I know, I know — the fashionable thing to do these days is to snipe about the SwiftVets. And, for the record, I’m still doing the “impossible“: thinking the SwiftVets are lying scum (more on that from the New York Times and Kevin Drum*) while simultaneously believing that Kerry has done more than his fair share of “embellishing” for political gain. I realize that the traditional approach to these things is to choose a side and then figure out the facts. Call me eccentric (or Ishmael, as may please you).
All this aside, it does seem that the blogosphere is strangely silent about the continuing fighting in Najaf. Doubtless, this is partially because we’ve been here before: Marines medothodically tearing apart the Mahdi army; check. Mahdi army using religious shrine as cover; check. Doubts ’bout whether we will (or be permitted to) finish the job; check.
This time, though, is different. This time is probably the last time that U.S. forces will have the opportunity to confront Sadr and the Mahdi army directly. This is the last time that we’ll have a chance to win this particular fight. It’s critically important that we do in fact win — completely, utterly, and without conditions. Sadr is a threat (whether he’s a greater threat because of our own bungling I’ll leave to others to debate) not only to the potential for Iraqi democracy, but to the stability of Iraq itself. So long as Sadr remains, he will be a rallying point for the central government’s enemies.
He must be removed — imprisoned or killed. His troops must be killed or stripped of the will to fight. There can only be one king.
UPDATE: Talk about missing the firefight for the boat.
Much of the commentary is SwiftVet-focused. Yes, it is endlessly fascinating to debate whether Kerry’s “vivid” recollection of being in Cambodia on Xmas day is accurate.** I mean, the Vietnam War is only thirty years old. There’s yet time to win it.
But, really, this illustrates my point. (Alternatively, it illustrates that I failed to effectively communicate my point.) Everyone is working themselves into a lather over the SwiftVets. In so doing, they’re ignoring the fact that there’s a crucial battle going on, right now, in Najaf. That battle could very well determine whether Iraq succeeds as a nation state. The very success of our mission is tetering on the brink. No one wants to discuss it. (And I don’t mean success in the “build a shining democracy on the Mesopotamian Hill” kinda way; I mean success in the “prevent Iraq from sliding into anarchy and three decades of civil war” kinda way.)
von
*By the way, (1) Drum’s not been among the “snipes” (lest I be misunderstood) and (2) I’m with Drum in thinking that the SwiftVet story is about to turn on Bush (Harley of Tacitus.org has also remarked on this). Bush should’ve expressly denounced the ad in the same way that Kerry expressly denounced the much-milder Moveon.org ad. Yeah, yeah, I know Bush is trying to make a point regarding 527 money in general — albeit a point that appears frightening wrongheaded in its implications (as Eugene Volokh notes). Still, he’s been stuck in lawyerly locutions on the subject for nearly a week; even I, a lawyer, am getting tired of hearing them.
**I can’t resist violating my own advice (I’m a weakling): The river Kerry was supposedly on while “on” or “near” Cambodia on Xmas day is not, in fact, on or near the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Kerry’s vivid memory is an embellishment — at the very least. Yes, politicians do these kinds of things.
von, your post has been doubled.
“I’m still doing the “impossible””
It can’t be that impossible, since everyone I’ve talked to is on board. I wouldn’t confuse peoples’ true (or maybe ‘nuanced’) feelings, with those that they stress when they make public comments. I wish they were the same, but people tend to get punished for nuance, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. The difference is also responsible for the sideshow that is political journalism, since if you take Tucker Carlson or Moore aside they say very reasonable and evenhanded things, but in front of the camera they have to play the part.
In other news:
What a weird context for he-said, she-said.
“I’m with Drum in thinking that the SwiftVet story is about to turn on Bush”
Seen the extended NY Times contribution, with convenient infographic detailing the ties between Bush and the ad’s backers? Yowza.
The Democrats will inevitably go too far and hamstring their argument by overselling it, but it’s nice to see that crap like the SwiftVet ad isn’t being rewarded anymore. Maybe the era of Atwater is coming to a close. Which would be something I think we could all celebrate.
“Call me eccentric (or Ishmael, as may please you).”
Nah, just unduly self congratulatory. Moderates sometimes choose “a pox on both your houses” as their side in advance and then wait for the facts. I don’t know how else to explain even considering not voting in this year’s presidential race.
But you’re quite right: Najaf is more important. I don’t really know what we should do, though, nor can I figure out what’s going on. Spencer Ackerman is doing very good stuff, and as always Juan Cole is worth reading.
Unfortunately I think Kerry had to respond instead of high-mindedly sticking to the issues*. This stuff works. It worked on McCain, worked on Dukakis, it will work on Kerry if he doesn’t hit back. Yesterday was a start but it’s not enough.
*or IS IT highminded? I saw a CNN report yesterday to the effect that “sticking to the issues” was a cynical campaign ploy by Kerry because he polls better than Bush on almost every issue whereas Bush still scores higher on some vague “character questions”. Sheesh.
“I saw a CNN report yesterday to the effect that “sticking to the issues” was a cynical campaign ploy by Kerry”
We’ve reached the point where trying to win the election is a cynical campaign ploy. I wish I could remember where. . I think it was on red-state. . but I read somewhere yesterday that Kerry was nefariously trying to influence voters so he could win the election. Worth a belly-laugh.
von writes:
Since I take it you’ve figured out the facts and chosen a side (or rather a viewpoint), what’s “a fair share” and what’s the evidence for Kerry’s, uhh, excessiveness?
Thanks, Dave.
“I’m still doing the “impossible””
Thus, the “quotes.” I’m a post-modern, self-conscious “Holier than thou” blogosperian. (IOW, I’m not so seriously self-righteous as I may appear.)
Moderates sometimes choose “a pox on both your houses” as their side in advance and then wait for the facts.
Umm, no. Read the “impossible” link. I came out pretty strongly against the SwiftVets from day one.
what’s “a fair share” and what’s the evidence for Kerry’s, uhh, excessiveness?
Let’s start with Chirstmastime in Cambodia . . . .
I’ve read the NYT article and lurked over at Drum. The Swiftvet agruments are pretty strong. Pretty weak dispersions from Kerry’s water boys. Kerry’s not the man. Kerry cannot be the man.
“The Swiftvet agruments are pretty strong.”
Argument-by-assertion is not.
What is “christmastime” really?
Walmart starts pushing Christmas in late Oct./early Nov. My Christmas break this year will reach all the way to January 3.
Stick with “Christmas in Cambodia”.
The Dead Kennedys had a song released in 1980 called “Holiday in Cambodia”
maybe Kerry was a fan amd got confused a little.
“It’s time to taste what you most fear
Right guard will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear¡
It’s a holiday in cambodia
It’s tough, kid, but it’s life
It’s a holiday in cambodia”
Straddling
STRADDLING….Over at Obsidian Wings, von complains that:…he’s been stuck in lawyerly locutions on the subject for nearly a week; even I, a lawyer, am getting tired of hearing them.Funny, though, it’s not John Kerry that he’s talking about….
Straddling
STRADDLING….Over at Obsidian Wings, von complains that:…he’s been stuck in lawyerly locutions on the subject for nearly a week; even I, a lawyer, am getting tired of hearing them.Funny thing, though: it’s not John Kerry that he’s talking about. It’…
“Let’s start with Chirstmastime in Cambodia . . . .”
Ok, let’s start.
From the LA Times:
But two of Kerry’s crewmates — Wasser and Zaladonis — both told The Times the boat was in the vicinity of the Cambodian border and even fought an engagement with a Viet Cong sampan on Christmas Eve day.
“We patrolled a river on the border,” Zaladonis said last week. “Unless I’m out of my mind or mistaken, that river was part of the border.”
There are no after-action reports that pinpoint where Kerry’s boat was in late December 1968. But a file from Navy archives in Washington obtained by The Times provides support for both sides.
An entry in a monthly summary of engagements for December 1968 reports that on Christmas Eve, “PCF-44 fired on junk on beach. Results: 1 sampan destroyed.”
The entry was made by then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, the overall commander of Swift boats and now one of Kerry’s most vocal critics. There is no written location for the engagement, but it contains a coordinate used by the military to plot locations. The coordinate points to an area about 40 to 50 miles south of the Cambodian border, near an island called Sa Dec.
The entry also notes that the incident took place about 7 a.m., which would have given Kerry’s boat another 12 hours to make it to the Cambodian border by nightfall. At a cruising speed of 23 knots, the boat could have covered the distance in about two hours.
This would be consistent with the contention of Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan that Kerry was in Sa Dec but reached the Cambodian border later the same day.
What do you have?
Maybe the era of Atwater is coming to a close.
And the era of Mickey Moore and Moveon is ascending? Sidereal is that what you are saying?
As for Kerry vs the Swifties, the second ad is working its way to the cable news shows. The current score is Swifties 2 Kerry 1. The trend line still favors the Swifties, because when you are the last man standing and can’t hold a press conference to discuss the topic, you’ve got problems which aren’t going to go away.
One of the commenters on the blog formerly known as Calpundit thought that, as the lunar new year is a bigger deal than Christmas in Vietnam, that Kerry’s recollection of S. Vietamese firing their guns in the air might have been during the Lunar New Year.
That would put Kerry’s time in Cambodia to February 1969.
What do people think?
Timmy
You think the winner is going to be the one who puts out the most commercials?
Ha ha ha
I think credibility may have something to do with it but then again some folks may still be waiting for Kerry to have a press conference about that intern Drudge reported on a number of months back.
Tom
New Year’s celebrations are certainly huge in Asia.
“And the era of Mickey Moore”
His name’s Michael. I don’t particularly like him, but I grew out of schoolyard nicknames. To the point, a) I haven’t seen F911 and likely won’t, so I can’t comment expertly, b) from what I’ve read, the effective parts of his diatribe are factually correct, so there’s no equivalence, and c) in the end, I agree. I hope for a future with fewer Fahrenheit 9/11s.
“and Moveon is ascending?”
I hope so. I think Moveon is great. Don’t you? I’ve only seen one (I think) of their ads. It was about how our kids are going to have to end up paying off the Bush tax cuts. It won their contest. Very compelling. Good politics. I hope you’re not trying to bring that ‘Hitler ad’ garbage. Surely you know it was submitted to their site by some loon and they deleted it shortly thereafter.
“As for Kerry vs the Swifties, the second ad is working its way to the cable news shows. The current score is Swifties 2 Kerry 1.”
Is the actual veracity of their claims any part of the score, or just their chance of bringing electoral results? If you’re still enthused, maybe I was premature about the era of Atwater. Maybe we’re stuck with it.
What do people think?
I think that only the future is certain—the past is changing.
I don’t know why I read through blog comments sometimes. It might be easier to have bamboo skewers shoved under my fingernails….but I digress. What’s worse, I’m actually writing one after having read them so I am officially contributing to the delinquency.
In regard to the Swift Boat stuff…their stories are completely unraveling. Many of the guys now criticizing Kerry have lavished praise on him, some as late as last year. Elliot (the Silver Star guy) has changed his story twice and now he refuses to give interviews. Turlow appeared last evening on Hardball and admitted he had no evidence to back up what he’s been saying. The doctor who claims Kerry didn’t deserve his first Purple Heart, his name never appears anywhere on Kerry’s medical paperwork for the injury. This stuff just goes on and on an on. In terms of cred, the SBV are bone dry.
Bush won’t distance himself from these guys, either. It’s obvious to all but the most naive observer that Rove’s fingerprints are all over this. It’s a pattern…Willie Horton, McCain and the push polls, Cleland and Vietnam..it’s what they do.
Kerry has to respond to it. If he doesn’t, he loses. Period.
What I’m curious about is why Kerry is holding back on the rightwing tongue wagging regarding Kerry’s vote on the Iraq Resolution and the alledged “flip-flop” of positions. Kerry’s been consistent on his position from the outset…and by any above 100 IQ reading of the resolution, Bush invaded and occupied Iraq outside the authorization of the resolution.
“I’m still doing the “impossible”: thinking the SwiftVets are lying scum while simultaneously believing that Kerry has done more than his fair share of ’embellishing’ for political gain.I realize that the traditional approach to these things is to choose a side and then figure out the facts. Call me eccentric (or Ishmael, as may please you).”
I’m sorry, this is a complete load of crap. The reason the Swift Vets are so effective is that no matter how BS it is, the media and everyone else, in order to feel “impartial” and “nonpartisan”, unthinkingly just cuts the difference, no matter how scant or nonexistent the evidence. The result is always exactly the one you’ve come up with, which is to say Kerry must have embellished and the truth is somewhere in the middle. “Clinton killed Vince Foster!” Well, maybe he only drove him to suicide. See how open minded I am! You’re not original in the slightest.
To be fair, I suppose you’ll now have to always refer to Kerry’s “alleged” medals earned when “he claims” to have come under fire, and “supposedly” saved one of his crew mates.
How fair of you! How balanced! Yeah, right. LIke a FOX.
Speaking of Najaf, check this out.
Pretty wild stuff.
Is the actual veracity of their claims any part of the score, or just their chance of bringing electoral results?
With regards to the Swifties, I was thinking of Kerry’s own changes to his stories (Cambodia at Christmas and 13 March)
Regarding Cambodia, it occurred to me that people often leave Christmas decorations around well after Christmas Day, depending on how lazy they are. Sometimes well into January.
I could see some military people setting up a small Charlie Brown-style Xmas tree and hanging some empty beer cans and spent brass off of it, then leaving it up for weeks.
Anyhow, I think that sort of thing could mix up a person’s memory and make it hard to place an event.
I think Moveon is great.
I thought soft money was evil!
I could see some military people setting up a small Charlie Brown-style Xmas tree
I heard there was a great Xmas tree lot five miles into Cambodia. But wait there is more, now we have Kerry, according to Doug, ferrying in Seal, CIA and Green Berets. What I find curious is why the Seals would use Swifties, when they had their own boats?
I don’t care much about the silly SwiftVet thingee, but don’t use: “‘We patrolled a river on the border,’ Zaladonis said last week. ‘Unless I’m out of my mind or mistaken, that river was part of the border.'” as a refutation. The river factually is not part of the border. He was mistaken.
As far as Sadr goes, we need to kill him or imprison him at this point. Otherwise he will just keep stirring up bloody revolution until he wins and installs and Islamist state.
Dylan has the right of it. Balanced and fair?? Embelished.
Lets get back to the facts. Kerry was in Vietnam. Bush was in the Guard, thanks to connections. Kerry got shot at. Bush failed to show up for his flight physical and DID NOT fly for the full six years of his committment.
The Swift Vets are upset at Kerry because he came home and was active in the antiwar movement. Fair enough. A valid difference of opinion.
But using that difference as a basis of a smear job is not fair. And allowing the smear to continue with his blessing tells me all I need to know about the character of George Bush.
Kerry is now suing the Swifters.
The truth will out. If the Smear Boat Veterans for Rove still haven’t been publicly denounced by Bush at the time of the first Presidential debate, this should make for some very interesting mano a mano exchanges.
It will be impossible for Bush to keep his own military record out of the argument, and it’s a much different comparison in that context: a huge embarassment as the AWOL scab is ripped off again. Kerry’ll ask why Bush’s records still haven’t been released, while Kerry has posted every evaluation ever received from every commanding officer (including Thurlow) on his web page and they’re all, every single one, loaded with effusive praise?
Glass houses, stones? Bush will get eaten alive if he allows this, and surely his campaign knows it. Expect for it to have been abandoned by the Rovians by then. The question then will be, will Kerry agree to stop talking about it, or can they fight off the Kerry counterattack?
Hey, look over there… Missile defense! Gay marriage! Watch this drive!
I saw on PBS last night that the Swifters have been offering this same tripe to any willing takers since 1984. If their charges were true, wouldn’t some news agency of some repute have dug into it and found enough evidence to verify it by now?
I don’t care much about the silly SwiftVet thingee
Cut the crap, Sebastian. It’s a pack of liars paid by members of the Bush gang to go out and spread their slime. And you know it.
What do you mean, you don’t care much? These are your people. They’re not some fringe nutcases. But you’re not interested. Rather talk about Christmas in Cambodia, would you? That’s convenient.
As for me, I’m still waiting and seeing. I think Kerry can end the waiting by signing that pesky form 180, and releasing all of his records to whatever newspapers are interested.
After all, that’d be the fair and balanced thing to do.
And you know it.
Personal foul mind-reading. Mandatory ejection.
Kerry is now suing the Swifters.
Is he? Excellent. That should make for some good headlines in October.
Bush has really missed the boat on this one: if he denounces the Swifters now, he’s obviously scrabbling to catch up. But if he doesn’t, he can’t afford to debate Kerry – melior’s dead right.
Personal foul mind-reading. Mandatory ejection.
Slarti, either Sebastian knows that the Swifters are a pack of liars (paid by a Republican from Texas, last I heard, which is close enough to “the Bush gang”) or else he’s functionally illiterate. Since I will not believe that Sebastian is the latter, it’s a reasonable enough deduction that he does know the Swifters are a pack of liars. It’s not like this is a questionable issue.
As for me, I’m still waiting and seeing. I think Kerry can end the waiting by signing that pesky form 180, and releasing all of his records to whatever newspapers are interested.
Why should he? All Kerry’s military records are up on his website. (His medical records aren’t, but medical records are private in a way that military records aren’t.)
Can’t recall, Slarti: were you advocating that Bush “put an end” to the AWOL story by signing that pesky form 180 and releasing all of his records? Which Bush still hasn’t done… If not, why not?
I think Bush has done this just right, Jesurgislac. He’s pretty much said that he’s got as much control over the SwiftVets as Kerry’s exerting over MoveOn, i.e. none.
Slarti, either Sebastian knows that the Swifters are a pack of liars (paid by a Republican from Texas, last I heard, which is close enough to “the Bush gang”) or else he’s functionally illiterate.
Wow. NO middle ground? More [ahem] moderate thinkers would tend to wait for all the information to come out before making such a statement, but what the hell: you go, boy.
Which Bush still hasn’t done
He hasn’t? Show me.
“I thought soft money was evil!”
Yeah, you and Scott McC. Crazy, the both of you.
Changing the subject from how much a load of slander the ad is to who paid for it isn’t a bad play, though.
“As for me, I’m still waiting and seeing. I think Kerry can end the waiting by signing that pesky form 180, and releasing all of his records to whatever newspapers are interested.
“After all, that’d be the fair and balanced thing to do.” — Slartibartfast
Uh, Kerry’s records have been released and can be found on his web site here.
Wow. NO middle ground? More [ahem] moderate thinkers would tend to wait for all the information to come out before making such a statement, but what the hell: you go, boy.
Eh… middle ground. When thus far the Swifters have provided no solid evidence to back up their accusations, and their accusations directly contradict the contemporary documentary record, and every piece of independent evidence that’s surfaced since shows that they’re lying… I’m not sure that clinging to the middle ground actually shows you in any better light than those who persistently claimed there was no real evidence that the atrocities in Abu Ghraib were nothing but a frat-boy prank. At some point you have to decide whether you really want to stand back and be neutral about this kind of defamation.
He hasn’t? Show me.
Er… Slarti, do you really want me to link to all the
Bush sites on the Internet to show that on none of them has Bush provided his full military records?
That does appear to be what you’re asking for.
I’ll make a more reasonable request: If you’re asserting that Bush has provided his full military records online, for the period between May 27, 1968 and October 1, 1973, please, link to it. Or admit that it just isn’t there.
very glad to hear there’s no connection between Bushco and the Swift Vets. oops, what’s that noise coming from Florida?
http://atrios.blogspot.com/
Slart:”He’s pretty much said that he’s got as much control over the SwiftVets as Kerry’s exerting over MoveOn, i.e. none.”
Check out the latest at Atrios:
At least he could address the issue directly, as Kerry addressed the recent MoveOn ad.
It’s not even “soft money”. Soft money is donations directly to the DNC and RNC. These are “independent expenditures”.
If a newspaper prints a pack of slanderous lies, the problem is with slanderous lies, not with newspapers. You cannot ban 527s constitutionally and Bush damn well knows it. Maybe you could require more disclosure about their donors. That would be just fine with me. But that’s not the issue.
What MoveOn needs to understand, though, is that these days ads’ main function is to drive free media and define the debate. It can focus group as well as you like, but if it doesn’t contain any new information or charges it won’t make the evening news. Some liberal group needs to buy an ad that makes specific, accurate, factual charges about Bush’s human rights record.
And at least Sebastian and Moe have done nothing to actively promote this story. The list of right-of-center bloggers I can respect is dwindling fast these days.
Updated in response to comments.
Heck, I thought I was doing a half-decent job of covering the Najaf standoff, including being the first (only?) blog to note the significance of al-Sadr offering to turn the shrine over to senior clerics last weekend.
But if even readers like carla and praktike won’t defend my honor, I guess there’s no hope. 🙂
The thing is, I have no f***** chance to influence what happens in Najaf, and unfortunately these idiot campaign commercials are much more likely to influence the election than what happens in Najaf. And the way to have elections decided on what happens in Najaf instead of slanderous campaign commercials is not for the slandered parties not to defend themselves.
Not only politicians embellish their memories. My close family members and I have contradictory memories of things that happened not five years ago, and I bet you do too.
“Updated in response to comments.”
From above:
This would be consistent with the contention of Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan that Kerry was in Sa Dec but reached the Cambodian border later the same day.
I suspect you’ve reached a conclusion that pleases you, independent of the available data. Yes, bloggers do these kinds of things. (So do commentators, but as yet I’ve seen no evidence that in any way rules out Kerry being on the border that xmas day, or for that matter being in Cambodia near enough to xmas day to make it ludicrous to expect his memories to be perfectly accurate at a remove of years.) And the original contention of yours that I challenged is, as far as I can tell, hardly supported by this one instance whatever the truth of this particular issue. I recommend you at least retract it and substitute a Slartibartian pause.
Rilkefan, “consistent with” and “actually happened” are two different things. But I’ll grant that I’m as amendable to casting a jaundiced eye to the facts as anyone else. As are you (as I’m sure you’ll concede).
My close family members and I have contradictory memories of things that happened not five years ago, and I bet you do too.
I’ll gladly grant you that honest eyewitnesses can make mistakes — and even critical ones.
Heads they win…
The fighting in Najaf is really a ball-buster for Bush
von, you said Kerry exaggerates more than the usual politician. So far as I know your case rests on events about which neither of us can judge the truth – Kerry might have been there and he said (once many years ago and once in 1986) that he was.
Of course you’re a more dispassionate observer on this than I am, but I’m supposedly a trained observer and as far as I can tell you’ve got no reasonable basis for your opinion.
Why do I care passionately about this? See the 2000 Election and read The Daily Howler. (Also you seem like a smart good guy and it pains me for you to be in error. [Though Sebastian seems like a smart good guy too and oddly the same doesn’t apply.])
Check out the latest at Atrios:
Lovely. Excerpt, no link.
Bush sites on the Internet to show that on none of them has Bush provided his full military records?
I await with bated breath the proof that Bush hasn’t released his records.
Proof, mind you. Not some rant on DU. Come on, I know you can do it.
me: “Check out the latest at Atrios”
Slart: Lovely. Excerpt, no link.
To save you valuable googling time…
That’s it? That’s your evidence? That some pro-Bush groups are actually rallying together?
Dunno about how you folks on the Left work, but some cooperation with Alachua County Republican Party doesn’t point strongly toward a party-wide conspiracy.
Pretty weak. Wow. 35,000 entire Republicans.
The flyer is thin gruel.
Apparently the Kerry campaign isn’t optimistic about enough people being able to google ‘Spaeth’.
Sure, the stuff in Florida and Minn. isn’t much (though perhaps there’s more), and the web of connections between the ad people and Bush’s people up at the NYTimes is just circumstancial – but it would be nice if Bush would, as his spokesman said he could, turn it off (though not if involves the 1st Amendment violation Bush recently spoke in favor of).
swopa:
You’re a kick ass Najaf writer, you can leap tall buildings in a single bound…and quit looking at me with that x-ray vision, dammit.
**I can’t resist violating my own advice (I’m a weakling): The river Kerry was supposedly on while “on” or “near” Cambodia on Xmas day is not, in fact, on or near the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Kerry’s vivid memory is an embellishment — at the very least. Yes, politicians do these kinds of things.
Are you sure? Kerry headed north up the Cho Chien to the junction with the My Tho, which is only miles from the border on X-mas Eve…
Dunno about how you folks on the Left work, but some cooperation with Alachua County Republican Party doesn’t point strongly toward a party-wide conspiracy.
It’s not the Alchua County Republican Party, it’s Alachua Bush/Cheney Committee. And this particular point isn’t about conpiracy, it’s about direct support by the President’s campaign. Surely the good folks in Alachua wouldn’t have gone ahead with this if it was against Bush’s wishes.
And you know it.
Intended to express my opinion that Sebastian is a reasonably intelligent and well-informed individual.
The evidence against the Swift Boat Scumbags for Bush is overwhelming.
If their charges were true, wouldn’t some news agency of some repute have dug into it and found enough evidence to verify it by now
Actually no Edward, next question.
“No one wants to discuss it.”
I declined to respond to this the first time, but since you’re repeating it: I’m not “discussing it” (or posting about it), because it would be pointless. No one particularly knows what’s going on in Najaf, and what will happen will happen, and nothing any of us says will have the faintest effect on anything.
So why on earth waste breath or finger strength? What possible point would there be to it? What do you want out of such “discussion,” von? To know that we care?
Okay: I care.
I’m now finished with my exhaustive discussion of Najaf until I see how it settles out.
If their charges were true, wouldn’t some news agency of some repute have dug into it and found enough evidence to verify it by now
Actually no Edward, next question.
You have such little faith in Fox?
Regarding Posted by: wilfred | August 20, 2004 06:31 PM, I’d like to note that whatever anyone is ever arguing about, unless one is referring to a single-post “weblog,” citing an entire blog as a source for anything specific is about as useful as citing “the library” or “Encyclopedia Britannica, somewhere,” or, perhaps, “look on the internet!”
Permalinks were invented for a reason. I cite “http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com” for the post that explains why. You can find the post for yourselves.
Hey, I’ve written about Najaf! Conclusion: Really fluid, and Sadr cannot be trusted.
On to Kerry in Cambodia.
(1) His “Christmas in Cambodia” was completed debunked, despite his claiming that it was seared — seared! — into his memory.
(2) Kerry claims that he went into Cambodia in January or February 1969. Problem is, none of his boatmates (that is the coin of the realm, right?) will back him up. None of his command has stepped up and confirmed it. Kerry has not released all of his military records, so there’s no documentation available of him entering Cambodia. His December 1968 and January 1969 records are not available.
(3) Kerry’s biographer claimed in the Telegraph that Kerry was in Cambodia a few times some time after Christmas 1968, but where did he get that information? Kerry? His diary? After action reports? We don’t know. Brinkley is selling a book but he’s jumped into the media cone of silence, which is highly unusual behavior.
(4) It’s been pretty well established that those entering Cambodia did not use swift boats to make incursions.
These questions will remain nagging until Kerry steps up and answers them. Kerry made his time in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign. He said “bring it on”, well, it is on. The first thing he should do is release all of his records. If he can’t back up his Cambodia stories with witnesses or documentation, then he should just say so. Brinkley needs to break his self-imposed media silence. His credibility as a presidential historian is on the line.
gary, since post was the entire first column of that web address, thought it would be ok. but seeing as how you’ve jumped on my first post back in a week after the last thread we were on together, i’m sure that was just your way of saying welcome 🙂
“I await with bated breath the proof that Bush hasn’t released his records.”
As a rule, asking someone to prove a negative isn’t reasonable, Slart. If you wish to affirm such a fact, on the other hand, it would be easy enough for you to do so.
Bernard Yomtov: “The evidence against the Swift Boat Scumbags for Bush is overwhelming.”
That may be, but I’ll note that your calling them names isn’t an argument. As a rule, I tend to assume that when people rant with name-calling it is because they are unable or unwilling to muster facts. I may be the only person who thinks that way, of course. You may or may not wish to take that into account in your efforts at persuading others.
Bird Dog sucks, oh wait wrong site.
You have such little faith in Fox?
Oh ye of little faith, Fox gets no credit for breaking this story as compared to WaPo, which is my bet. Wasn’t there a journalist who said they were all in the bag for Kerry? I believe the answer is yes, never the less this story isn’t goint to die.
Welcome, Wilfred!
“gary, since post was the entire first column of that web address, thought it would be ok.”
Could you try that again? I can’t make sense of it.
Bird Dog: “(4) It’s been pretty well established that those entering Cambodia did not use swift boats to make incursions.”
Cite, please?
Adding to BD’s comment:
(5) Kerry’s claims of having been running guns and CIA agents into Cambodia seem … well, unlikely to have happened, given how little time Kerry spent in the country. Surely a more experienced skipper, familiar with the waters, would have been chosen.
“Kerry’s vivid memory is an embellishment — at the very least. Yes, politicians do these kinds of things.”
I gather from these statements that you have never been fishing.
Bird Dog: “(1)…”
Cite, please?
As a rule, asking someone to prove a negative isn’t reasonable, Slart.
I’m not, as a rule, a reasonable guy. But: the idea that no Bush sites have linked to the complete record proves something, somehow is even more silly than the idea that Kerry’s site has his complete military record up.
Just sayin’, is all.
Gary…you do seem to pick on wilfred with little to no obvious reason. Others had already linked to the particular story by the time you noted your criticism, so it was mute by then, unless you’re auditioning for Chief of the html Police. ; )
As for Kerry in Vietnam…why is it the same people who applauded me when I wrote repeatedly that those charged with atrocities under the fog of war in Iraq should be given every benefit of doubt, given what a tough job it must be to operate under such conditions, are the same people now jumping to doubt Kerry’s side of the story? The same people pouring through the details of these allegations, drooling to find some morsel of contradiction to sink their fangs into? Gleefully pointing out what they feel is an inconsistency with a report?
Could it be unchecked partisanship????
Really, the double standard is a bit obnoxious.
OH…yeah…on Najaf.
It’s a tricky one. Clearly if Sadr died in his sleep nearly everyone would be better off here. But he’s a political force to be reckoned with now due to a series of miscalculations on Bremer’s/Rumsfeld’s parts. Kill him now and he’s a dangerous martyr symbol (and if you think the Iranians won’t ensure that, you’re not paying attention); let him live and he’ll grab enough power to be a constant thorn in Allawi’s/our side.
The trick now IMHO is to get Sistani to curb him. To convince Sistani it’s in his/his people’s best interest to lean on the young pup and make him fall in line. This will undoubtedly include offering him a significant place at the table, but that’s more or less a forgone conclusion now, so it might as well look like Allawi’s idea.
Or, I could be full of $%#!
Probably the latter.
Could it be unchecked partisanship????
Edward, you can probably spot it better than I can given the ABB thread which is driving your side.
As for Sadr, take away the Iranian money, and you have another guy who didn’t make it to cleric.
Edward,
Kerry *invited* people to scrutinize his record, so don’t fault people for accepting his offer.
Furthermore, isn’t scrutinity warranted given that
his statements on Vietnam are contradictory at best (I’m a hero and a war criminal), falsehoods at worst (Christmas in Cambodia; the 1971 testimony and the Winter Soldier stuff), with plenty of implausible stuff in-between (gun-running and transporting hatless CIA officers across the border)? Not to mention that his freelance diplomacy in Paris was almost certainly illegal.
And isn’t it of some importance to try to find out what, if anything, Kerry has learned from Vietnam? Will he, for example, cut and run from Iraq, just as he advocated cutting and running from Vietnam?
“Gary…you do seem to pick on wilfred with little to no obvious reason.”
Oh, please. How many blunt remarks have I made here today? Or in the last three days? Or generally? How many are directed at wilfred? Do I treat wilfred in some out-of-character way that is different from the way I generally comment? Was I just “picking on” wilfred in some way different from my comment to Slarti or Bernard Yomtov or Bird Dog? Did I make any personal remark in any way?
If not, wtf are you talking about?
The only thing I have against wilfred is that wilfred rarely writes an actual sentence, and as a result I often find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand what he is trying to say. This is a factor that is easily remedied by wilfred. (I heartily commend this to wilfred, and all; take it to heart! Please! For the love of god!)
What else might I have against wilfred?
It may or may not have crossed your attention, Edward, that I am a great deal more prejudiced against people who cannot argue well, fairly, and logically, or cannot express themselves coherently, or who are too lazy to bother to try to be coherent, thus putting the work onto us readers, than I am prejudiced against people with whom I merely have political disagreements.
I have far more respect for people who think clearly and express themselves clearly than I have for people who agree with me, but through an illogical or foolish process. After all, I may be wrong, and I’d rather have my ideas well-challenged, and learn that I am wrong (I benefit!), than be allied with an idiot (I do not benefit!).
“Really, the double standard is a bit obnoxious.”
Double standards always are, aren’t they?
How many blunt remarks have I made here today? Or in the last three days?
Gary is, and I mean this in the friendliest way possible, an equal-opportunity bludgeon.
“Not to mention that his freelance diplomacy in Paris was almost certainly illegal.”
Shouldn’t we try Henry Kissinger first?
Was Kissinger in the Navy Reserves?
(1) His “Christmas in Cambodia” was completed debunked, despite his claiming that it was seared — seared! — into his memory.
I’m not entirely convinced. See my comment at Washington Monthly.
(2) Kerry claims that he went into Cambodia in January or February 1969. Problem is, none of his boatmates (that is the coin of the realm, right?) will back him up. None of his command has stepped up and confirmed it. Kerry has not released all of his military records, so there’s no documentation available of him entering Cambodia. His December 1968 and January 1969 records are not available.
Kinda like nobody has stepped up to confirm Bush served in Alabama. Yet Kerry’s spot reports to seem to indicate SEAL and PsyOp involvement, and given the location of his Swift, incursions into Cambodia are more than likely. Alas, as we learn in Kerry’s biog (page 190):
John Kerry’s war journals about his command of PCF-44 may provide the best documentation of the activities of any Swift boat in Vietnam. Some thirty-five hundred American sailors served on Swifts during the Vietnam War, but what each of them did cannot be ascertained, as no deck logs were kept on the boats…The absence of a thorough official paper trail on the Swifts helps explain why so little has been written on the riverine war in Vietnam. The details of what particular boats did and how individual sailors performed come largely from oral-history recollections and travel orders. Fortunately for the posterity of PCF-44, Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry kept his own records…
So it’s unlikely that there’s any documentation (hey, at least nobody’s claiming it was “inadvertantly destroyed”) of his operations, beyond his spot reports and journal entries. Given that he was in command of his Swift, it’s also unlikely that any of his crew would even know their position.
(3) Kerry’s biographer claimed in the Telegraph that Kerry was in Cambodia a few times some time after Christmas 1968, but where did he get that information? Kerry? His diary? After action reports? We don’t know. Brinkley is selling a book but he’s jumped into the media cone of silence, which is highly unusual behavior.
See above.
(4) It’s been pretty well established that those entering Cambodia did not use swift boats to make incursions.
Sources? Operation SEALORDS seems to have used Swifts to bring inderdiction efforts into Cambodia.
Timmy,
“As for Sadr, take away the Iranian money, and you have another guy who didn’t make it to cleric.”
Do you have a site for that theory. I think many right-wingers were making the same accusations about Sistani, especially when he kept pushing for early elections, the n when Sadr became an issue, in April, Sistani became a beacon of moderation.
I think the Iranians are supporting ALL Shia groups (from Sistani to Sadr to Shalabi to Alawi, yes even our thugs end up giving mad respect to the mad mullahs of Iran)
As for Sadr, take away the Iranian money, and you have another guy who didn’t make it to cleric.
Well, you’ve also got the fact that he’s a Sayyid or whatever and a son of a revered family.
As for Sadr, take away the Iranian money, and you have another guy who didn’t make it to cleric.
Well, you’ve also got the fact that he’s a Sayyid or whatever and a son of a revered family.
Bird Dog writes:
(4) It’s been pretty well established that those entering Cambodia did not use swift boats to make incursions.
While Cambodia was in theory “off-limits to US troops”, in point of fact Admiral Zumwalt (Commander U.S. Navy Forces, Vietnam) had already awarded a Silver Star to Swift Boat skipper Mike Bernique for taking his boat into Cambodian waters to fight Viet Cong — in October 1968. That same month, Zumwalt implemented Operation SEALORDS, which involved incursions into Cambodia, in which Swift Boat crews participated.
This blog entry quotes Admiral Zumwalt and his son, from their joint biography, My Father, My Son:
In short, the claim that US Swift Boats never entered Cambodia is demonstrably historically false.
Corrected link for “taking his boat into Cambodian waters to fight Viet Cong”
I’m with von on the relative importance of the stories.
The Viet Nam dust-up is not completely irrelevant to me, though. That the Pres (and his folks — including Racicot) is working to change the dynamics of the race — as Cook recently said he must — by going massively negative, rather than by talking up an actual agenda for the second term tells me all I need to know about him. Actually, I already knew it from the South Carolina primary race, in 2000. That is that the wrapping in the flag, calls to change tone in Washington, etc etc are posturing, morally exactly equivalent to what Kerry is accused of.
I mean really, as von points out, the dispute over 35 year old facts is not just drowning out talk of Najaf, it’s drowning out any positive message the Pres might be interested in putting out. He, of course, can stop the whole thing with a wave of his hand. And won’t do so, because winning is more important to him than his honor.
On Najaf, I think there’s nothing anyone can say that hasn’t been said repeatedly over the past 3 or 4 months. Stakes are high, situation on the ground ambiguous. Young Sadr may live to fight another day, in which case he surely will. Whether it’s a significant factor in this particular iteration or not, Iranian money will always find some way to play. And why not: the stakes for us in how Iraq turns out, over both short and middle term, are substantial, but for Iran an order of magnitude more so.
The trouble is figuring out exactly what they are trying to get. I can see how Iran might prefer a weak but democratic state to anarchy. But anarchy to a return to Ba’athism. The rulers of Iran are no dummies, and we should expect them to be doing at least as well as we at interpreting and analyzing events, picking sides, etc. I would expect them to have fully developed and nuanced views on whether a theocratic state is possible. And truly desirable, given subtle doctrinal and personal differences. Looking down the road, vast numbers of Iranians are going to be exposed to civil life in Najaf over the years. What would you — sitting in the big chair in Teheran — want these people to be seeing?
Ah…the “Sean Hackbarth” comment above was actually mine. Damned autocomplete.
Kinda like nobody has stepped up to confirm Bush served in Alabama.
Oops. Seems like playing fast and loose with the facts isn’t restricted to the SwiftVets.
Sources? Operation SEALORDS seems to have used Swifts to bring inderdiction efforts into Cambodia.
I don’t believe the argument is that we were never in Cambodia. So if no one’s actually making that argument, I cry strawman. Even if some are, this is not what the SwiftVets are saying.
Slartibartfast writes:
NTodd was replying to Big Dog‘s “It’s been pretty well established that those entering Cambodia did not use swift boats to make incursions.”
If Swift Boats weren’t used to make incursions, then Kerry’s Swift Boat — logically, as a member of the set — likewise wasn’t used to make incursions, thus Kerry’s story could be judged anything from implausible to provably false.
Except that Swift Boats were used to make incursions, as documented above (by Raven at August 21, 2004 04:17 AM), so Kerry’s story is at least plausible on that point.
Some of the Swift Boat Vets for Bush (clearly not “for Truth”) have claimed that “SWIFT boats never went into Cambodian waters.” Steve Gardner went so far as to say that it was a “physical impossibility” for Swift Boats to enter Cambodian waters.
Which means the photograph on the Swift Boat (Patrol Craft Fast) website with this caption could not have been taken:
So Kerry’s accusers have lied on this point, in order to call him a liar.
And it’s not the only point they’ve been caught lying on.
Which helps clarify the question of who’s more credible.
If not, wtf are you talking about?
Gary: I’ll repeat: others had provided the link already, so the point was mute. Even allowing for your penchant for criticizing those who express their ideas in fragments and/or whom you don’t understand, isn’t the overall idea the exchange of ideas? If the idea had been exchanged, which it had, further comment seems unnecessary, no?
But this is threatening to hijack the thread, which is one of the best we’ve ever had (kudos to von), so let me offer another thread on the value of criticism in the blogosphere where we can hash out any differences of opinion in the near future. Promise.
And isn’t it of some importance to try to find out what, if anything, Kerry has learned from Vietnam? Will he, for example, cut and run from Iraq, just as he advocated cutting and running from Vietnam?
Excellent spin Fredrik. Truly top notch. And were we living in a cartoon, where the unjustified deaths of tens of thousands of people were just more fodder for bloggers likes ourselves to beat each other up with, you might win a point or two.
I believe the appropriate question is will Kerry’s Vietnam service teach him to think the way Eisenhower did when he noted: “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.” and that will lead him to not rush to war with piss-poor plans that look much more designed to suit the American election cycle than the task at hand.
Oops. Seems like playing fast and loose with the facts isn’t restricted to the SwiftVets.
Oops, looks like it is:
Calhoun has said he saw Bush 8-10 times between May and October of 1972. (Or was it four to six times?) But as the Washington Post has pointed out, “Calhoun remembers seeing Bush at Dannelly at times in mid-1972 when the White House acknowledges Bush was not pulling Guard duty in Alabama yet; his first drills were in October, according to the White House. White House press secretary Scott McClellan on Friday was at a loss to reconcile the discrepancy…”
Dozens of other pilots have been interviewed and have no recollection of Bush, even those who were aware he was supposed to show up, and were on the lookout for him.
See, when I mean nobody has stepped up to say Bush was in AL, there’s an implied “credibly”. You know, like this person could have possibly seen Bush. When Calhoun’s story first came out, it was riddled with holes almost immediately. Thanks for playing.
I don’t believe the argument is that we were never in Cambodia. So if no one’s actually making that argument, I cry strawman. Even if some are, this is not what the SwiftVets are saying.
Fixing the italics.
On the one side, you have documentary evidence, the contemporaneous word of people who were actually on the scene, the original testimony of at least two Swifties. In re Cambodia, on the one side you have descriptions of the mission by the people who were there, which tallies with reports by people on similar missions, as well as background information of how covert sorties were ordered and carried out.
On the other side you have second- and third-person hearsay and two Swifties who said one thing 35 years ago now saying something else, both of which are directly contradicted by documentary evidence as well as known military procedure at the time of the events in question.
There actually is no question at all about who is lying and who’s telling the truth. By any rational analysis, Kerry’s telling the truth and the Swifties are lying.
Bush partisans believe the lies because they want to. This isn’t a matter of who said what. No amount of dancing around the facts can change the facts. Believing the Swifties means refusing to see, hear or think.
Bush partisans who believe the Swifties have abdicated their own mental integrity in favor of propaganda. They have chosen to mindlessly and loudly repeat the propaganda in order to drown out their fading consciences. They have chosen to ally with, and become pawns of, corrupt and honorless men. They have done so to further the career of a man who is a liar, a coward and a bullying braggart.
They have sold their souls, and didn’t even get a decent price.
Sorry, Officer Farber. Didn’t mean to offend your sensibilities.
I tend to assume that when people rant with name-calling it is because they are unable or unwilling to muster facts. I may be the only person who thinks that way, of course.
I tend to assume that when people claim to be the only ones who are calm rational, informed thinkers that they are more than a little too full of themselves.
Yes, it was an insult, but a deserved one based on facts that are, or should be, known to anyone who wants to discuss this group.
I tend to assume that when people claim to be the only ones who are calm rational, informed thinkers that they are more than a little too full of themselves.
He may be that indeed, but he is also frequently right. I believe this is one of those occasions.
Gary, your disrespect is noted. If you don’t like my style, please ignore me from now on instead of being my personal posting police. Did you ever think that i spoke in a colloquial way to you in the above post was because i considered you to be intelligent and didn’t feel the need to overstate something? Of course not! It’s much easier to call someone lazy and incoherent. And am i to assume you don’t think i argue fairly? If so that’s a cheap shot or were you just venting on everyone you don’t like on blogs at my expense? You have my e-mail address and i would appreciate you using it as opposed to hijacking an otherwise interesting thread.
Fixing the italics.
Yeah, sorry about that messed up tag. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend…
At Hullabaloo Digby apparently finds SBVTer on the Bush campaign staff.
Edward writes (twice): “The point is mute”.
You might change that to “moot” before it raises Gary‘s blood pressure.
Also, re this thread: “which is one of the best we’ve ever had (kudos to von).”
To which I say, huh? Except for Raven’s comment at August 21, 2004 04:17 AM would one lose much by sending this thread, including my basically unanswered critiques of von‘s position on Kerry’s veracity, to /dev/null?
Bush uses Christianity like Kerry uses Vietnam…now you tell me which is yucky!
See, when I mean nobody has stepped up to say Bush was in AL, there’s an implied “credibly”. You know, like this person could have possibly seen Bush. When Calhoun’s story first came out, it was riddled with holes almost immediately. Thanks for playing.
Speaking of credibly, how’s that Christmas in Cambodia thing panning out? So, your point is, this guy misremembering a date on which he saw Bush in Alabama 30 years or so ago automatically means he’s lying, but Kerry’s telling the truth about this memory of Christmas in Cambodia seared into his memory?
Just wondering what degree of objectivity you’re using, here. And thank YOU for playing.
I call strawman because I never said anybody was claiming “we were never in Vietnam”.
And I call strawman because I never said you said we were never in Vietnam. Wow, this is fun. Thanks, again.
BTW, the idea (in link supplied by Raven) that these guys didn’t serve with Kerry is just about the logical equivalent of saying Simeon Rice and Mike Alstott are on different teams. These guys patrol as a group and barrack together. There may be weaknesses in the SwiftVet’s arguments, but this isn’t one of them.
Speaking of credibly, how’s that Christmas in Cambodia thing panning out? So, your point is, this guy misremembering a date on which he saw Bush in Alabama 30 years or so ago automatically means he’s lying, but Kerry’s telling the truth about this memory of Christmas in Cambodia seared into his memory?
Panning out quite nicely, thanks. I don’t feel like rewriting what I posted over at Washington Monthly, so here are a couple permalinks to my comments:
* Sugarplums in Sa Dec on X-mas Eve.
* What exactly was seared?
Thanks again for playing. Your parting gift: my scorn.
So, your point is, this guy misremembering a date on which he saw Bush in Alabama 30 years or so ago automatically means he’s lying, but Kerry’s telling the truth about this memory of Christmas in Cambodia seared into his memory?
No, my point is that when somebody comes out of the woodwork and says something that directly contradicts documentary evidence, as the Swifties and Calhoun have done, they are at best wrong and at worst, liars.
I call strawman because I never said anybody was claiming “we were never in Vietnam”.
And I call strawman because I never said you said we were never in Vietnam. Wow, this is fun. Thanks, again.
Um, this is what you said:
I don’t believe the argument is that we were never in Cambodia. So if no one’s actually making that argument, I cry strawman. Even if some are, this is not what the SwiftVets are saying.
That would certainly imply that you thought I was arguing that the Swifties, et al, were claiming “we were never in Vietnam”. That would, by definition, be a strawman.
BTW, the idea (in link supplied by Raven) that these guys didn’t serve with Kerry is just about the logical equivalent of saying Simeon Rice and Mike Alstott are on different teams. These guys patrol as a group and barrack together. There may be weaknesses in the SwiftVet’s arguments, but this isn’t one of them.
Here’s what David Hackworth has to say about that:
I’ve been in a fair number of battles in my lifetime, first fighting for my country in several hot wars, then covering a dozen conflicts as a correspondent. And I’ve learned that if you can’t see the fight right up close, smell it, hear it and touch it, you can’t possibly bear witness.
This isn’t about people who bunked with Kerry saying he had hygiene problems. The Swifties are claiming that they know without a doubt, despite all records to the contrary, that Kerry is unfit to command because of how he behaved in combat.
Well, since this is getting yuckier, I wonder why the man of faith does not summon the strength of God to just put a stop to this sinfulness…whew, (sounded like my mother there for awhile) anyway:
O’Neil: Kerry under “almost continuous fire” on swift boat
Kerry/O’Neil debate, June 30, 1971
It seems that John O’Neil, the author of “Unfit for Command” and founder of “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”, took part in a debate against John Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show back on June 30, 1971, several years after both of them had returned from Vietnam. Here is the 90-minute audio (15 MB) of that debate along with commentary by RadioInsideScoop host, Mark Levine. The entire debate is worth a listen, but pay special note at about the 58-minute mark when O’Neil states to Kerry in regard to Kerry’s swift boat assignment, “you were receiving almost continuous fire the entire time.” Clearly, a direct contradiction of his current claim that Kerry was not under fire during the incident for which Kerry earned several of his medals. Also note that at no time during the entire debate did O’Neil make any of the claims against Kerry that he is currently making.
Sorry, Mr. O’Neil, but you have outted yourself as a liar.
posted by Benedict Spinoza at 8:44 AM Comment (1)
Slart, what’s your standard here?:
The question was about Bush’s presence somewhere at a particular time – the only supposed witness to come forward so far wasn’t actually in a position to see what he claimed.
Re “strawmen”, I believe you’re mistakenly reading as directed at you the debunking of Bird Dog‘s assertion that Swift Boats weren’t used for incursions into Cambodia.
Re barrack mates, some of the SBVT assertions rely on supposedly first-hand accounts by people who as it turns out weren’t present at the events described. It doesn’t make their testimony worthless in my view, since they were in a position to hear reports and rumors, but it doesn’t help their credibility – which in my view has died the Death of a Thousand Cuts.
Military records support Kerry’s account of Vietnam service (knightridder)
WASHINGTON – Military records back John Kerry’s account of his service in Vietnam and have backed at least two of his accusers into a corner.
Kerry this week was forced to defend himself against accusations by a group of fellow Navy veterans of Vietnam that he was a liar and a coward. The charges were made in a book and in an attack ad that polls show have chipped away at Kerry’s standing with veterans in three critical states – West Virginia, Wisconsin and Ohio.
The long-ago Vietnam War has suddenly become a central issue in the presidential campaign. The attacks by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have called into account Kerry’s conduct during the war, when he volunteered for one of the most dangerous duties – the so-called Brown Water Navy, which regularly penetrated Viet Cong-controlled territory via the maze of waterways in the sodden Mekong Delta.
FactCheck.org
A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry’s former crewmen, and by Navy records.
One of the accusers says he was on another boat “a few yards” away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry’s account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was “launched by people without decency” who are “lying” and “should hang their heads in shame.”
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn’t under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others “in the face of enemy fire” during the same incident.
Navy Commander, Journalist, Backs Kerry on Vietnam
PITTSBURGH (Reuters) – An American journalist who commanded a boat alongside John Kerry in Vietnam broke a 35-year silence on Saturday and defended the Democratic presidential candidate against Republican critics of his military service.
Weighing in on what has become the most bitterly divisive issue of the 2004 campaign for the White House, William Rood of the Chicago Tribune said the tales told by Kerry’s detractors are untrue.
“There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago — three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969,” he wrote in a story that appeared on the newspaper’s Web site on Saturday.
“One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.”
He may be that indeed, but he is also frequently right. I believe this is one of those occasions.
You are mistaken. What I wrote was an insult, yes, but hardly a “rant.” And Farber’s assumption about my abilities is a far greater insult. I suppose that you, like Mr. Farber, imagine that you are always calm, thoughtful, logical, etc. Congratulations on your self-control.
I am not so perfectly self-disciplined, especially when the facts of the subject under discussion are as plain as they are here. The Swift Boat group, whatever oh-so polite name you wish to call them by, are liars. They are part of long Bush family tradition of getting others to do their very dirty work while the Bush’s keep their distance. Their defenders anger me. Those who can view this stuff and question Kerry’s character instead of Bush’s anger me.
Sorry I’m not “mustering facts” in a way that suits you and Farber. The facts are there. They’ve been repeated and linked to over and over. My essential comment was that they are overwhelming. Sorry if my tone bothered you.
While I’m at it I note that Farber likes to give out instructions on grammar also. I suppose you guys have lots of useful advice on how some of us benighted fools can better express ourselves. To quote Teresa, shove it.
a nice attention-grabbing graphic of one of the battles at issue
Military records support Kerry’s account of Vietnam service (knightridder)
Not that it matters, but I’d like to note that this article (which I blogged earlier today) was written by Joe Galloway, who co-authored We Were Soldiers Once…And Young, an excellent book about Ia Drang.
Unconvincing. My scorn right back at you. You’re actually quoting Kerry’s bio as evidence, despite nearly all of his crew saying it’s untrue?
No, my point is that when somebody comes out of the woodwork and says something that directly contradicts documentary evidence, as the Swifties and Calhoun have done, they are at best wrong and at worst, liars.
Again, Kerry’s the only one who ever supported the claim that he was ever in Cambodia. The documented evidence, as you say, consists solely of Kerry’s say-so, against which the say-so of pretty much the rest of his crew stands as…documented evidence?
That would certainly imply that you thought I was arguing that the Swifties, et al, were claiming “we were never in Vietnam”.
I dunno…last I looked Vietnam and Cambodia were two different countries. Maybe things were different back in the ’60s, though.
This isn’t about people who bunked with Kerry saying he had hygiene problems. The Swifties are claiming that they know without a doubt, despite all records to the contrary, that Kerry is unfit to command because of how he behaved in combat.
Oh, my. These guys served on boats that sailed together. This is utter bunk, on your part.
Edward: “I’ll repeat: others had provided the link already, so the point was mute.”
I passed on this the first time, figuring it was a slip of the fingers; but since it appears to be a genuine misunderstanding, I gently suggest the word you are looking for is “moot.”
Myself, I believe they’re both perfectly valid and important questions, and not in the least contradictory. I’d strongly advocate not dismissing either, and I’d apply them both to our current President, as well.
Bernard Yomtov: “I tend to assume that when people claim to be the only ones who are calm rational, informed thinkers that they are more than a little too full of themselves.”
That’s often true. I don’t recall the last time I made such a claim, incidentally. If you do, I’d look with interest on such a cite and quote.
Wilfred: “You have my e-mail address and i would appreciate you using it as opposed to hijacking an otherwise interesting thread.”
Wilfred, I’ve been doing this sort of written group communication for well over thirty years now, so I’ve seen people try this gambit (and every other) thousands of times. If you do not wish to be responded to publically, don’t post in public. You’re not being specially picked on by anyone, you’re not a special case of anything, there’s no basis for you to feel sorry for yourself and ask for special consideration, and the “you-are-being-mean-and-unfair-by-using-your-words-on-me” response is neither dignified nor helpful nor appropriate. I also am not capable of “hijacking” a thread, absent a gun and teleporter; moreover, you’re the one switching subjects to discuss how very very picked on you are. You have access to the same words I do; my suggestion is that you simply engage in debate, and carry on; your emotional state I leave to you, with sincere best wishes. (Thanks for making the effort to at least capitalize some of the time.)
“I suppose that you, like Mr. Farber, imagine that you are always calm, thoughtful, logical, etc.”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve never made such a supposition about myself, nor indicated to anyone anything other than the opposite; I lose my temper at various times. I try not to write when I do, but I’ve failed that task many times, and surely will again.
I do try to apologize, when I take note of it later or the next day, though, and I typically feel quite embarrassed, foolish, and regretful, if I am not entirely justified.
“To quote Teresa, shove it.”
Just so you have a good argument there. I congratulate you on what a fine job you are doing of persuading people to your point of view. However, as someone who would like to see Senator Kerry elected President, might I ask that you consider another form of persuasion and winning votes? The “shove it” argument doesn’t, it turns out, tend to convince many possible voters, although it’s only after decades of research that we’ve uncovered this inobvious fact. Just some useful advice. Of course, if your goal isn’t to help elect the Senator, but is rather some form of personal emotional therapy, best of luck with that instead.
Slarti: “These guys served on boats that sailed together.”
Over-generalization. Some of them did; many didn’t. By no means did all 250+ serve with or know Kerry. A significant number did; a larger number merely served on Swift boats, and don’t like what Kerry did when he came home, or didn’t like what someone else told him, or felt that he should answer questions, and thus signed their name. (It would be mildly helpful to have exact stats on this, but it’s in neither side’s interest to research and provide them.)
“Wilfred, I’ve been doing this sort of written group communication for well over thirty years now”
Translation – Wilfred, I’ve been annoying people like you for over 30 years.
Wilfred, Bernard, in my opinion Gary is good at what he’s good at and annoying when he’s annoying, so I’d suggest engaging him on content and ignoring him on the rest, even when he responds to your off-topic post with a long off-topic post saying he can’t “hijack” a thread we’re hijacking (or “threadjacking” if Gary prefers that neologism.)
Nice Kerry ad – probably an effective one – though I wonder if McCain gave his assent.
You’re actually quoting Kerry’s bio as evidence, despite nearly all of his crew saying it’s untrue?
I’m quoting his bio to show that it’s clear he could honestly think he was in Cambodia at X-mas. What’s more, many people claim he couldn’t have been in Cambodia precisely because of the journal entry quoted in his biog: the “dreaming of sugarplums” thing. Somehow that “proves” he was in Sa Dec, 55 miles away–‘course, his mission took him upriver and they returned to Sa Dec, but that doesn’t seem important to a lot of you folks.
Again, Kerry’s the only one who ever supported the claim that he was ever in Cambodia. The documented evidence, as you say, consists solely of Kerry’s say-so, against which the say-so of pretty much the rest of his crew stands as…documented evidence?
What, the fact that he was involved in SEALORDS, his spot reports, and Occam’s Razor aren’t good enough for you? What documentary evidence do you have to disprove his claims? Can you counter articles such as that in the Times which show the Swifties have flip-flopped and in many other ways have no cred?
I dunno…last I looked Vietnam and Cambodia were two different countries. Maybe things were different back in the ’60s, though.
You’re right, I fucked up. See how hard it is to keep the countries straight when they share the Mekong Delta?
Oh, my. These guys served on boats that sailed together. This is utter bunk, on your part.
So you disagree with David Hackworth that if you’re 100s of meters, or miles, away you can’t be a true eyewitness to combat? And you disagree with the documentary evidence and the people on Kerry’s boat?
BTW, the idea (in link supplied by Raven) that these guys didn’t serve with Kerry is just about the logical equivalent of saying Simeon Rice and Mike Alstott are on different teams. These guys patrol as a group and barrack together. There may be weaknesses in the SwiftVet’s arguments, but this isn’t one of them.
Very poor logic. Over 15,000 US Navy personnel served as part of riverine operations during the heyday of VietNam river ops (1965-1969). An equal number of US Army personnel were also involved in this joint riverine effort, as well as a few USCG personnel.
A pro football team has 45 players and perhaps a dozen coaches, trainers, and assistants.
Moreover, the very nature of Vietnam riverine operations was such that individul boats acted fairly autonomously. It wasn’t as if all the boat crews knocked off at 1630 and hung out at the O-Club. They certainly don’t “barrack together.”
As Dr. Robert C. Johnson notes:
observe, with increasing dismay and discomfort, the politicizing of a fellow veteran’s honorable service.This, thirty-plus years after the fact, when we should have moved on to the many current problems at hand. Nevertheless, as a former SWIFT BOAT Officer in Charge (PCF-57, Crew 52A, Qui Nhon and Chu Lai FEB 67-FEB 68), I feel compelled to make the following statement.
The nature of Swift Boat combat patrols was that they were independent. My crew knew its own members intimately but spent little time socializing with other crews on patrol. All I knew about other crews and actions was from those crews after the fact. The true history of my experiences in Vietnam could only be given by the members of Crew 52A! Anything else would be hearsay! That, frankly, is what the testimony and ads against John Kerry’s Vietnam service are. My Vietnam service was with 5 other men on a 50 foot boat.
Edward, make that two useful comments in this “best of” thread: Posted by: JadeGold | August 21, 2004 02:58 PM
Gary,
Cites for my point #4:
1. Here’s a piece from a Navy SEAL who states that swiftboats were not used for incursions into Cambodia. They had their own watercraft and their own teams. Also search under Task Force 116 and look for Navy SEALs and you’ll see they had their transports.
Here’s a history of special forces incursions into Cambodia. Scroll down to Salem House. No mention of swiftboats, and its apparent that the primary means of transport was helicopter.
4. PBRs patrolled upriver and the two patrols did not mix. In fact, Kerry’s platoon was in the Coastal Division while the PBRs were in the River Division. PBRs would have been a preferred means of incursions since they’re smaller and quieter.
5. Swiftboats did patrol the waterways along the border upstream from Ha Thien. I don’t know if Kerry was in that group.
rilkefan,
Cite for my point #1, from Matthew Continetti, excerpting from Brinkley’s book:
Continetti: Yet Kerry’s account of his Christmas adventure in Cambodia is not supported by hagiographer Douglas Brinkley in his book Tour of Duty. Here is how Brinkley tells it:
Brinkley: Christmas Eve, 1968, turned out to be memorable for the men of PCF-44 [the boat Kerry commanded] though not in the jingle-bells sense folks were enjoying back home. The only concession to the holiday spirit was that morning’s rare breakfast of scrambled eggs, after which the crew headed their Swift north up the Co Chien River to its junction with the My Tho only miles from the Cambodian border.
Continetti: “Only miles from the Cambodian border” is elaborated in the next sentence:
Brinkley: Because they were only an hour away from that neighboring country, Kerry began reading up on Cambodia’s history in a book he had borrowed from the floating barracks in An Thoi.
Two words: De bunked.
Raven,
The link to the photo caption of the journalist wanting to go into Cambodia occurred during Operation Tran Hung Dao XI, which began in May 1970, fourteen months after Kerry left.
“Two words: De bunked.”
Two words: Bull – wait, is that actually two words? You can’t claim that the biog is both gospel and fallible.
Also, you should read Posted by: NTodd | August 21, 2004 01:16 PM.
And could you respond to Posted by: NTodd | August 21, 2004 12:03 AM on your Swift Boat incursion assertion?
Cite for my note about members of SwiftVets here, by the way.
Kerry’s platoon was in the Coastal Division
Yes, however, documentation supports the assertion that Kerry’s boat also was sent into the Mekong Delta and went upriver near the Cambodian border.
Two words: De bunked.
Two words: no way. If you continue reading the chapter, which begins on page 209, you’ll see the following:
He even read a 1959 Pentagon study titled “Psychological Observations: Cambodia”…The Pentagon report went on to state that Cambodians “cannot be counted on to act in any positive way for the benefit of U.S. aims and policies.”
Lieutenant Kerry kept that last point in mind as PCF-44 patrolled the watery borderline between Cambodia and Vietnam. After all, Norodom Sihanouk himself – installed as king of Cambodia in 1941… – complained to the White House about Mike Bernique’s cowboy antics on his country’s rivers…Raids through his rivers…were not conducive to preserving Cambodia’s official neutrality.
Kerry was keyed up that Christmas Eve by PCF-44’s position; he had never been that far up the rivers before…He and his crew were deep within enemy territory.
…
Kerry wrote in his notebook: “You call down to one of your men and ask him to draft a message to the Admiral in Command of all Naval Forces in Vietnam and also to the commander of market time. It says, ‘Merry Christmas from the most inland market time unit.'” He meant to be clever and point out to his superiors the incongruity of a U.S. Navy Coastal Surveillance Force boat crew spending their holiday on a river canal not far from the Cambodian border…”We were getting close to Cambodia,” Wasser explained later. “We were out there all alone in the darkness.”
Yes, they were based an hour away from Cambodia, but during the day they actually headed right up to the border. Then, through the miracle of motorized engines, were able to get back to their base and write home about “sugarplums” in Sa Dec.
rilkefan,
Go find that lost sense of humor and lighten up already. I read NTodd’s links and they are not convincing.
NTodd,
Even Kerry’s campaign staff acknowledged that the Christmas-in-Cambodia story is false, admitting that he was “near” Cambodia, not in it. Before you take it up with me, you better straighten out Kerry and his people first. And while you’re at it, take it up with Kerry’s biographer, too. From the the Telegraph:
“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.
Those two words are still ‘de bunked’. C’mon, say it along with me. Kerry’s journal does not corroborate what he told Brinkley, and being “deep within enemy territory” does not necessarily mean Cambodia, since it could also mean he was in territory held by the VC in Vietnam. BTW, we’re still waiting to hear what Brinkley has to say about those other times Kerry was allegedly in Cambodia but that media cone of silence is damn near impenetrable. Brinkley will keep losing his stature as a disinterested presidential historian by continuing to hide. He’s already had to make several “adjustments” to his biography so it’s not looking good for him.
bird dog: SEAL insertion missions into Cambodia by riverine boats occurred routinely as part of MACV SOG operations “Daniel Boone,” later redesignated “Salem House.”
Due to the sensitive nature of these missions (largely recon of VC and NVA activities in Cambodia, SEALs were not sent in as part of a team and were not to engage the enemy (except to avoid capture). Further, these SOG covert missions would preclude the use of SEAL craft for fairly obvious reasons: nothing spells ‘insertion’ like a boat sitting on a riverbank.
PBRs patrolled upriver and the two patrols did not mix. In fact, Kerry’s platoon was in the Coastal Division while the PBRs were in the River Division. PBRs would have been a preferred means of incursions since they’re smaller and quieter.
They did mix and they supplemented each other as needed, particularly as part of interdiction patrols and transport ops. As to the names of the Divisions–they’re just that: names. PCFs were larger than PBRs and designed for coastal missions but in VN, they were used extensively for riverine warfare.
“To quote Teresa, shove it.”
Just so you have a good argument there. I congratulate you on what a fine job you are doing of persuading people to your point of view. However, as someone who would like to see Senator Kerry elected President, might I ask that you consider another form of persuasion and winning votes? The “shove it” argument doesn’t, it turns out, tend to convince many possible voters, although it’s only after decades of research that we’ve uncovered this inobvious fact. Just some useful advice. Of course, if your goal isn’t to help elect the Senator, but is rather some form of personal emotional therapy, best of luck with that instead.
My “shove it” was not intended to persuade anyone to vote for Kerry. It was not aimed at “voters.” It was aimed at Catsy and, by implication, you. I now repeat it, just for you.
In fact, my original comment was not aimed at getting anyone to vote for Kerry. It was specifically directed at Sebastian, who I suspect is unlikely to convert. I merely urged him to admit what I think he knows: that, election preferences aside, the Swift Boat guys are, quoting Von, lying scum.
Gary, I don’t need your supercilious advice and sarcasm about argument. I don’t need you to lecture me about facts, logic, grammar, effective argument, or anything else. Bloat yourself up with self-importance all you want. Just spare me the advice.
Even Kerry’s campaign staff acknowledged that the Christmas-in-Cambodia story is false, admitting that he was “near” Cambodia, not in it.
The jury’s out on this; I doubt we’ll ever get a definitive take on this.
After all, it’s not as if there’s a big billboard on the river reading “Welcome to Cambodia! Home of World Famous Peppercorns. Please Obey the Geneva Convention.”
It seems to me that if you’re basing your obviously low opinion of Kerry’s character on whether he was in or merely near Cambodia some 30+ years ago–it’s a mighty slender reed. Particularly when the man you champion was telling people as recently as 1990 that he contemplated “blowing out his eardrum” to avoid VietNam.
Even Kerry’s campaign staff acknowledged that the Christmas-in-Cambodia story is false, admitting that he was “near” Cambodia, not in it.
Yes, I know. Frankly, I view their backing off the claim to be the typical Senatorial, nuanced crap that I hate about the campaign. Although it’s not all that dissimilar to Bush’s “apology” for Abu Ghraib, so I guess I shouldn’t be too mad at them.
Kerry was undeniably near Cambodia, which is all I’ve ever claimed was fact. I merely have extrapolated that it means it’s very likely they were actually IN Cambodia because they patrolled on a river that forms the border, so I don’t think Kerry was lying.
Those two words are still ‘de bunked’. C’mon, say it along with me. Kerry’s journal does not corroborate what he told Brinkley
Neither does his journal contradict what he told Brinkley. Don’t you get that in the space of a day, someone can have eggs in Sa Dec, travel up the My Tho, engage in a firefight, be home in time for dinner, then write home about X-mas Eve?
Jeebus, my wife and I take part in the 251 Club, which means we travel all over the state of Vermont. We hop in the car with our dog, visit some towns, then when we get back home I blog about it. What you folks are using as “proof” that there’s no way in hell Kerry could’ve been in Cambodia and he’s a liar is as stupid as using my blog entries as proof that I’ve been in Fletcher, Vermont, all day when I claim to have been to Waitsfield.
Bird Dog: He’s already had to make several “adjustments” to his biography so it’s not looking good for him.
Why? Bush has had to make several “adjustments” to his biography, and you don’t appear to hold that against him.
Bush claims in A Charge to Keep, 1999, that after completing flight training in June 1970, “I continued flying with my unit for the next several years”.
Except he didn’t: he went AWOL in May 1972, 22 months afrer he completed his flight training, and never flew again.
Bush further claims in ACtK, when he applied to Harvard Business School in 1972: “I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard, and was no longer flying because the F102 jet I has trained in was being replaced by a different fighter.” His commitment to TANG wouldn’t have been over till May 1974: it wasn’t “nearly finished”. His unit continued to fly the F-102 until 1974, so he could certainly have gone on flying with them if he’d chosen to honor his commitment. But of course, the real reason he was no longer flying was because he’d been suspended following failure to report for a mandatory physical in May 1972.
Those are rather more significant “adjustments” than anything Kerry’s biographer had to “adjust”… so tell me, Bird Dog, do you consider Bush’s lies about his “service” to be a sign that it’s “not looking good for him”? (After all, Bush lost the 2000 election, despite the media giving him a free ride on his self-aggrandizement about his military “service”.)
Bird Dog writes “rilkefan,
Go find that lost sense of humor and lighten up already.”
Actually, I thought my one-or-two word quibble was kinda funny, but I guess Ken White’s not around to go “heh” or not so we’ll never know. Either way I happen to think, as I noted above and as Winston Smith more eloquently writes, this is not a laughing matter – it’s more a despair-over-the-state-of-our-democracy matter.
Bernard Yomtov: “My ‘shove it’ was not intended to persuade anyone to vote for Kerry.”
What’s your goal in arguing about the whole Swiftvet/Kerry thing, then?
Add Harley to the “angry and more eloquent than me” list.
“The river factually is not part of the border. He was mistaken.”
The border twists in a way that is visible only on detailed maps. The eastern branch of the Mekong closely parallels the border – within 5 km – for a distance of 20 km, and then, in a pocket of Vietnam that sticks into Cambodia, crosses over and actually becomes the border for a distance of about 3-5 km. So there’s no reason to think he was mistaken. You can see for yourself at http://encarta.msn.com/map_701533361/Mekong_Delta.html
The Point is Mute. The goshdarn point is MUTE. MUTE. MUTE. MUTE. MUTE. MUTE.
Ahhh…that feels good.
I’ll second whoever noted that Mr. Farber is very good at what he’s good at. He’s actually also good at what he’s annoying at.
I fully expect to be chastised for ending my sentence with “at” as well.
;PPPPPPPPPPPPP
Rilkefan, I note this is one of our best threads ever for the overall symphony it has become. It’s like one of those lazy afternoon brunches in the garden of a good friend (where you don’t have to do the dishes) and the dialog ebbs and flows in and out of charming witticisms, poignant points, and sheer absurdity…it’s a pleasure to read.
I think it has much to do with the set up (ergo, the kudos to von) pitting two hot, unrelated topics against each other and thereby encouraging a very entertaining, semi-stream-of-consciousness sort of text that could only, improbably, exist under these exact conditions.
Of course I’ve recently returned from a few highly enjoyable days in the Hamptons, so perhaps I’m still high on body surfing and walks on the beach…ignore my good mood and carry on…
Edward, I said Gary “is good at what he’s good at”. Also I’ve subsequently learned a good deal on this thread and now consider it a good one. How a thread here could be a “best of” without a contribution from Katherine (or Moe) escapes me.
How a thread here could be a “best of” without a contribution from Katherine (or Moe) escapes me.
Good point…perhaps they’re rubbing off on the rest of us!
Check out digbys http/www.digbysblog.blogspot.com for the next shoe to drop in the Swiftvets thing… Kent Cordier one of the POW’s quoted in the second ad served as the vice chairman of the Veterans for Bush in 2000… According to some postings on Digsby his name was listed on the Bush Cheney 04 website as a member of the National Steering committee for Veteran’s issues as late as 8/19/04… They have connected to a Google cache page for the site dated 8/2/04 which still has him listed as member of the National Steering Committee… Surprisingly if you go to the current page on the site he has since been removed from the list….
Tommyd….
Jade,
SEAL insertion missions into Cambodia by riverine boats occurred routinely as part of MACV SOG operations “Daniel Boone,” later redesignated “Salem House.”
Right, but they had their own watercraft, thus their own drivers, noted here:
The Navy also decided it needed a small boat that could be used to aid the growing SEAL operations by providing a platoform for insertions and extractions in enemy controlled areas. Two designs emerged, the LSSC, or Light SEAL Support Craft, and the STAB, for Strike Team Assault Boat. Both were small and fast boat with a shallow drafts. The STAB used dual 110 HP outboard motors though, while the LSSC had its motors in the hull to make them as quiet as possible. The LSSC proved to be difficult to maintain, however, and was gradually phased out and replaced by an improved model of the original STAB. The new STAB was lengthened to allow more capacity and better armored as well. Top speed was 40 knots and it could accelerate to that speed within 15 seconds from a dead stop.
And more from my earlier link on Salem House:
In May 1967, the Salem House missions were subject to the following restrictions:
1. Only reconnaissance teams were to be committed into Cambodia and the teams could not exceed an overall strength of 12 men, to include not more than three U.S. advisers.
2. Teams were not to engage in combat except to avoid capture.
3. They did have permission to have contact with civilians.
4. No more than three reconnaissance teams could be committed on operations in Cambodia at any one time.
5. The teams could conduct no more than ten missions in any 30-day period.
Etc.
After all, it’s not as if there’s a big billboard on the river reading “Welcome to Cambodia! Home of World Famous Peppercorns. Please Obey the Geneva Convention.”
There were some border incidents right before Kerry arrived. They were very well aware of the borders.
It seems to me that if you’re basing your obviously low opinion of Kerry’s character on whether he was in or merely near Cambodia some 30+ years ago–it’s a mighty slender reed.
You can disbelieve Brinkley and the Kerry campaign about the now inoperative “Christmas in Cambodia” story, but it doesn’t speak well to your credibility. My opinion of Kerry’s character was not formed on the basis of his Cambodia stories. Kerry made his time in Vietnam a cornerstone of his campaign and he said “judge me by my record”. Well, his record on Cambodia is false and incomplete.
Jes,
Bush never made his military experience a primary focus of his campaign, Kerry is. His strategy is “I carried a gun in Vietnam…yadda yadda…reporting for duty”. He is a dove with hawk’s feathers glued to his body. Personally, I don’t care what he did 35 years ago, but Kerry’s the one who made it an issue.
“I fully expect to be chastised for ending my sentence with ‘at’ as well.”
Not unless you were doing it Latin, silly boy.
“The goshdarn point is MUTE. MUTE. MUTE. MUTE. MUTE. MUTE.”
I don’t think that works if you shout it, but if you insist, I shall relish my Super Power to make (some) people shout nonsense.
🙂
Bird Dog, I believe you’re consistently mischaracterizing Kerry’s spokeman’s statement – from the LA Times quote above,
“This would be consistent with the contention of Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan that Kerry was in Sa Dec but reached the Cambodian border later the same day.”
Of course I think your refusal to confront NTodd‘s position above doesn’t speak well of your ability to reason clearly on this subject. Also note that Posted by: JR | August 21, 2004 06:00 PM seems to rebut your claims about the border.
There were some border incidents right before Kerry arrived. They were very well aware of the borders.
I doubt it. Accounts from members of Kerry’s crew say they couldn’t be sure whether or not they were in Cambodia. This tends to militate against your strong belief the borders were well-marked and -defined.
You can disbelieve Brinkley and the Kerry campaign about the now inoperative “Christmas in Cambodia” story, but it doesn’t speak well to your credibility.
Please don’t worry about the credibility of others when your own is on such shaky ground. The Kerry campaign’s position is that Kerry was in Cambodia at some point around Christmas. As for Brinkley, he only states in Tour of Duty that Kerry was on patrol “near the Cambodian line.”
Again, this is very sad that you’d attack a much-decorated vet’s character in an effort to promote someone who couldn’t manage the wherewithal to honor a reserve commitment secured for him by his family.
Bird Dog: Bush never made his military experience a primary focus of his campaign…
Fair enough, though the “Mission Accomplished” flight wasn’t accidental – and Cambodia certainly hadn’t appeared in the campaign until now. And in my view the relative slime quotient of the discussion of Kerry’s combat service to that of the discussion of Bush’s guard service (such as it was) has been inordinately high. I would be unhappy if my ideological allies were attacking the primary focus of the opponent’s campaign with allegations repeatedly shown to be inconsistent at best.
Rilke,
I already refuted NTodd’s links. He offered nothing new. Meehan did not confirm that Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia. He and the LA Times tried to fuzzy it up by saying JFK was in the vicinity. The LA Times article says Kerry even himself has conflicting accounts. Two of Kerry’s crewmates in addition to Steve Gardner said Kerry was not in Cambodia.
Jade,
What shaky ground? Kerry’s mouthpieces and Brinkley already backed away from the story. None can credibly say that he was in Cambodia on Christmas. There are no sacred cows here. Kerry made his time there an issue, not me. Kerry can’t hide behind your skirts and say that we have no business examining his record.
You will also note that I’ve said nothing about his medals. Far as I’m concerned, he served honorably. The only bone I’m picking is the Cambodia stories. First, because he wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas and, two, he hasn’t released all of his military records.
Rilkefan- many thanks. Got it.
Why is it such a big deal whether Kerry was in Cambodia at Christmas or in January?
That Kerry may have transposed a trip into Cambodia in January to two or three weeks earlier does not seem like a very big deal to me. (Certainly less of a deal than claiming that “22 months” is the equivalent of “several years”…)
I already refuted NTodd’s links.
LOL!
What shaky ground? Kerry’s mouthpieces and Brinkley already backed away from the story. None can credibly say that he was in Cambodia on Christmas.
Again, the Kerry campaign’s position is that Kerry was in Cambodia at some timeframe as Kerry has maintained. Brinkley’s story has never changed; he reports Kerry was on patrol “near the Cambodian line.”
None can credibly say Kerry was not in Cambodia at XMas as I noted earlier. I doubt this point of contention will ever be settled to everyone’s satisfaction.
But what is not in dispute is the fact Kerry and his boat crew were operating in ‘Indian Country’ not far from or possibly in Cambodia during XMas of that year. To pretend that there’s some great difference as to the exact Lat-Long down to the second is, well, pretty meaningless. Especially in light of the fact, Dubya can’t establish his whereabouts for nearly a year within CONUS.
Hey, was Kerry in Cambodia during the Christmas holidays?
I mean this is truly desperate for the Bush people to think that Kerry getting “being in Cambodia during Christmas time” confused and Bush’s missing months of service are hardly the same.
I tried to make the point Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 21, 2004 08:55 PM, sorry.
A few days ago the Kerry campaign put together a new ad
It’s called Old Tricks and the entire ad is a brief exchange from a debate from February 15th 2000 (which the political junkies among us probably remember) in which John McCain — then in the thick of Bush’s smears — told Bush to his face to stop getting others to smear him over his war record. He ends by telling him he should be ashamed. The camera focuses on Bush and catches him not knowing how to respond, with what I think even his supporters would have to agree is a callow, trapped look on his face.
I say this is exactly where the Kerry campaign needs to go because it very powerfully captures a truth about President Bush — namely, that he’s a coward who truly lacks shame.
I don’t say he’s a coward because he kept himself out of Vietnam three decades ago. I know no end of men of that age who in one fashion or another made sure they didn’t end up in Indochina in those days. (I quickly ran through both hands counting guys I talk to on a regular basis.) And they include many of the most admirable people I know.
He’s a coward because he has other people smear good men without taking any responsibility, without owning up to it or standing behind it. And when someone takes it to him and puts him on the spot to defend his actions — as McCain does in this spot — he’s literally speechless. Like I say, a coward.
As I said earlier, this is vintage Bush. And it’s also a subtle nod to all the ways that Bush is someone who’s always gotten by with help at all the key moments from family friends, retainers and others similarly hunting for access and power.
There’s another element to this ad that we’d be remiss not to note too. It puts McCain on the spot and pulls him right back to the center of this battle. Given the fervor of his words, he can hardly disavow them or complain of their use. But there’s something else too. If you listen to the ad you’ll see McCain hangs his demand for an apology on a letter signed by five senators, each Vietnam vets, calling on Bush to apologize for his smears against McCain.
The five, as reported by the Times on February 5th, 2000: Senators Max Cleland of Georgia, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Charles S. Robb of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
What’s your goal in arguing about the whole Swiftvet/Kerry thing, then?
Read my comments, Gary. You’re a genius, aren’t you? Maybe you’ll figure it out.
“And when someone takes it to him and puts him on the spot to defend his actions — as McCain does in this spot — he’s literally speechless. Like I say, a coward.”
This is the story of Bush’s life, when confronted, he wimps out. This explains the seven minutes in the pre-school, while being confronted by terrorist. He has to back-stab because he is spineless to confront.
Haven, in the future would you mind making it clearer when you are quoting vs. using your own words? Blockquote tags would do nicely for longer quotes, but even simple quotation marks would do the trick. Also, informal attribution (in addition to the links you already provide) would help, too. I find that with a lot of your posts I end up misinterpreting quoted material as your own words.
Bird Dog wrote on August 21, 2004, at 03:19 PM:
Two points, Bird Dog:
— and does very firmly rebut it, even aside from Mike Bernique’s Silver Star and the other Cambodian incursions using Swift Boats (“At daylight eight US Swifts crossed the border followed by thirteen VNN Swifts.“) — your complaint about the date (“after Kerry left”) is mere handwaving, an irrelevant objection.
(Besides which, Bernique’s Silver Star was for using a Swift Boat to attack Viet Cong in Cambodia in October 1968, over two months before Kerry’s Christmas Eve. Zumwalt III’s Cambodian incursions were in 1969, within a year after Kerry’s Christmas Eve, and the Zumwalts both point out that other such incursions preceded Zumwalt III’s. So, of whatever point you were making about dates, nothing remains.)
This is a very simple factual issue. You claimed that “those entering Cambodia did not use swift boats to make incursions.” These examples show that Swift Boats were used for Cambodian incursions.
Thus you’re the one whose claim has been “De bunked”, Bird Dog.
Gromit,
Duly noted.
Raven,
Yes, I will stipulate that the Swiftboat mission changed fourteen months after Kerry left, and that swiftboats stationed at Ha Thien were already along the Cambodian border. As for Kerry’s Coastal Division 13, I’ll wait for more evidence. As it is, I’m less than convinced.
Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. A large sign at the border prohibited entry. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared.
How I long for the day when all candidates were still in diapers when the last helicopter took off from Saigon.
One last fart in the face from that misbegotten adventure.
Oh, and an aside to the people who are saying that “medals don’t mean anything, you could write your own recommendation, I got a Purple Heart for a case of VD…” I will remember it next time I see someone in uniform. (See
http://oraculations.blogspot.com/2004/08/what-do-we-know-about-kerry-1.html)
I don’t want my BS radar to go off when I see a soldier wearing medals. I want to assume that he/she took a major risk in order to defend his country, and, by extension, me. I want to wonder what noble deed he did, and I want my eyes to fill with tears. I want to believe that the military doesn’t give these out like Tic Tacs. I want – can I call it – the illusion of honor?
From now on, a chestful of medals and a couple of missing limbs will only get you a derisive sniff, a request for multiple affidavits from everyone within 200 miles at the time, and (if you’re lucky), a grudging “OK, maybe you’re legit.” (Remember Max Cleland?)
Wait for the caterwauling on the right when a Republican war hero gets (deservedly) trashed in a couple of years.
I don’t think the SBV people really understand what they’re doing. Now whenever I see a decorated soldier, there will be a little voice whispering in my ear, “I wonder if he really deserved those?” Do they really want the phrase “war hero” to be forever prefaced with “alleged”? Or always put in quotes? That’s the logical outcome of this process.
The-XMas-in-Cambodia-that-turned-out-to-be-New Year-50-miles-away has definitely bothered me. To the point where I don’t think I can vote for Kerry. But that won’t put me in the “R” column either.
So, SBV, you lost Kerry a vote. Bravo, well done, mission accomplished (pace GWB on the carrier). But you’ve planted a foul seed of doubt in my mind (and probably others) about our Army. Thanks, jerks.
Tina,
The-XMas-in-Cambodia-that-turned-out-to-be-New Year-50-miles-away has definitely bothered me. To the point where I don’t think I can vote for Kerry.
Were you definitely going to vote for him before that?
The-XMas-in-Cambodia-that-turned-out-to-be-New Year-50-miles-away has definitely bothered me. To the point where I don’t think I can vote for Kerry.
I felt the exact same way. I mean, if he’s three or four weeks off in remembering a twenty-year-old military mission, god only knows what kind of insane mistakes he might make as President! Why, he might even cut off the hunt for a massive international terrorist organization responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans to bog the U.S. military down in a tactical nightmare of a guerilla war to disarm an unarmed enemy! Whew, that would be a disaster!
Christ, looks like I better vote for Bush. Y’know, because of what happened in f**king Cambodia.
The-XMas-in-Cambodia-that-turned-out-to-be-New Year-50-miles-away has definitely bothered me
He *was* on the Cambodian border on X-Mas Eve, and likely did cross it. And no, that wasn’t seared – seared – into his memory. The people you’re listening to just don’t know how to read…
Over 15,000 US Navy personnel served as part of riverine operations during the heyday of VietNam river ops (1965-1969).
All in the same unit? That’s a pretty large unit. Either that, or some logic.
The people you’re listening to just don’t know how to read…
The people I’m listening to have that passage photocopied from the Congressional Record. But that’s probably not very credible, is it?
That Congressional Record…bunch of filthy liars.
Slart: “The people I’m listening to have that passage photocopied from the Congressional Record.”
Surely you agree there’s more to reading than copying symbols. Otherwise I guess I can read Chinese. And Elvish. And the writings of worms on treebark.
I’m not getting you. Could you be a little more direct, please?
Slarti, without addressing the merits of Kerry’s statement, whereabouts, or any other aspects of the argument, with all due respect, you’re not helping the case for the impossibility of misreading Kerry’s statement by misreading what NTodd wrote.
What NTodd clearly was saying was that what is claimed Kerry said was “seared– seared” into his memory is not what his statement was saying was so “seared– seared….” That is, it is being represented that what was so seared was being in Cambodia on Christmas (or that, with Nixon as President on that day).
When one looks at the photocopy Glenn posts which you link to, it plainly says nothing of the kind. It plainly says “I have that memory which is seared–seared– in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm’s way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.”
“The people I’m listening to have that passage photocopied from the Congressional Record. But that’s probably not very credible, is it?”
Quite credible, but it doesn’t support what some claim it does. Now, you can argue with NTodd about that, but you’ve plainly misread it/her/him, since NTodd wasn’t claiming that the quote is “not credible.” So this is not the best possible rejoinder to what he/she/it was claiming, which is that people can and do (and NTodd says in this case people have) misread.
I’m “fussy” about writing because meaning changes depending upon the placement of a comma, let alone more careless choices of words or phrasing. (We can thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God, for the example regarding the serial comma.)
It is, in fact, quite arguable as to whether the “that” that Kerry uses in “that memory” refers to the antecedent — in which case Kerry’s critics are on reasonable ground in using that statement in their argument — or whether the “that” simply refers to what follows: “that says to me, before we send another generation into harm’s way….” and Kerry was simply emphasizing the importance of that policy. It’s, frankly, ambiguous, though I’d lean towards the interpretation that he was, indeed, referring to his previous paragraph.
What’s interesting is that his quote — perhaps I misremember? — has been presented as asserting that Kerry said that Nixon was President in Christmas of 1968, and it plainly makes no such reference whatsoever. (The “President” he keeps addressing in the speech is, of course, the President of the Senate, and his relevant passage is: “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.” No specification as to who was President of the United States was made here, and the reference in the previous paragraph to President Nixon saying something in 1970 obviously doesn’t lead to any direct follow-on connection to who was President in 1968.
Slart, sorry for the brevity (poet’s disease) – I had in mind Searle’s Chinese Room argument (which I think is bunk). Anyway, above Gary has written a slightly much longer version of what I would have written in response to your query.
Let me note here that I wish Kerry’s prose was better. If he’s elected, as I rather expect he will be, I will probably spend the next 4-8 years on the edge of sending the White House a copy of Fowler’s Modern English Usage or my high school Strunk and White.
rilkefan, may your poets disease be contagious. brevity is the soul of many wonderful things other than wit. the punctuation police on the internet is the hobgoblin of things toilet training and preparation h can treat but who knows ultimately what can be cured without a trip to the analyst.
Gary Farber writes,
I’m “fussy” about writing because meaning changes depending upon the placement of a comma, let alone more careless choices of words or phrasing. (We can thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God, for the example regarding the serial comma.)
And we duly take note that both your parents, as named above, were infallible writers.
Or were you saying “my parents, [and] Ayn Rand, [and] God” (note comma after “Ayn Rand”)?
Gosh, that would make a spendid example of the importance of a comma.
If only it had been intentional, self-referential humor!
But we will attribute no such virtue to you.
Instead, we will assert that you are deceptive, indeed afficted with grandiose delusions of being related to the famous (Rand) and the divine (God) — or do I mean the famous (God) and the divine (Rand)? — and repeat that assertion throughout every form of media, in order to destroy any chance of a political career you might ever have hoped to achieve.
*koff* Whoops, what was I saying?! Sorry, for a moment I was feeling presidential there.
It is pretty clear from reading the Congressional record of his remembrance of Christmas 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia, and that remembrance was seared–seared–in him. When debates boil down to tortured sentence diagramming, you might as well give up the ghost.
Quite credible
Only if you ignore the antecedent to which “that” clearly refers.
Bird Dog: When debates boil down to tortured sentence diagramming, you might as well give up the ghost.
Agreed. So give it up already!
Read Gary Farber’s comment on August 22, 2004 at 10:26 PM for the common-sense analysis, if you haven’t already, and quit torturing your poor sentence diagrams to persuade yourself that Kerry said something that he plainly didn’t.
Now, you can argue with NTodd about that, but you’ve plainly misread it/her/him, since NTodd wasn’t claiming that the quote is “not credible.”
I didn’t say he did, Gary. I said that his accusation that people didn’t know how to read is pretty much bunk, because (arguably) the Congressional Record stands counter to his assertion that Kerry didn’t say he was in Cambodia on Christmas.
Really, you’re doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.
“If only it had been intentional, self-referential humor!”
Sigh.
“I said that his accusation that people didn’t know how to read is pretty much bunk….”
No, you said of the Congressional Record: “But that’s probably not very credible, is it?”
Those two things do not mean the same thing at all. Possibly the first statement above is what you meant (I have no problem believing that, but it’s not what you said — this sort of disjunction often happens with many people; it’s crucial to keep track of when what is actually said doesn’t represent what was actually meant, since intentions don’t actually count when analyzing what was said).
“Really, you’re doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.”
Even if we stipulated that, your statement contended that NTodd’s statement was dismissing the Congressional Record as not credible; however, that was not what NTodd’s statement said; it said that people had misread the statements in the CR. In attempting to dismiss that point, you were either maintaining that it is not possible to misread Kerry’s statement, or you were misreading NTodd; if I misread you (which I didn’t — reading your words correctly, but not divining your divergent intent is not a misreading — but let’s stipulate it), then taking note of that still supports the point that it’s easy for some people to misread. Thus you wind up agreeing with NTodd and supporting NTodd’s point.
Bottom line: the CR quote doesn’t say anything at all about Nixon being President in 1968, and it doesn’t offer proof that Kerry said being in Cambodia in 1968 on Christmas was “seared–seared– into my memory.” Being sarcastic won’t change that. (Actually, by the way, the CR is full of lies, because it’s normal practice to insert speeches never given, and to “revise” speeches after the fact in any way desired; you did know that, right?)
rilkefan: Surely you agree there’s more to reading than copying symbols. Otherwise I guess I can read Chinese. And Elvish. And the writings of worms on treebark.
I love this, Rilkefan. Just thought I’d say so.
Yes, but can Rilkefan read Mandarin or Sindarin? Cantonese or Quenya?
It’s important to know which phrasebook to bring along.
One would not want to say “please slow this dragon down; I am becoming queasy” in the wrong language.
Those two things do not mean the same thing at all.
I plead sarcasm. But the joke’s not funny if you have to explain it three or four times.
your statement contended that NTodd’s statement was dismissing the Congressional Record as not credible
No. See above.
the CR quote doesn’t say anything at all about Nixon being President in 1968
Not arguing that.
the CR is full of lies
So, you’re saying that Kerry didn’t say that? I’m wondering why Kerry didn’t correct the mistake, and still hasn’t? He could always issue a public statement.
Thus you wind up agreeing with NTodd and supporting NTodd’s point.
All due respect, Gary: Heh. Heheh. If NTodd’s point was that people occasionally misread, I wouldn’t have responded in the first place. If it is, and I’ve simply misread him (snicker) then I retract all of my subsequent responses, to the end of not arguing what’s intuitively obvious to the casual observer. On the other hand, agreeing with him on that point doesn’t lead one to the conclusion that I agree with him that a great many people have misread what’s in the CR. Well, perhaps it does lead “one” to that conclusion.
Now, I’m off to get another cup of coffee. Want some?
BTW, as interesting as the Searle’s Chinese Room bit was, I still fail to see how it applies. The suggestion that I and many, many others may simply be failing to understand what Kerry really meant by that (after having been an engineering student and then a math student, for crying out loud) seems to me to be just a rococo attempt at the “you’re just a big stupidhead” ploy.
Slart, the above is a statement about what your statement contended, not what you contended. Again: this is a crucial distinction.
Not at all; it was an incidental point.
I’m contemplating whether to make one, as I could use it, but a) I’m not supposed to have caffeine, because of the gout and b) I’m off to have an electro-cardiogram in 45 minutes, and as my BP is 190/122, They frown on it. (Still, it’s possibly worth it just to see the expressions on Their faces.)
Enjoy yours, though, and thanks.
Right, but they had their own watercraft, thus their own drivers, noted here:{{discussion of STABs, LSSCs follows).
Indeed, SEALs had their own boats–the Strike Assault Boat (STAB), which had serious Ao problems and were fairly quickly from deployment in VN and the LSSC.
However, these boats were used in support of SEAL missions involving a boat crew of 2-3 plus a half dozen SEALs. The ‘Daniel Boone’ and ‘Salem House’ missions were MACV SOG missions involving 1-2 SEALs temporarily assigned to MACV SOG.
I officially pronounce this thread “most pedantic blog comment thread ever.”
Slart, the above is a statement about what your statement contended, not what you contended.
Wrong. Read again. Maybe I forgot to close the sarcasm tags, but only someone determined to suspend disbelief for a period encompassing several posts could attempt to make the case that I thought NTodd had stated that the CR was non-credible.
Ouch. Good luck on the EKG. Hope you get that gout thing taken care of, too; sounds extraordinarily painful.
However, these boats were used in support of SEAL missions involving a boat crew of 2-3 plus a half dozen SEALs.
Link, please? Google is getting me nothing, other than bloggers either attacking or defending this notion.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4939470.html
OT, my benefactor Dodd Harris has linked up to PDF copies of The New Soldier. I don’t see much that’s damning or its inverse, but this is something that hasn’t been readily available for a while.
I really thought Kerry meant that the lies of the President or how political leaders lie was what was seared into his memory.
Justice for the Swift
OK, I’m officially sick of the whole swift boat thing. I really don’t think it matters one way or the other if Kerry was or was not in Cambodia (he was almost certainly close), or whether his valor medals (Bronze…
Justice for the Swift
OK, I’m officially sick of the whole swift boat thing. I really don’t think it matters one way or the other if Kerry was or was not in Cambodia (he was almost certainly close), or whether his valor medals (Bronze…
Gary Farber wrote on August 23, 2004, at 09:51 AM:
Yes, Gary, but if you ever get around to reading the rest of my post, you might see just as much intentional humor:
Or, in other words, “we” will give your post as malicious (or incompetent) a misreading as the Bush-Cheney campaign has given Kerry’s statements.
By the way, Gary, I have here the affidavits of 254 Blog Readers For Truth, who each and severally swear upon a stack of Bibles that you were not joking about commas, parents, Ayn Rand, and God, and that there is no pre-existing documentation of any such joke.
It follows that, if any such documentation exists, you must have written it yourself and backdated it in order to give yourself a false justification.
That’s perfectly plausible, in view of the precedent SBVT v. Kerry, where a Lt.j.g. was proven by affidavit to have falsified the U.S. Navy’s entire record of the Vietnam War.
“Daniel Boone” was the predecessor of “Salem House”.
These unconventional warfare missions were primarily aimed at reconnaissance inside VC-controlled areas inside South Vietnam. And although they did go behind enemy lines along the VC’s supply route in the mountainous northeastern region of Cambodia (May 1967-March 1971), Kerry operated in the southwest in a boat that did not climb mountains very well. And since the PCF rookie LT(jg) Kerry was there only for the dry season, it is highly unlikely he could have taken his fifty-foot Swift Boat across the border on covert insertion missions. So unlikely, the probability can be described as nill, or impossible for practical purposes.
Kerry’s patrols were in southwest Vietnam. His larger boat was limited to the major waterways, which were blocked on both sides of the Cambodian border. No way he blazed up the Bassac River to secretly drop-off Special Forces. He and other Swifts probably did take SEALs into VC-controlled areas within Vietnam, along the Rach Giang Thanh for example, but he had no way to enter Cambodia in his boat in that patrol area.
His Cambodian story (stories) are unsupportable. Even his own Band of Brothers can’t bring themselves to pretend to back him up on this series of falsehoods.