sunday, August 15, 2004
#####

[Gimpy]

August 20, 2004

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.

How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans.
Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the Bush campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library.

A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals.

But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group , allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."
George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."
"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."
Those comments echoed the official record . In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."


The Admiral Calls


It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry was wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a call at his Massachusetts home from his old commander in Vietnam, Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the new biography of the man who would be president.

Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the war from a base in Cam Ranh Bay and advocated a search-and-destroy campaign against the Vietcong - the kind of tactic Mr. Kerry criticized when he was a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971. Shortly after leaving the Navy in 1978, Mr. Hoffmann was issued a letter of censure for exercising undue influence on cases in the military justice system .

Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr. Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders whose military approach had led to the deaths of countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" - the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw it , straight.

"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us into it," Mr. Lonsdale said.

Mr. Hoffmann's phone calls led them to Texas and to John E. O'Neill, who at one point commanded the same Swift boat in Vietnam, and whose mission against him dated to 1971, when he had been recruited by the Nixon administration to debate Mr. Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show."

Mr. O'Neill , who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry in numerous television appearances Thursday, had spent the 33 years since he debated Mr. Kerry building a successful law practice in Houston, intermingling with some of the state's most powerful Republicans and building an impressive client list. Among the companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard, the energy firm founded by the current republican lieutenant governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, a central player in the Texas redistricting plan that has positioned state Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall.

Mr. O'Neill said during one of several interviews that he had come to know two of his biggest donors, Harlan Crow and Bob J. Perry, through longtime social and business contacts.

Mr. Perry, who has given $200,000 to the group, is the top donor to Republicans in the state, according to Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan group that tracks political donations . He donated $46,000 to President Bush's campaigns for governor in 1994 and 1998. In the 2002 election, the group said, he donated nearly $4 million to Texas candidates and political committees.
Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's top political aide, recently said through a spokeswoman that he and Mr. Perry were longtime friends, though he said they had not spoken for at least a year. Mr. Rove and Mr. Perry have been associates since at least 1986, when they both worked on the gubernatorial campaign of Bill Clements.

Mr. O'Neill said he had known Mr. Perry for 30 years. "I've represented many of his friends,'' Mr. O'Neill said. Mr. Perry did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. O'Neill said he had also known Mr. Crow for 30 years, through mutual friends. Mr. Crow , the seventh-largest donor to Republicans in the state according to the Texans for Public Justice, has donated nowhere near as much money as Mr. Perry to the Swift boat group. His family owns one of the largest diversified commercial real estate companies in the nation, the Trammell Crow Company, and has given money to Mr. Bush and his father throughout their careers. He is listed as a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation.

One of his law partners, Margaret Wilson, became Mr. Bush's general counsel when he was governor of Texas and followed him to the White House as deputy counsel for the Department of Commerce, according to her biography on the law firm's Web site .

Another partner, Tex Lezar, ran on the Republican ticket with Mr. Bush in 1994, as lieutenant governor. They were two years apart at Yale, and Mr. Lezar worked for the attorney general's office in the Reagan administration. Mr. Lezar, who died last year, was married to Merrie Spaeth, a powerful public relations executive who has helped coordinate the efforts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group that ran $2 million worth of ads attacking Senator John McCain's environmental record and lauding Mr. Bush's in crucial states during their fierce primary battle. The group, calling itself Republicans for Clean Air, was founded by a prominent Texas supporter of Mr. Bush, Sam Wyly.

Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the Reagan White House, where the president's aides had enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984. She says she is also a close friend of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a client of Mr. Rove's. Ms. Spaeth said in an interview that the one time she had ever spoken to Mr. Rove was when Ms. Hutchison was running for the Texas treasurer's office in 1990.

When asked if she had ever visited the White House during Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth initially said that she had been there only once, in 2002, when Kenneth Starr gave her a personal tour.
But this week Ms. Spaeth acknowledged that she had spent some time in the Old Executive Office Building, part of the White House complex, in the spring of 2003, giving Mr. Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen Friedman, public speaking advice. Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

"Is the White House directing this?" Ms. Spaeth said of the organization. "Absolutely not.'' (Yeah right!.........And we REALLY believe THAT crapola......editorial comment by Gimp )

Another participant is the political advertising agency that made the group's television commercial: Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, based in Alexandria, Va. The agency worked for Senator McCain in 2000 and for Mr. Bush's father in 1988, when it created the "tank" advertisement mocking Mr. Dukakis. A spokesman for the Swift boat veterans said the organization decided to hire the agency after a member saw one of its partners speaking on television.

About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas in April to share outrage and plot their campaign against Mr. Kerry, she and others said. Mr. Lonsdale, who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned as "an indoctrination session."

What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry began to harden.

"That was an awakening experience," Ms. Spaeth said. "Not just for me, but for many of them who had not heard each other's stories."

The group decided to hire a private investigator to investigate Mr. Brinkley's account of the war - to find "some neutral way of actually questioning people involved in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.

But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral to some.

Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta. "It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life."

By May, the group had the money that Mr. O'Neill had collected as well as additional veterans rallied by Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hoffmann and others. The expanded group gathered in Washington to record the veterans' stories for a television commercial.

Each veteran's statement was written down as an affidavit and sent to him to sign and have notarized. But the validity of those affidavits soon came into question.

Mr. Elliott, who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver Star, had signed one affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was not forthright" in the statements that had led to the award. Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe quoted him as saying that he felt he should not have signed the affidavit. He then signed a second affidavit that reaffirmed his first, which the Swift Boat Veterans gave to reporters. Mr. Elliott has refused to speak publicly since then .

The Questions

The book outlining the veterans' charges, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry," has also come under fire. It is published by Regnery, a conservative company that has published numerous books critical of Democrats, and written by Mr. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified on the book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged that he has been a contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a right-wing Web site. He said he regretted those comments.

The group's arguments have foundered on other contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.
Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it." (Yeah right!......SURE we will.....Gimp)

The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Mr. Runyon said in an interview.

And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.
Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment.

The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat came under heavy fire from shore during a mission in February 1969. According to Navy records, he turned the boat to charge the Vietcong position. An enemy solider sprang from the shore about 10 feet in front of the boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the shore, chased the soldier behind a small hut and killed him, seizing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr. Kerry killed as a solitary wounded teenager "in a loincloth," who may or may not have been armed. They say the charge to the beach was planned the night before and, citing a report from one crew member on a different boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed about who would win which medals.

The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts.
"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."

According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a group of Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river when several mines detonated, disabling one boat and knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign.

But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's lying."
"If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added, "that's how it was."

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author .

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy . Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. Yet, Mr. Thurlow was the Senior officer that day and ultimately responsible for the after action report(s). The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Standing Their Ground

As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the group has remained steadfast and adaptable.

This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward .

The group said it would introduce a new advertisement against Mr. Kerry on Friday. What drives the veterans, they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their affidavits and their television commercial focus mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to describe what happened in Vietnam when he returned and became an antiwar activist. And they are offended, they say, by the gall of his running for president as a hero of that war.

"I went to university and was called a baby killer and a murderer because of guys like Kerry and what he was saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the first advertisement, accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star. "Not once did I participate in the atrocities he said were happening."

As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry went home and lost the war for us.

"He called us rapers and killers and that's not true," he continued. "If he expects our loyalty, we should expect loyalty from him."

######################

The dirty "politics" of 'Smear Boat Vets' is as apparent as their hate for John Kerry. Corruption at it's most despicable!

[MORTARDUDE]

Gimpy :

I watched for two hours on MSNBC recently as Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 - 1972, and told lie after lie about what we did in Vietnam. How you can continue to defend this individual is beyond me. I choose neither one of them.

Larry

[Gimpy]

He wasn't talkin about "me"..........and not "you" either for that matter. He WAS simply stating what OTHERS had reported or claimed happened. I don't think you'll find anywhere in his statements where he PERSONALLY saw any of these "things" take place with the exception of "free-fire" zones and burning of villages?

You never saw a village "burned"..............I sure as hell did!

And.........I was in a few "free-fire" zones as well!

Anyway, his "comments" didn't hurt me in ANY way. Like the man once said "Opinions are like a$$holes..........everybody has one and most of them usually stink!" Kerry's "opinion" was but one of thousands that reflected the troubles and trials of that time period.

What GEE-Freakin-W HAS done (and hasn't done for vets) in the past 3 and one-half years is distinctly MORE damaging and destructive than ANYTHING John Kerry may have said 33 years ago!

Love ya brother...............but I GOTTA go with Kerry!

[Arrow]

Anyway, his "comments" didn't hurt me in ANY way. ~ Gimpy ~

Steve,

You know very well that John Kerry's statements were not said in a corner and went around the world to be celebrated by his communist cheerleaders North of the DMZ whilewe hadtroops on the ground and men being held as POW's. Men that were forced to sit and listen while he droned on with his snotty holier than thou attitude. But hey! As long as it didn'thurt you!

Arrow>>>>>

[Gimpy]

Kerry wasn't the ONLY one making "statements" that "went around the world".........Nixon and his cronies were telling lie after lie about their "intentions" in the war, as did LBJ and his cronies earlier! Nixon even PROLONGED the damn war that led to thousands of our brothers to CONTINUE to die for his political ambitions for Gods sake. (sound familar?) Kerry was AT LEAST attempting to get us OUT of that MESS!

There have been many people who have and are still misrepresenting the public statements Kerry made upon his return from war in Vietnam.

When Senator Kerry made his speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 he has been accused by some of accusing veterans of war crimes. What he said was,

?I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia?.

He also said, ?They told stories?. That is a far cry from accusing anyone.

Now I realize that some of those veterans who were in Detroit have since been exposed as being untruthful. Kerry had no way of knowing that at the time and has since offered testimony that claims he may have "made some mistakes" using their accounts.

That does NOT change the fact that he testified before Congress to help END THE WAR that a corrupt administration was STILL lieing to the American public about! If ANYONE was "guilty" of causing "harm" to our brothers and sisters still "in country" or in "captivity" it was Nixon and HIS bunch.............NOT KERRY!

[Arrow]

Steve,

I read the transcript. It's been posted here by yours truly several times. I have also watched the testimony several times along with his appearance on the Dick Cavit show. I am sixty years old Steve. I lived those years.I don't need you or anyone else to interpret the meaning of John Kerry's words and actions for me. John Kerry did not speak for my family then and he does not speak for my family now.Nor did Richard Nixon.

Arrow>>>>>>>

[Arrow]

Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous "Hanoi Hilton" internment camp. The Navy pilot had been shot down in June 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war.

During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as "an example of why we should cross over to (their) side." "The Viet Cong didn't think they had to win the war on the battlefield," Galanti said, "because thanks to these protesters they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington."

He says Kerry broke a covenant among servicemen never to make public criticisms that might jeopardize those still in battle or in the hands of the enemy. Because he did, Galanti said, "John Kerry was a traitor to the men he served with."

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/kerry4.html





Arrow>>>>>>

[Arrow]

May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report records John McCains opinion of John Kerry's testimony before the William Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us."

Arrow>>>>>