Centerfield

To me, this is not about politics, it is about simple decency... I saw what was done to Bob Kerrey by the liberals and to McCain, Hagel and Cleland by various Bush campaigns. This is a smear plain and simple. You know it. I know it. Their point is not to debate the issues, but to muddy the waters and to attack anyone who dares stand up to this administration or against the Iraq war which has killed nearly a thousand of our boys... I ask you, how many of these Swift boat veterans would you trust to guard your back or the life of your son?

I welcome Rood's account, but beg to differ on the Vietnam issue as muddying the waters. John Kerry is the one who made his brief Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. Having made it his defining theme, he had to expect it to be ruthlessly dissected. Instead he's been trying to to use it as an unquestionable and unassailable shield on all issues. And he's been doing this since the primaries, giving the opposition plenty of time for constructing their attacks. Nice try, but no cigar.

As for it being an attack, what the heck do you expect in an election year? A tea party? Bush has been under heavy attack from 527's as well, and for much longer. And the real fun doesn't even start until after the GOP convention and Labor Day, when people actually start to pay attention. It's not going to get any prettier.

I saw the second Swiftie commercial today, and I suspect the first one was a feint to get the Kerry campaign over-reacting, to do the heavy publicity lifting for them. If so, it worked. The second commercial focuses on Kerry's Senate testimony after he returned. This is the issue that really drives the Swifties nuts, and this is the one that will get the longest play over the next coupla months--the Winter Soldier affair.

Actually, it's come out that Kerry was in fact in Cambodia, but it was in January or February of 1968, rather than December.

No, Carla, it hasn't. What has come out is that Kerry has since claimed through a campaign spokesperson that he was "on or near" the Cambodian border on several occasions and "inadvertently" crossed over into Cambodia once. Claims lacking any supporting evidence whatsoever and denied by his own crewmates, who have no idea what he's talking about. Some "seared" memory!

His long-running, oft-repeated Cambodia story is on the record in many places from many occasions and in multiple versions, and has been so thoroughly and totally debunked as sheer hokum that the best thing the Kerry campaign can do right now is shut up about it and hope it fades. Which it will if they will just shut up about it! It's just an ex-soldier's tall-tale war story. Very few people would hold that against a combat vet. Even combat vets are pretty tolerant about such things...when they come from other combat vets.

If he leaves it alone, the only place it really hurts him is with the rabid anti-Kerry base, and it isn't as if they need more excuses. To them it's just more garnish on a plate they've already bought and swallowed whole. But if Kerry keeps poking it with a stick then it helps keep the self-serving would-be politico-soldier thing going, which doesn't help him at all.

I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of political rope-a-dope skills from the Kerry campaign right now. They should call an expert for some advice. Bill Clinton is available.

The problem with Cambodia being just an ex-soldier's exagerated war tale is the it supposedly was a turning point in his life. It was also what he used to justify votes in the Senate.

I welcome Rood's account, but beg to differ on the Vietnam issue as muddying the waters. John Kerry is the one who made his brief Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. Having made it his defining theme, he had to expect it to be ruthlessly dissected. Instead he's been trying to to use it as an unquestionable and unassailable shield on all issues.

I agree with the first part of your point. Kerry made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. It dominated the convention. And he's managed to use it to push past the troubling inconsistencies in his record on the issues.

I'm not sure that means, logically speaking, that he should expect his Vietnam record to be "ruthlessly dissected". That depends largely on what the truth is. If he served honorably, or with uncommon bravery (as suggested in Rood's account), it might not be wise to be "ruthless" in your approach to that record. Especially if the truth can be demonstrated.

Put it this way. Kerry's Senate record is a big fat target. As a whole, it's just not that impressive. And it's especially inconsistent on major foreign policy milestones, such as the two Iraq wars, the Iraq reconstruction funds, etc.

It seems like the compelling story, here, is that you've got a guy who served honorably 35 years ago, but who just isn't that steady or decisive in the many things he's done in public office since then. Is it in your interests, then, to focus on the stories from 35 years ago? What if it can be proven -- as seems more and more likely -- that Kerry did most of the things he got that chest-full of shiny medals for?

Do you want to argue about his Vietnam war stories -- which a bunch of his buddies can corroborate -- or do you want to argue about 35 years of inconsistency, hedging, or overly liberal actions on national security issues?

I think Karl Rove was initially delighted by the Swift Vets campaign. But I suspect he's worried about all the investigative reporting that's going on, the corroboration from other vets, and the inability of most of the Swift Vets to defend their views in interviews. They might just end up bringing up the most impressive moments in Kerry's life, and ultimately demostrating how impressive they were.

That's why I say Rood's account made me think differently about Kerry. I didn't quite grasp how remarkable the story is. And the only reason I know about it is that it's in the news now. I'm not likely to pick up Kerry's autobiography -- or to credit it with accuracy. I am watching the Swifties get destroyed in interviews, and people responding with first-hand accounts utterly opposite to what the Swifties claim.

What drives me crazy about this whole affair is that Kerry is even dignifying this stuff with a response, especially such a strong response. All it has done is renew the public interest in what these guys are saying. It just doesn't seem like the wisest campaign move to me. He has plenty of fodder to go after Bush with, he has issues that need to be discussed, and he's spending his time defending against ads from a group whose credibility is questionable at best.

I don't think Kerry has a choice, given the initial media interest in the topic. I read an interesting argument that Kerry _should_ respond strongly. By not responding, it may reflect onto people's perception of his toughness.

I'll paste some paragraphs of the argument directly here, as I probably won't do it justice.
It's from Talking Points Memo, which is obviously anti-Bush, but this snippet has some truth to it, regardless of the direction of the attack (partywise). (sorry, i don't know how to italicize, i'm new to blogging):

"On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry's military service record and label him a liar. But that's only part of what's going on.

"Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really -- a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they're tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

...

"One way -- perhaps the best way -- to demonstrate someone's lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves -- thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can't or won't defend themselves certainly isn't someone you can depend upon to defend you.

"Demonstrating Kerry's unwillingness to defend himself (if Bush can do that) is a far more tangible sign of what he's made of than wartime experiences of thirty years ago.

"Hitting someone and not having them hit back hurts the morale of that person's supporters, buoys the confidence of your own backers (particularly if many tend toward an authoritarian mindset) and tends to make the person who's receiving the hits into an object of contempt (even if also possibly also one of sympathy) in the eyes of the uncommitted."

Do you want to argue about his Vietnam war stories -- which a bunch of his buddies can corroborate -- or do you want to argue about 35 years of inconsistency, hedging, or overly liberal actions on national security issues?

The problem is, William, that his buddies are contradicted by many others who were also there, and the Kerry campaign has already been caught diddling the truth in regards to Kerry's records. And at least one of Kerry's stories has turned out to be a complete fabrication, which casts doubt on the rest. He's bringing it on himself, and he practically begged for the abuse. (This is not a fresh opinion--I was saying this as far back as the primaries.)

As I've said, I believe the medals flap is just the overture to a more concerted and concrete attack, which will be on Kerry's actions after he returned from Vietnam, and that's an area where he's extremely vulnerable, because he did so much of it in front of the TV cameras while still an officer in the Naval Reserves. His thoroughly undistinguished Senate career will also be savaged. But Kerry himself spent so much time beating us all on the head with Vietnam that he rendered it a liability. It was a bad tactical move, and he's now in the unenviable position of having to feed his critics to support his own keystone. His campaign's counterattacks on the subject are acting as a major force multiplier for the Swift Boat group, giving them ten times the bang for their ad buck than they would otherwise have had.

I would expect the medals flap to back-seat after the convention, but the Winter Soldier attacks to run in earnest through September, with his actual political record picking up as a line in mid-month and intensifying through October, with a heavy return of the Winter Soldier noise in the last two weeks before the election.

If you think that Kerry's using his Vietnam service as his campaign keystone doesn't logically lead to his being ruthlessly deconstructed on it, you haven't watched politics very closely. It was not only logical, but inevitable.

As I've said elsewhere, and as I've said many times on my own blog, these guys may be liars but look at who they are, at ALL OF THEM and not just a couple.

Still, what has been instructive for me has been the DIFFERENCE between how the Plame crap was covered by the big media, how the Halliburton and Harken stories were covered, and how the Bush AWOL story was covered, vs. the complete stony wall of silence on the Swifties until finally the Big Media, instead of just reporting the allegation, went after these guys' credibility FIRST.

I continue to stand slack-jawed in amazement at that.

I and others have admitted openly that accusations about the medals are discomforting and probably not wise to be bringing up. That the bigger issues all surround Kerry's leaving combat 8 months early, and then saying vicious, horrible things about the men he fought with when he got back.

It has been equally instructive to watch the Kerry camp respond. First by saying these men never served with him (yes they did), then saying they were all lies and threatening to sue anyone who showed the ad, then quietly admitting that some of the Swiftie allegations are correct, and so on.

Has it been horrible? Yes. On the other hand, these campaign finance "reform" laws made all this possible, and unless someone can prove that Bush and Rove really coordinated these attacks, the fact is that this is a group that deserves to be heard.

And they're mad about a lot of things.

Kerry made this about Vietnam. Don't, please don't, forget to acknowledge that. If he hadn't done that, a lot of people would be a hell of a lot less interested in this story.

Will you come out of it on the other side thinking better of Kerry? Okay. That's free speech for you.

Tully:

Your opinion on the Kerry in Cambodia issue isn't backed up by the facts according to Kerry's biographer, Douglas Brinkley, who covered this over a week ago:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/13/wus13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/13/ixworld.html

"On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border. There's no indictment of Kerry to be made, but he was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," said Douglas Brinkley, who has unique access to the candidate's wartime journals.

But Mr Brinkley rejected accusations that the senator had never been to Cambodia, insisting he was telling the truth about running undisclosed "black" missions there at the height of the war.

He said: "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

"He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off."

Further, for Dean Esmay to insist that the Swift Boat guys were somehow given the short shrift by the media is ludicrous. These guys were begging for the media to listen to them...to check out their stories. They've logged hours and hours of air time on cable talk shows. Hell they've even got the Bush Campaign schilling their book at the state level in at least one place. So the media put the light of day onto their stories...and their stories don't hold up to the historical record both on paper and on eye witness accounts. Well boo-friggin-hoo.

The assertion that Kerry has "made this about Vietnam" is also not in concert with the facts. This has never been about Kerry's service in Vietnam. It's been about Kerry speaking out against Vietnam when he got back. That was the SBV who played that card first. Kerry had no choice but to answer back to the smears on him.

Frankly...these Swift Boat guys have got themselves into quite a jam. Their credibility is shot. And in terms of political fallout...this entire issue is about the Bush Campaign trying to fire up an anemic base. Even the Weekly Standard knows it:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/493kldgc.asp?pg=1

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

The problem is, William, that his buddies are contradicted by many others who were also there, and the Kerry campaign has already been caught diddling the truth in regards to Kerry's records. And at least one of Kerry's stories has turned out to be a complete fabrication, which casts doubt on the rest. He's bringing it on himself, and he practically begged for the abuse. (This is not a fresh opinion--I was saying this as far back as the primaries.)

As I've said, I believe the medals flap is just the overture to a more concerted and concrete attack, which will be on Kerry's actions after he returned from Vietnam, and that's an area where he's extremely vulnerable, because he did so much of it in front of the TV cameras while still an officer in the Naval Reserves. His thoroughly undistinguished Senate career will also be savaged. But Kerry himself spent so much time beating us all on the head with Vietnam that he rendered it a liability. It was a bad tactical move, and he's now in the unenviable position of having to feed his critics to support his own keystone. His campaign's counterattacks on the subject are acting as a major force multiplier for the Swift Boat group, giving them ten times the bang for their ad buck than they would otherwise have had.

I have a somewhat different take on it. He's more vulnerable on his anti-war activities after returning for Vietnam, and much more vulnerable on his Senate career -- his actual record as a mature, adult human being.

The stuff he did after returning from Vietnam would leave a bad taste in many people's mouths, but it's not likely to be a factor undecideds consider all that significant. Bad things you did 30 years ago tend to have far less bearing on how people evaluate you today than what you've done since. (The same is certainly true for George Bush.)

More importantly, the two areas of vulnerability that have emerged from this -- the Cambodia thing and his post-war activism -- are both areas in which he has already admitted personal fault. He's expressed regret about his more extreme statements from the post-war activist period, and he said his memory was faulty about Cambodia.

What you have are issues from the distant past which no longer have "two sides" to them. Kerry isn't arguing the opposite side. It's hard for the media to treat them as hot topics when they're not really in dispute. The Swifties can continue running their ads, but aside from that, what attention will it get? Will the Bush campaign actually bring it up?

It's hard to say, honestly, whether this controversy will be a net negative or positive to Kerry. Maybe more people will hear the Swifty allegations than the countervailing evidence. Who knows? It seems like a bit of a mine field for the Bush folks, though. They can't bring it up themselves -- it has to be a separate effort. And the Swifties themselves aren't doing so well in interviews, and are likely perhaps to do less-well now that more vets outside of Kerry's boat are stepping up and contradicting the Swifty account.

It went from being a positive to the Bush camp as of a few days ago to a mixed, risky issue for them.

As for your campaign timeline, I think the Kerry folks would welcome a schedule that involves focusing on his Vientam record until mid-September, followed by perhaps only 4-6 weeks of examining his actual political record.

That just doesn't seem like the strongest gameplan versus Kerry.

Let me summarize it this way. Kerry has said that he was heroic in battle 35 years ago. He has expressed regret regarding the more extreme things he said in opposing the war afterwards.

He's basically right -- he was a hero in battle, and went overboard as an anti-war activist. Do you want to focus on an area where Kerry is basically right? Is that your best strategy?

Carla,

Support senator Kerry all you want, but the man insults our intelligence when he says he was “mistaken” about Christmas in Cambodia.

Christmas is a special day wherever you are, but especially in a war zone far away from home;

Being assigned a clandestine, illegal mission on that day is not something you are going to confuse with some day in January.

He either lied about the date in the Senate, or he is lying about the entire mission now, or both.

ROA

This is the only thing I will ever post on this issue.

On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border.

That is an utter non-sequitur. As has been pointed out, '50 miles from the Cambodian border' could be in the ocean, in downtown Saigon, Bien Hoa... or just about anywhere in central South Vietnam. No, scratch that - Saigon is closer to the border than 50 miles.

It's not near the border; it's not even close.

It amazes me that Kerry didn't realize that his confabulation would be found out.

ROA:

I'm sorry...but I find your position ridiculous.

To claim that Kerry was somehow bold faced lying over events that obviously took place within a week or two of when he claimed is utterly absurd.

Was Kerry in Cambodia doing what he said he was doing? Yes. Did he embellish on the date? Maybe...or maybe at the time he went in he thought it was Christmastime..especially since it's reported he went in January. What's the real point of this exercise? To see if we can catch Kerry not telling the truth? If so....will you be holding Bush to the same standard on his missing five months from his Alabama Guard service?

In all sincerity...this smacks of desperation in a big way. The guy was there. He did what he said he did.

Bush wasn't there and didn't do what he said he did.

I agree with William that attacking Kerry's more defensible record during the war is foolish and counter-productive for the GOP. I also agree with what I believe to be his gist in that he finds Kerry's service record to be one of his most attractive qualities. I see Kerry much the same way. I don't think his Senate record is particularly strong. But, I don't think it's particularly weak, either. His vote against the Gulf War, for instance, is one that I think was wrong. On the other hand his role with Senator McCain in closing the chapter on MIA's in Vietnam was clearly a service to America.

Maybe the first SBV ad was a feint. But, I'm increasingly of the opinion that Kerry's initial silence was the shrewder strategy. They've climbed too far out on the limb. Shades of grey are increasingly hard to come by on this issue. And it seems to me, based on what I'm reading from a wide variety of sources, that the verifiable facts back Kerry to a significantly greater degree than they do the SBV group. These guys aren't just attacking Kerry. They are directly questioning the competence of the US Navy as well as directly questioning the validity of every medal ever given out. And this is at the root of where I think their greatest strategic blunder (in political terms) lays.

They would have been much smarter to leave the war record alone and attack Kerry for what he said after coming home. But, I think that would have required a level of objectivity that the core group of them is sorely lacking.

If it were just Kerry that'd be one thing. But, as Greg points out in the first comment here, Kerry is only the latest demonstrable war hero that these guys have attacked in the name of covering the back of a spoiled rich kid who's famous and well-connected daddy helped him to avoid Vietnam.

Carla,

If John Kerry had said he was in Cambodia December 14th and it turned out to have been sometime in January I would agree with you, but he was emphatic that it was Christmas eve. That he would confuse such a special day is just nonsense. Granted, he was in Vietnam whether or not he was ever in Cambodia remains to be seen.

Defend Cambodia all you like, Carla, but the facts are that the only source for Kerry's Excellent Cambodian Adventures is Kerry himself. Brinckley's own source is Kerry. All other contemporary accounts, records, etc., including those of Kerry's much-cherished boatmates, say it didn't happen, and was highly unlikely to have ever happened. Thus the vague and fuzzy non-justification of the tale from the campaign. But as I said, it's only an issue if he keeps defending it, and even Bob Shrum's not that dumb. Don't expect to see anything more official on Cambodia from the Kerry campaign, they want it to die and go away. (And I'll take odds on that.)

But I was arguing about the usefullness and efficacy of the Swifties and their tactics, and what I expect to see in the next two months, not arguing about which candidate has bigger feet of clay.

William, you keep using the words "you" and "your." I'm not on the Bush campaign team, I'm offering a personal opinion as an experienced campaigner as to the flow and timing and effectiveness of the game strategies. My words are no more an endorsement or repudiation of either side's tactics than a football commentator's patter on game events is cheerleading. And I think that Kerry screwed up when he keystoned his campaign on four months of his youth, 35 years ago. That mistake's now costing him in time, resources, and image, and has him on the defensive when he needs to be on the offensive establishing an "issues" platform. As the phrase goes, the flap is "stealing his buzz," costing him focus and wasting resources.

From the GOP 527's I would expect the (funded) attacks on Kerry's actual service time to fade out with the convention, and the 527 attacks on the Winter Soldier affair to kick in for September. Winter Soldier is NOT a winner for Kerry. And I would expect the Bush team to come out of the convention playing the "high road" campaign, running on their own platform while legitimately swarming all over Kerry's Senate record, leaving the more personal attacks to the 527's.

Kerry, as the challenger, has to win the election. Bush, as the incumbent with home-field advantage, has to not lose the election. Once again, this is not a value judgement, it's simply how the game is played. Softball it ain't. Indignation about the other guy's dirty play will have little effect on the outcome of the game. "Our guy angel, their guy devil" doesn't move swing voters much, because they're hearing it in stereo.

Glad there are more people out here saying this.

This is crappy politics and terrible for the discourse. I hope more people like us rally behind Kerry, not so much for the sake of his campaign--you're right in saying that we don't really have a good option this year (and I say that as a decided liberal).

Hopefully what it will do is force bush to denounce the Swiftboat veterans the way Kerry denounced the moveon.org commercial against bush's military record.

Only then will this tumult die down, only then can we get back to the important issues like the wars being fought RIGHT NOW, not 35 years ago.

Good blog BTW.

Furthermore . . . 527's suck.

Tully:

I don't agree that Winter Soldier is a loser for Kerry. Was it naked political ambition that caused him to give testimony? It's not out of the realm of possibility. Was it factually incorrect? Hundreds of other Vietnam Veterans came back with similar stories. Vietnam was not a popular war and the government was lying to the American people. In fact...the Bush Campaign had better tread lightly here. Forcing Winter Soldier to the fore is also going to force a lot of parallels between Iraq and Vietnam..including the government lying. It's certainly no great leap.
Frankly, I don't think it's going to change the minds of many either way. There's very few voters who haven't already made up their minds.

Oh...and just as an addendum to the SBV/Winter Soldier business...

The SBV guys have basically ruined their credibility. From Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to Hardball to the newspapers, these men have largely been discredited. They're discrediting is going to continue into next week for awhile, it appears.

There's also some very strong connections to the Bush Campaign with this group...and evidence that the Campaign has been helping them at the least..working with them at most...which is illegal. (From state campaign headquarters schilling SBV books to having their flyers inside the headquarters on their tables next to the Bush/Cheney bumperstickers).

There appears to be a lot of wishful thinking going on here - especially on Carla's part but on the Bushies' part as well.

First, according to Mickey Kaus, the Swifties have come off as serious and credible in their interviews. According to Carla, they've "completely discredited" themselves. The written reports don't square with the Swifties - good for Kerry. Kerry wrote the reports himself - oops. His "Band of Brothers" say they were under fire while the more numerous Swifties say they weren't and point to the fact that there were no bullet-hole repairs to the boats in question. Honestly, we don't know so, obviously, both sides will be firmly and absolutely committed to their version of the truth. What we do know is that Kerry is in a catfight with some of the "Band of Brothers" he thought would form a core constituency.

Kerry isn't alone, however. As the Chicago Tribune and other sources make clear, the MSM will be trying to ensure that the story is the credibility of the SwiftVets and *not* of Kerry. This will ensure that people like Carla can construct a complete, logically consistent view of the world in which every documented fantasy or exaggeration of Kerry's (e.g. Cambodia) is easily explained away and, indeed, the very need to explain it away is firm proof of the wisdom of voting against those evil Repugs.

As always, our positions coming out will be the exact same as our positions going in except for the additional anger and the increasing bitterness.

Remember Dole and the "scratches"? Carla, other pro-Kerry folk. If it comes out that Kerry spent NO nights in the hospital, will that prove his PH wounds, while with real blood (Dole exagerates), were NOT so serious? Kerry exagerates.

Big deal. Yet, how big a "hero" is one whose many wounds don't rate a single hospital night? Even Harry Potter spends nights in the hospital!

IF his records show at least one night in the hospital, on at least 3 different occassions, I'll admit that he has fully earned his Purple Hearts. Right now I doubt it -- meaning, also, I think open minded folk should doubt Kerry's character.

I think Kerry supporters need to tell Kerry to sign Form 180, and release his records. Inquiring minds want to know...

Tom, maybe you can tell us what you expect these 180 records to conclusively demonstrate. Is it your position that someone must have kept careful records of illegal CIA operations in Cambodia, or that if Kerry's service records fail to show something like 12/27:Kerry Swift boat -CIA black op in Cambodia, then we can be sure he lied?

I'm also a little bit curious about how many anti-kerry people are willing to equalize the anecdotes for and against Kerry. Since I am from Massachusetts and have read stories about this on multiple occasions over the years, I'm pretty familiar. The main axe the swifties have been grinding is over Winter Soldier, as Tully has pointed out. The holiday in cambodia stories lack either confirming or refuting evidence from people in a position to know: the people who simply dismiss them were only serving in the same area. And while crewmates have no memory of clandestine trips, this would at most suggest that Kerry's missions may not have been done with Kerry's regular crew on his assigned boat. Clandestine means clandestine, right? (Of course, this means that almost anyone can make up a CIA story and it's very hard to get shown conclusivelt to be a phony, but that's just the way it is, IMO, Kerry might well have made this up, but I have no way to know with any level of certainty whatsoever, and the people who are sure Kerry is lying are people who WANT Kerry to be a liar, plain and simple.

Regarding the purple hearts and issue of crewmate rescue, it gets a lot of support from crewmates (all but one by my account) and a lot of flack from people who weren't on the same boat or even at the actual scene. That's pretty telling to me.

Also the fact of the Boston Globe publishing stories about Kerry's record in these matters over the years makes me laugh at this whole "evil MSM protecting Kerry" meme. These charges are not at all new, and they're not very interesting. Clearly there's been a plan by the gop 527s to give them renewed scrutiny, and the planned orchestration was to have them "bubble up." Who out there can say with a straight face that there was ever a genuine chance that this flap was not going to be made a big deal of at some point? Spare me. It's just not a credible assertion.

The holiday in cambodia stories lack either confirming or refuting evidence from people in a position to know

Not so. The story was detailed and time-specific, and is refuted by Kerry's own journals, contradictory details in the stories, and circumstantial evidence. River borders are lousy places for clandestine insertions, being watched pretty much full time, and being more thickly populated than the general countryside. Swift boats are lousy boats to use for river insertions--they're big and noisy. Any clandestine river insertions would almost certainly have been by sampans blending into the normal flow of river trade, not by power boat of any kind. Almost all SpecOps insertions into Cambodia were by helicopter. Almost all CIA insertions were over land borders or by false credentials through normal travel routes. There are many records available about actual insertions into Cambodia--but none by Swift boat.

But hey, as I said, it's just a war story. If Kerry lets it die (and I predict he'll try) it won't mean much one way or another. What hurts him is defending it.

There's an apocryphal tale of LBJ in his early Texas years, summoning in a campaign aide and instructing him to spread rumors that LBJ's election opponent had the hobby of, um, "free-lance animal husbandry" with his livestock. LBJ's aide was shocked, and said "Lyndon, we can't call him a pig******!" And LBJ smiled and said, "I don't want to call him anything, I want to get him to deny it."

I see a big streak of that going on right now. The more time and resources the Kerry campaign wastes on the Vietnam flaps, the more doubt is sown with swing voters, and the less time and resources are available for promoting agenda. The counter-attacks from the Kerry campaign, the deployment of attorneys to try and scare stations out of running the ads, the personal attacks on the Swifties instead of addressing the accusations, the whining to the FEC, all inspire the media into keeping the story alive. Kerry is feeding his critics, and paying his own campaign money for the privilege.

Bad strategy. It's a classic political rope-a-dope, and it's having some effect.

Tully, how can you be sure the swift boat was a bad choice without knowing what the mission was? What if they needed to bring in equipment that a sampan couldn't carry, and they had to use a swift boat despite the risk of its noisiness, due to the nature of the mission?

This is at least possible.

Brian, it's possible that I'm really the junior military dinisformation attache to Mainland China, blogging here to promote a sinister anti-American agenda--but it's not very likely.

For those of you who can't seem to get enough of this issue, today The Seattle Times ran two full pages (print edition) on these ads. They also ran two large editorials on the associated Vietnam issues. I was upset that so much space was devoted to this topic rather than to more important national issues, so I didn't read the articles, but if you're interested here you go, and here.

Bk,

Would you believe George W. Bush if he said that time he was supposed to be serving Guard duty in Alabama he was actualy on a secret mission for the CIA in Cambodia? That fable has just as much evidence to back it us as Kerry's claim.... namely none. The only thing supporting Kerry's story is that it's hard to prove that somebody wasn't on a secret mission.... I wouldn't exactly call that strong evidence. Yet you chose to believe Kerry, why?

Furthermore even those crewmen who support Kerry in this race don't back him on this story and claim that it is unlikely to have happaned. Shouldn't that tell you something?

I mean why the need to create improbable explanations like they "switched" his crew for some unkown reason.... and they also had some unexplainable reason to take a big, noisy swiftboat down an obvious entry point into Cambodia for a "secret" operation....something that refutes all millitary sense and the only historical records of similar missions that exist.
Isn't the more probable explanation simply that Kerry was telling a fish story?

Note, I wouldn't particulary fault Kerry if he told a fish story. He'd hardly be the first soldier or President to have told one. Yet what is interesting here is not whether Kerry has ever been to Cambodia or not....what I find interesting is the logical leaps that some people are willing to go to in order to find a possible justification for Kerry's story. It shows me that they are more interested in protecting Kerry then they are in the truth.

Kerry could put alot of this to rest, by the way, by signing the form in question. It would list alot of the records of his activities. You could tell where his records said he was on certain days and who he was with. You could then check with people to see if he was actualy there. By process of elimination you could then determine whether there were gaps in the corroborated record that indicate he COULD have been on one of these missions. After all, there aren't all that many days that we are talking about here.

Finaly, I think the SwiftVets have held up pretty well under intense scrutiny.... far better then Kerry's side has. The only honest observation is that both the SwiftVets and Kerry's supporters include people who were directly involved in many of these incidents. For instance, in the fameous incident where Kerry picked up Jim Rassmann from the river after a mine exploded disabling another boat and wounding everyone on board. Kerry's boat was traveling in a small flotilla of 5 boats....which is apparently how swiftboats tended to operate. When the mine blew Kerry's boat bugged out.... all the other boats stayed to provide cover for the disabled boat... which is what they were SUPPOSED to do in situations like that. This fact isn't in dispute. A short while later Kerry's boat returned to the scene and Kerry fished Rassmann out of the river. This fact also isn't under dispute.

What's under dispute is whether they were under enemy fire at the time. Kerrys official report has them under "whithering fire from both banks". Larry Thurlow a SwiftVet who commanded one of the boats who stayed with the disabled boat......and who recieved a bronze star (just like Kerry) for his actions that day says there was no enemy fire. Now there is no way that Kerry's boat can be under "withering fire from both banks" while he is picking up Rassamann and the other boats, sitting dead in the water, yards away not know it. Either Thurlow is lying or Rassamann and Kerry are.

However, here is the simple fact. If there is "withering fire" being directed at the flotilla from "both banks". You'd expect the 3 boats sitting dead in the water in the center of it to be pretty shot up (in fact you'd expect them to be masacered). Yet the ONLY people injurred on ANY of the boats involved that day, outside of Kerry, were the ones on the boat that hit the mine. Furthermore the official damage reports for the boats involved that day, including Kerrys, show "no damage" except for the boat that hit the mine, not even a single bullet hole in any of the others. How do you explain that? The VC had been watching too many A-Team episodes? Sorry, I don't buy it.

3 months after he leaves the service, Thurlow discovers that he has recieved a Bronze Star, based upon the only Action Report that was filed.... Kerry's... which he claims to have never read. Thurlow said they recieved no fire. Frankly I believe him....he has no political ambitions (unlike) Kerry..... he was in a position to know.... he has never tried to brag about his war record..... his version squares with the damage and casualty reports....and frankly makes more sense.

You believe who you want to....but don't kid yourself about WHY you are doing it..... and don't try to pretend these guys have discredited and you can just dismiss thier claims.

I want to put another spin on John Kerry's service in Vietnam. In all the hype and hoopla of the Swift Vets, I think that an important has been overlooked. Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam. Since then Kerry has spent more time talking about his service in Vietnam, then he was actually there. The corner stone of his campaign is that he was in Vietnam for 4 months, and was a leader there. This is somewhat disconcerning. He had over 3 terms in the senate, yet I haven't heard him discuss his politics at all. The problem is this: his decisions and votes in the Senate are an absolute disgrace regarding the current war on terrorism. But thats besides the point.

My point is this: In the four months he spent in Vietnam he earned 3 purple hearts, a bronze star, a silver star, and at least 2-4 other awards. (that makes nine, his highest number when he said, " i threw away 7, 8, 9 medals"). I am curious to see how many medals his other swift boat commanders earned... during the same amount of time. Now, i'm not trying to say that he earned those medals disingenously (i'll leave that for others), but certainly if he was as valorous as his medals suggest shouldn't there be records of his commanding officers pleading with him to stay in Vietnam-- 3 purple hearts in all. (After all, besides minor shrapnel in his leg today, he came back from Vietnam without too much wear and tear-- unlike Max Cleland.)

I am also curious as to how much injuries his crew sustained during his four months. Yes I know about Raussman being pulled from the water with or without viet cong bullets, but what about the others? Too me, in four months time, it appears as if Kerry was 'accident' proned.

ONE LAST POINT TO PONDER: My speculation hinges on the one fact that Kerry still has refused to release all his military records in Vietnam. Isn't this the same guy who wanted Bush to release his records? Turn about is fair play in politics. Why doesn't Kerry just end this speculation and release his records? Bush did...

(type a rebuttal, i know you wanna)

One minor admendum: Kerry's total service lasted 4 months and 12 days. This includes the one month of traing at Ranh Bay. This leaves 3 months and 12 days of actual combat duty.

This is kinda suspicious folks.

Here are some issues that I believe need to be researched and the results published.

Point - Kerry was in college for 4 years. ? What defferment did he have to avoid the draft

Point - Kerry enlisted in the navy. ? Was it ROTC - Navy Reserve - or other

Point - Kerry was an officer. ? How did he get commissioned?

Point - Kerry was on a NAM pcket boat tour. ? How was he selected for that assignment?

Point - Kerry volunteered for Swift Boats. ? Did he actually demand that duty or was he assigned? (since he volunteered for the navy then lawyer speak permit that by inferrence he therefore volunteered for whatever happened (technically correct - but - self volunteering is the real McCoy - and the stuff leaders are made of).

Point - Official records support Kerry. ? If kerry wrote the after action reports, what else could they do? He authored the record.

Point - Higher ups support the Kerry version. ? Since these higher persons knew Kerry mainly from the record - and since Kerry wrote the records - what else could they say?

Point - The Purple Hearts were earned. ? By regulation an injury such as a bruise from falling of the Captains perch as a result of a mone rocking the boat does qualify. But, almost no leader would recommend a PH for such - and almost no real "Sailor" would ask for or go along with such a "wound". (Kerry was pushing for 3 and out).

Point - Kerry earned his "Star" medals. ? But, if he was a system savvy person who wrote his own recommendations, the documents could be expected to "fly". He knew how to get the jury to believe what he wanted them to believe.

The accurate answers to the above may describe a persona not suited to any career but that of a trial lawyer. Scarry!

Everyone is repeating things that have been proven to be lies about Kerry's war time activities. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. People who hate don't care about truth. People who disagree with people who hate are subjected to a personal destruction of their own. George Bush the First did this in his campaign. George the Second is now doing it and getting away with it. The political commentators, news media, and the populace don't care, they just want entertainment. This country is going to get the leadership and government it deserves.