« Harry Reid Declares Iraq War is Lost | Main | If Only Bush Weren't President »

The Proper Definition of "Swiftboat" the Verb

There is a definition those on the Left and many in the media have been using for the term "swiftboating." They use the term to refer to a smear of a political opponent with unsubstantiated charges. Many in the media even specifically refer to the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about John Kerry as unsubstantiated. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If I were to use the term "swiftboating," (which I don't) I would use it to refer to whistle blowers who organize and use both paid and free media to spread the truth about a person or issue that is being ignored by mainstream reporters.

Bruce Kesler knows more about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth than anyone I know and he sets the record straight on the whole "swiftboating" issue. He even goes so far as to give the dictionary definitions of "substantiated" and "unsubstantiated" since so many don't seem to be using them properly. Bruce removes any doubt that the majority of the Swift Boat Vet claims were substantiated. (I know I will get tons of disagreement from those on the Left over that statement, but I think the evidence is that compelling.) He then shares his correspondence with Dan Okrent, New York Times "public editor" on the subject.

Next read John Hinderaker's extensive walk through the Swift Boat ads, in which he makes the case that not only have very few of the claims in those ads been successfully challenged, but that some have not even been disputed..


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Proper Definition of "Swiftboat" the Verb:

» Old War Dogs linked with Are Swift Boat Charges “Unsubstantiated”?

» Bill's Bites linked with Are Swift Boat Charges “Unsubstantiated”?

Comments (169)

For gawds sake, can you peo... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:

For gawds sake, can you people get over John Kerry anytime soon?

Your boy Bush won in Nov 2004, remember? Aren't you so glad he did?

I bet my 'lucky hat' that... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

I bet my 'lucky hat' that we all will not receive a Christmas in Cambodia(40th anniv) card from Hanoi John again this year??

Nice try "avg" (aptly named... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Nice try "avg" (aptly named)

This thread is about the continued attempt by the left and the MSM to create, out of whole cloth, the impression that the swift boat vets (including many true heroes) were a bunch of right-wing liars when they criticized JfK.

The left and MSM want to use this term to undermine any criticism coming from the right against left-wing candidates.

This is very similar to how the left conflated McCarthy with Hollywood blacklists as part of their ongoing war of anti-anti-communism.

Well, as long as the left keeps trying to do that, folks on the other side are going to keep fighting back (rightfully so.)

I know I will get tons o... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

I know I will get tons of disagreement from those on the Left over that statement, but I think the evidence is that compelling.
Lorie Byrd

Ask and ye shall receive.

Now, this article could use more links to strengthen its arguments, but I'm just putting it out there to get both sides on the issue.

What, no one here de... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:


What, no one here defending Alberto Gonzales today?

uh...sean? That article is ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

uh...sean? That article is the very one Powerline fisked.

good one... link to Media M... (Below threshold)
Dave:

good one... link to Media Matters to try and prove a point. George Soros funded, tax exempt organization that smears right wingers on a routine basis. Search for Limbaugh and they take him out of context 99.9% of the time.

oh, good article on NRO abo... (Below threshold)
Dave:

oh, good article on NRO about Media Matters by Donald Luskin: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200405050850.asp

Media Matters for America is a new website (mediamatters.org) "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation." It's been developed with the zillions of tax-deductible dollars that George Soros and others contributed to the leftist Center for American Progress. It's run by a confessed liar, former conservative author David Brock, who has admitted that he knowingly lied in his book about Anita Hill, and has apologized for his reporting on Bill Clinton's sexual misadventures.

"What, no one here defendin... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

"What, no one here defending Alberto Gonzales today?

Posted by: average wizbang poster at April 19, 2007 05:43 PM"

And when did Gonzales run for president of the United States on a lie. Did he salute the congress and report for duty today? You have your apples and oranges mixed up.

No Christmas in Cambodia, no lucky hat from a special forces trooper. How can anyone be so dense as to believe one word Hanoi John says, anytime, about anything?

Vietnam Vet. 365 days, 23.5 hours in country. 48 months in and around the country in a support role. Yes I did keep track. Still have my travel voucher in and out of the country.

As the daughter of a soldie... (Below threshold)

As the daughter of a soldier killed in Vietnam, I could care less what the term is. I am very grateful for the swift boat veterans and their cause.

I am so grateful that they stopped a lying, pampered, flip-flopping, marry richer boy from being president!

AVG,Odd as it may ... (Below threshold)
Dan S:

AVG,

Odd as it may seem to you, I didn't want Gonzales as Supreme Court Justice, nor as AG. So why should I be upset he's probably finished?

That said, I think there's not much flame beneath the smoke the attack dogs are blowing. But Gonzales just isn't up to the job.

W definitely has a mixed record on appointments. He also has one on a lot of other things.

But I still am happy he's president when the alternative was JFK.

Avg: "What, no one here def... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Avg: "What, no one here defending Alberto Gonzales today?"

Never fails. Regardless of how many topics are being covered on a blog site, there are always going to be topics not covered or yet to be covered.

I can't help but notice that lefties always show up on thread A to ask why topic B is not being discussed.

Amazing.

Of course, the minute Topic B gets its own thread, lefties will ask why topic C is not being discussed.

Meanwhile, you have idiot lefties like Sean who will miss the entire point of threads (and/or it's associated underlying facts).

Amazing. Not really. More like...predictable.

Powerline was one of the so... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Powerline was one of the sources for the fake Michael Ware heckling story! Did they think because Ware's back was to the camera, that Powerline could glue a funny face on him through auto-suggestion?

Do they think that the reader will believe what they have to say now?
Unless they've retracted it, but last I heard, it was the ol' neocon PC cheer: Fire Him! Fire Him!

Even couching it as something CNN(!) "should do".
Like Enemy CNN is going to listen to you, you snot-nosed maroon!

As for "Democracy" Caucus(AEI): I don't feel like getting banned today, so I'll leave it there.

Hell, Lorie, I agree with the gist of your post, but the links to finks gets my Irish up.

Media Matters is not funded... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:

Media Matters is not funded by Soros, that's Limbaugh talking. It was founded by David Brock.

But I would never expect the doofuses here to understand that, since Rush is always right, just like the bumpersticker sez.

As I said: "I'm just puttin... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

As I said: "I'm just putting it out there to get both sides on the issue."

I was on my way out the door from work and didn't read the Powerline post. I now have and will concede that Boehlert's article certainly looks much weaker after reading Powerline. But you should note, that even in my original post I say that there were ways to make the article stronger.

And Drago, I'm well aware of what the thrust of the post is, I was just fulfilling Lorie's wishes. If that makes me an "idiot leftie" in your eyes, so be it.

Sean: "And Drago, I'm well ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Sean: "And Drago, I'm well aware of what the thrust of the post is, I was just fulfilling Lorie's wishes."

You are correct sir. It was "avg" who was doing the "tangent shuffle".....

bryand: "Powerline was one ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

bryand: "Powerline was one of the sources for the fake Michael Ware heckling story! Did they think because Ware's back was to the camera, that Powerline could glue a funny face on him through auto-suggestion?"

This is, of course, another lie.

At no time did Powerline act as one of "the sources" for this story.

This story was reported by Rawstory and Drudge, Powerline linked to it for discusson purposes and relayed comments from all sides (including providing complete Michael Ware responses to this report from his appearance on CNN.)

Thus, once again, it is bryand who is the liar, lacks credibility, and should never be believed without some link to an independent source.

bryand, for your benefit, Pravda is not an independent or reliable source.

Sorry to have to tell you that.

Relying on a lib for accura... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Relying on a lib for accuracy in the media is akin to relying on McGreevey to teach an ethics course. Guess the flamer and NAMBLA member couldnt get a job teaching a class on marital fidelity.

bryand, once again practici... (Below threshold)
Drago:

bryand, once again practicing his "Rules for Radicals" techniques, demonstrates again that when the left has no credible response (and in the SwiftBoatVets case they don't), they will always, always, obfuscate, misdirect, and lie outright.

By the way, hows that mythical "70% of voters want us out of Iraq NOW!!!" mandate coming along?

Relying on Keith Olberman f... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Relying on Keith Olberman for a factual account of ANYTHING is akin to relying on Jim McGreevey to teach an ethics course.

Do so at your own risk, and dont let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Sal: "And an allegedly-leak... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Sal: "And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline."

Yeah, I think that "allegedly-leaked GOP memo" was anonymously sent to Keith Olbermann from an undisclosed Kinko's in Texas.

Wow, what a powerfully researched, impeccably documented, irresistably profound post.

Of course, the moon landings were faked as well.

Elvis lives.

Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor prior to 7Dec41.

UFO's are real dammit!! REAL!!!!

There were actually 478 shooters on the grassy knoll.

Hillary Clinton is actually quite personable and likeable.

etc.

average wizbang poster... (Below threshold)
marc:

average wizbang poster

Media Matters is not funded by Soros, that's Limbaugh talking. It was founded by David Brock.

But I would never expect the doofuses here to understand that, since Rush is always right, just like the bumpersticker sez.

Ahemm... Media Matters for America is funded in part by the Democracy Alliance.

"Members of the Democracy Alliance include billionaires like George Soros and his son Jonathan Soros, former Rockefeller Family Fund president Anne Bartley, San Francisco Bay Area donors Susie Tompkins Buell and Mark Buell, Hollywood director Rob Reiner, Taco Bell heir Rob McKay ... as well as New York financiers like Steven Gluckstern."

To believe that either of the Soros' are members in name only and haven't funneled tons of cash into Media Matters puts your on par with "Sal Manilla" above and his idiotic delusions.

And BTW, it makes you a doofuses as well.

"This story was reported by... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"This story was reported by Rawstory and Drudge, Powerline linked to it for discusson purposes and relayed comments from all sides_ drago"

As for link vs. source: the source is confidential.
Powerline, instead of retracting the story, justified their position stating Ware's "reporting IS heckling" in and of itself. weeeeak.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017227.php

Many in the media even s... (Below threshold)
jim:

Many in the media even specifically refer to the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about John Kerry as unsubstantiated. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If by ALL of the claims being unsubstianted, yes, that's true.

But SOME of the specific claims of the Swiftboat Veterans For Rent were unsubstantiated, and later proven to be quite false.

That the Swiftboat Vets for Rent didn't lie about everything, that doesn't mean they weren't liars.

Here's what they lied about, and were caught at lying about:

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Also, I note that of the six Swiftboat vets who were personally with Kerry that day, 5 support him and one is dead.

To believe that either o... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:

To believe that either of the Soros' are members in name only and haven't funneled tons of cash into Media Matters puts your on par with "Sal Manilla" above and his idiotic delusions.

Wow, just like Santa claus right? If you believe it long enough, it just may come true. not like you have a single shred of proof, but here at wizbang, reality can sometimes get in the way of the slobbering dolts and their theories.

AWP:not like y... (Below threshold)
marc:

AWP:

not like you have a single shred of proof,

It goes both ways doesn't it? Where's YOUR proof?

However, given the close association and both Soros and Media Matters having an agenda that is joined at the hip the likeihood of my position is just a bit higher than yours.

marc, let's try this slowly... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:

marc, let's try this slowly, seeing how you are a little impaired. Show me direct proof that shows Soros funds MM. Not your moronic speculations, but real, solid proof.

given the close association and both Soros and Media Matters having an agenda that is joined at the hip
Oh, guilt by association, riiiiight. Man, you're reaching on this on.

Here ya go Marc, find me so... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:

Here ya go Marc, find me soros' name on the rollcall

http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors

If Soros was lavishing them with money, they wouldn't need to accept donations would they? Seeing how soros funds everything evil and wrong in the world, you'd think he'd dump millions on them, but no, not the case as they have to slum it looking for money.

Oh yes, the repugs tried th... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Oh yes, the repugs tried the "swiftboating" here with mailers saying this pervert child molester just moved into our neighborhood. Problem was, same post card mailed, same picture of the creep to different districts, quite a few miles apart.

When called out on that, the State Repug Committee tried to blame someone else. Well, it worked, even repugs voted for the Demos. In other words, in came back and BIT THEM IN THE ASS.

But please continue to SPIN, as I need the laughs.
Just like Lee on gun control, I need the laughs.

Im sure this will come as a... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Im sure this will come as a shock to you libs that kneel in front of Kerry, but Kerry's comments while eulogizing a man(Thomas Belodeau) on the senate floor(its in the congressional record) directly contradict his 'story' about what a hero he was when he went back under fire to pick up a comrade.

So, was he lying when he eulogized a friend, or, was he lying during his campaign??

jim, a link to an 08/06/04 ... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, a link to an 08/06/04 factcheck article from the first week of the Swift Boat controversy? Haven't we been over this lately. You are antiquated.

I notice the media matter guy focussed on the players in the ads. I guess Kerry's forces have decided Bay Hap is insupportable, the Silver Star should be quieted, maybe it was Nixon in Cambodia for Christmas. Besides, those two in the skimmer haven't had the same story for decades. Check it out. The rest of his stuff is pretty lame, too.

What is the chance Media Matters has the grassroots support that the Swifties have. Soros should know, as well as anyone, that bought and paid for political speech is fundamentally corrupting. I happen to believe his influence has hampered the ability of the left to articulate its positions. For instance, find a leftist here who can argue Swift Boat points without reference to a list of talking points.

Any takers?
==========

Scott Johnson weighed in al... (Below threshold)
kim:

Scott Johnson weighed in also and exposed another Eric Boehlert lie. But look, half the blogosphere swallows him uncritically.

I swear, Soros money is atrophying brains.
========================================

I always like to see when, ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

I always like to see when, at precisely the exact sentence, the Wizbang story totally falls apart. It's a great game and one you can play with 90% of the stories here. Usually it's around 4 or 5. This one was a 4.

As noted, these "swiftboaters" are discredited.

Interesting how the mention of Soros for some automatically means the source is tainted, yet a Texas Republican funded operation (with roots back to Nixon) is a totally 100% legit source. So blindly legit that some can ignore the glaring innacuracies of their claims.

The Trolls are correct, Swi... (Below threshold)
Ran:

The Trolls are correct, Swift boat vets didn't affect Kerry's losing. Kerry did, he counted on REAL VETS not to remember what he said in the Senate. Vets, in turn, remembered, and told their adult, voting children, who kept his "Rice Laden Butt" out of office. but they have to have someone to blame, other then Kerry. "Swift Boating" to me.. is simply exposing the fakes..*S*..and I'm not even a republican!...(Independent)

I have a friend who served ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I have a friend who served with Kerry in Viet Nam in swift boats. He told me years ago when we saw him on the Dick Cavett show that Kerry had the reputation of being a coward. As an officer, that is shameful. By the way, my friend is not prone to lying, unlike the idiot Average Wisbang Dumbfuck.

MediaMatters isn't funded b... (Below threshold)
Pothus:

MediaMatters isn't funded by George Soros? Hmm, not what this says.
http://rightvoices.com/2007/04/14/media-matters-tries-to-deny-soros-factor/

Jim - Regarding the Silver ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Jim - Regarding the Silver Star incident, in addition to Kerry's crew, there were two other Navy officers on his boat that day. A UDT guy, Lt.Jg. Peter Upton, and fellow Swift Boat officer, Lt.Jg. Charles Gibson. They also support Kerry's version of the event, which is contained in the after-action report. I don't know if he wrote it, but it is accurate.

And Kim, I don't think anyone is quieting the Silver Star incident, if that's what you mean. There were 24 guys present for that incident, in addition to Kerry. Not a single one of them has a problem with the after-action report. For that reason, the book Unfit for Command totally ignores it, using documents that contain language that is not in the AAR, nor was it something said by Kerry or anyone else present that day.

And Zelsdorf Ragshaft III - I also served with Kerry, however briefly, yet I don't consider him a coward. Nor have the 10-12 guys I have spoken to who have also served with him. And by "served", I mean they were either on his boat out in the rivers & canals on operations, or on other boats alongside Kerry's out on the rivers & canals.

Does your friend fall into that category? I don't suppose you'd consider telling us name, would you? Seems like every time I hear a claim such as yours (and I've heard several), the person making the claim never reveals who it was.

Doug Reese

AWP:marc, let'... (Below threshold)
marc:

AWP:

marc, let's try this slowly, seeing how you are a little impaired. Show me direct proof that shows Soros funds MM. Not your moronic speculations, but real, solid proof.

Isn't that what your doing? You haven't given any proof Soros hasn't partially funded Media Matters.

The only thing close is, um well... "why are they asking for donations," so GEE it just isn't possible!!!

And aw shucks... he's not on an "advisers list."

Let's see, more donations, regardless of how much they have on hand, means more power, more opportunity and cash to purchase influence and TV radio air time.

That just doesn't fit into your reality does it?

As an aside does the Red Cross, American Cancer Society or any one of a thousand non-profits EVER not ask for donations?

Doug, sorry, but a Republic... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Doug, sorry, but a Republican organized and funded group tells them the opposite, so you might not have much luck.

Doug Reese:The... (Below threshold)
marc:

Doug Reese:

They also support Kerry's version of the event, which is contained in the after-action report. I don't know if he wrote it, but it is accurate.

So Bozo, or maybe Rosie the Carpet Muncher wrote it so it MUST be accurate! That's the point, no one knows who wrote any of Kerry's after action reports.

I also served with Kerry, however briefly, yet I don't consider him a coward.

I don't either. He's an over inflated blow-hard who took every possible easy way out.

``It was clear to me that I was going to be at risk,'' Kerry recalled. ``My draft board . . . said, `Look, the likelihood is you are probably going to be drafted.' I said, `If I'm going to be drafted, I'd like to have responsibility and be an officer.' ''

On to the U.S.S. Gridley he went, got bored and asked for a transfer to the Swift Boats thinking he would be patrolling off the coast.

Opps... then the mission changed and he found himself smack in the center of the war, pushing far up the Delta and under fire.

Three Purple Hearts for what amounted to scratches
and he bugged out on everyone including those with far worse injuries, that had their three Hearts but stayed to complete their tour.

So no, he's not a coward in the traditional sense but he is and was a slacker of the first order.

I would suggest you take this challenge, in fact read that entire archive.

Marc, I don't care who wrot... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Marc, I don't care who wrote the after-action report for the Silver Star incident. I was there, and for my portion of that event, it is accurate. I've spoken to many others there that day, and it is accurate for their portion of the event.

Oh, and I just took that challenge -- over on Patterico's site. Beldar was there, but seems to have ignored my comments.

Doug Reese

Hi Doug. I remember you fr... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hi Doug. I remember you from last May. Are you still working for Kerry?
================================

Tell us about the 'beaching... (Below threshold)
kim:

Tell us about the 'beaching' maneuver. Was this his idea? Was it a good idea?
=======================

jp2, the seed money and org... (Below threshold)
kim:

jp2, the seed money and organization for the Swifties came from the Repbulicans; the bulk of their money came in small donations. The book sold 800,000 copies, presumably to literate electors, some of them white, male, and landowning.
==================================

Anybody remember the bogus ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Anybody remember the bogus news report just before the '04 election where some network went back to Vietnam and interviewed the villagers around the scene of the Silver Star incident. Well, that is Doug's show.
========================

Hello Kim. Yes, I remember ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Hello Kim. Yes, I remember you. How could I forget?

You might try to get your facts straight.

1. I do not now, nor have I ever, "worked" for Kerry. That includes anyone connected with him. I haven't so much as spoken to him since 1992. I did nothing for the 2004 campaign, either.

2. The "beaching manuever" was indeed a good idea. It certainly worked the first day the Swifts used it, and was used after that.

3. That Nightline show (Oct '04) was neither bogus, nor was I connected to it in any way.

Doug Reese

OK, OK, OK. It remains to ... (Below threshold)
kim:

OK, OK, OK. It remains to be seen why you defend Kerry. Was this beaching maneuver a good idea, and was it his? Who may have used it afterwards? You have cleverly dodged my question. I note your clever parsing of your involvement. Last year I remember you denied having read the after action report of your own service for that Silver Star engagement.

I resent the way in which Don Droz's memory has been perverted. He may well have died emulating Kerry's Silver Star moment.
================================

Why do you say the beaching... (Below threshold)
kim:

Why do you say the beaching maneuver worked the first time it was used? Was that Kerry with the rocketman?

Doug, if I may be so kind, was an infantry officer advising the South Vietnamese engaged on Kerry's Silver Star day. Kerry covered his flank.
====================================

And Don may have been aband... (Below threshold)
kim:

And Don may have been abandoned by sailors emulating Kerry's Bay Hap heroism.
=====================

Doug may well have odd post... (Below threshold)
kim:

Doug may well have odd posting hours. He is in to the 'Nam, as we speak. I think. He is knowledgable, and is a reasonably honest rhetorician.
============================================

For the curious I could loo... (Below threshold)
kim:

For the curious I could look up a JOMbreaking record thread. I'd call it a gobsmacker, but for Don.
=====================

Reese:Marc, I ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Reese:

Marc, I don't care who wrote the after-action report for the Silver Star incident. I was there, and for my portion of that event, it is accurate. I've spoken to many others there that day, and it is accurate for their portion of the event.

Yea I was there to, I was in charge of ensuring his "magic hat" was cleaned and blocked each day.

No marc, Doug was there. H... (Below threshold)
kim:

No marc, Doug was there. He was a US Army infantry officer advising the South Vietnamese. He deserved a medal for his actions that day.

Note, I don't have a lot of criticism for Kerry's action that day, except that I think his beaching was foolhardy and from panic. He lucked out. Don Droz didn't.
======================

Here is his dishonesty. No... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here is his dishonesty. Note how Doug says that for 'their portion of the event' Kerry's after-action report was accurate. Well how much of it was about them? It was more about him. Do you see, Doug? We see you.
========================

9pm Friday, Saigon... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

9pm Friday, Saigon

Kim -- And what "clever parsing" was that?

Yes, that was the first day they Swifts had soldiers on the boats, and beached because of having them -- in that area, anyway. I have no idea what they did in other parts of Vietnam.

Why do I say the beaching maneuver worked? Well, because the only causalties that day were VC, and they happened because of the beaching. Apparently Admiral Zumwalt and a number of others in the chain of command thought it worked also.

And yes, it was used again -- a number of times, with variations here and there. The next time was March 13, on that same canal, just a little further up from there the Silver Star incident occured. Later that day was the incident for which Kerry and Larry Thurlow received Bronze Stars.

And yes, as a number of people present that day have said (including Kerry's superiors, as they approved it in advance) it was Kerry's idea. To remind you, Kerry, Droz and Rood came to our village the day before to discuss it with us and coordinate it with the local Vietnamese commander, Captain Hy.

And as for Don Droz and the beaching maneuver, etc, let's not go there, OK?

That is correct -- I have not read the after-action report (for us Army guys) for that incident. Why would I? If you'd like to read it, I can assure you it's available. All you have to do is ask wherever it is they keep those records. While you're at it, you can get the paperwork that shows the Swifts came to our village the day before -- they'd have that also.

I have dodged a question? Perhaps, but then again I have answered literally hundreds of questions over the past two years or so.

And anyone who is a glutton for punishment can go over to JustOneMinute and look it up.

Doug Reese

Kim said: "Here is his dish... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Kim said: "Here is his dishonesty. Note how Doug says that for 'their portion of the event' Kerry's after-action report was accurate. Well how much of it was about them? It was more about him. Do you see, Doug? We see you."

I try to be careful with what I say Kim, because people like yourself like to pick it over and comment.

If I don't say "for their portion of the event", some would ask how is it I (or others) could know what happened everywhere?

You do realize that the actuall fighting took place over about a 150-200 yard stretch along that canal, don't you Kim?

Therefore, no one person could be in a position to know what happened everywhere.

Have you read the after-action report, Kim? It seems to me you haven't. It covers the sum total of what happened that day, beginning with the Swifts coming into the Bay Hap River from the gulf, stopping by the site where they were shot at the evening before (after they left our village), then on to our village to pick us up, then going up the Dong Cung Canal, and so forth.

It is, in no way, all about Kerry. It was a recitation of what happened that day.

Doug Reese

Yes, I understand there was... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yes, I understand there was a wide front, and you were several hundred yards away.

Let's do go to Don Droz. I believe he died emulating Kerry's Silver Star idea, and his fellow Swifties ditched in the same manner that Kerry did in the Bay Hap Bronze Star incident. I am not sure of that contention.

You are seeking to confound the beaching to disembark soldiers with Kerry's ill-begotten grounding and pursuing of the rocketeer. You are the one who must be careful with the truth. You claim to know facts; I only suspect.
==========================

Were Kerry's actions in gro... (Below threshold)
kim:

Were Kerry's actions in grounding his vessel wise and are they good tactics? Was he fit to command a Swift Boat?
=========================

Since you've said it twice,... (Below threshold)
kim:

Since you've said it twice, I trust I must believe you, but it does stretch credulity for you to say that you have talked to a number of people present that day, and that you have not read the after action report from your own service, the US Army. Remember, you were commissioned an officer.
======================================

If you look at the JustOneM... (Below threshold)
kim:

If you look at the JustOneMinute thread you will find that of three advocates for Kerry, Doug Reese came off as the most effective. He fairly well limits himself to his own knowledge, which is about the Silver Star event; I don't understand why he defends Kerry. He is a soldier, and was not involved with Kerry in Nam except peripherally.
=================================

Kim Said: "Since you've sai... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Kim Said: "Since you've said it twice, I trust I must believe you, but it does stretch credulity for you to say that you have talked to a number of people present that day, and that you have not read the after action report from your own service, the US Army. Remember, you were commissioned an officer."

Why does it stretch credulity? I spoke to them -- mostly by phone, but a few in person. Believe me or not, your choice.

And I'm curious to know why you think it's strange I didn't read our (Army) after-action report? Do you think everyone reads those things? I can assure you, they don't. I didn't.

And as I said earlier about Don Droz -- let's not go there. With all due respect, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If you'd like to sit down and talk to his widow, and explain your views, I would be more than happy to try and arrange a meeting. She lives on the west coast. But as for me, I'm done with that.

Doug Reese

I think Don Droz thought th... (Below threshold)
kim:

I think Don Droz thought that charging the enemy in that situation was the correct, valiant, and heroic thing to do. His best bud, Kerry, had just won a big medal doing the same. In a recent incident, Bay Hap, the other boats had clustered around one in trouble and rattled both banks with covering fire. What happened when Don died? Are we about to get a piece of literary fluff?
=========================

Cinema imagine au vers de l... (Below threshold)
kim:

Cinema imagine au vers de la bete noire?
==========================

Would the blood wonder anew... (Below threshold)
kim:

Would the blood wonder anew, I'd blush.
==========================

Don was the hero.===... (Below threshold)
kim:

Don was the hero.
==========

Do I need oaken nails?<br /... (Below threshold)
kim:

Do I need oaken nails?
=============

Kim.. All of this is nothin... (Below threshold)
Ran:

Kim.. All of this is nothing but circumlocutive BS as to Kerry's behavoir and "Heroism" in Nam. Any guy who spent ten minutes in Nam would tell you, 3 Purple hearts in less than 3 months and not ONE DAY in hospital is a SHAM. For the most part, the only "Heros" I knew were the ones laying in bodybags. I can't speak for others, but after 18 months in country, and numerous decorations, the ONLY award I held any merit to, were my purple Hearts because they shared a commonality with my brothers in arms. And no, I didn't get an early out, I came home on an Air Force med-evac Jet Via Tokyo Japan.. 3rd field hospital.

Kerry's backers and staff w... (Below threshold)
kim:

Kerry's backers and staff were deluded to let him try to run as a war hero. But then, he lied to them. He lies to himself, and I don't blame him for that.
======================

This is how good Doug Reese... (Below threshold)
kim:

This is how good Doug Reese is. Look at his 10:40 post in response to my 10:24 post. In it he separates the pairing that is the subject of my incredulity into two plausible events. This is shabby rhetoric, because he has dodged my question of why he has talked to so many people who were there but not read the after action report.

He is just as clever as Kerry.

sophist. ::spits::
==========================

Kim, your thought process a... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Kim, your thought process amazes me.

I have spoken to some of the people who were there Feb 28, 1969 for a number of reasons. Among them were just to say hello and to hear what they've been doing with their lives after 35 years, etc. Also to ask some specifics as to what went on that day -- where they were/from their viewpoint, etc.

The AAR writen by the Swift Boat guys told me things about what they doing, as, to a certain degree, did the conversations I had with some of them.

I spoke to the VC for many of the same reasons.

Our AAR is about what happened where we were. Since I was there, what is so unusual about me not having a burning desire to read it? What do you think I'm going to learn from it? After all, among the people there that day who I have spoken to were the other two advisors.

I knew quite well what one of them did, as he was right in front of me.

The other advisor was initially behind me, and then off to my right. For a number of reasons, I wasn't exactly paying attention to what he was doing, it being a firefight and all. When I re-connected with him in the spring of 2004, we spoke about that day.

Now I know what he did.

Neither of the other advisors has read our AAR. Why would we? You are the first person in the past 2 + years of talking about all this to ask me that question.

If you find it strange that I haven't read our own AAR, and can't fathom why I wouldn't search it out from wherever it is they keep those things, there's not really anything I can do about that.

If you can't understand my explanation about this, I'm sorry. I guess my communication skills aren't what they should be.

Doug Reese

Aren't you curious what it ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Aren't you curious what it says?
====================

No, not really.... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

No, not really.

I see you have 2+ years of ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I see you have 2+ years of talking about this, and reconnected with the other adviser in the Spring of '04. I should say, we see you. If Kerry is defensible, the historical record should show it, including his military records, his diary, and his photos. If Kerry is indefensible, why do you do so? You know so little about it.
==================================

You say, "Not really". I d... (Below threshold)
kim:

You say, "Not really". I don't believe you. You should be curious. You've been awfully curious about a lot of the details of that day.
=================================

It's reported in the 8/22/0... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's reported in the 8/22/04 Boston Globe that you supported John Kerry's bid for the Presidency.
=====================

I can hardly control what y... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

I can hardly control what you believe, or don't believe.

I guess I'm just a total failure at making you understand why I don't care about seeing this report.

That AAR is about what we did. I know what we did. Therefore, there's nothing to be curious about.

It's past my bedtime . . . good night from Saigon.

Doug Reese

Kim Said: "It's reported in... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Kim Said: "It's reported in the 8/22/04 Boston Globe that you supported John Kerry's bid for the Presidency."

Doug, in spite of claiming to be headed for bed, replies . . . . the same thing was also reported on Nightline around Oct 19, 2004.

And this surprises you?

Doug Reese

Of course it doesn't surpri... (Below threshold)
kim:

Of course it doesn't surprise me. It even fits within your parsing that you didn't work for Kerry.
========================

3. That Nightline show (... (Below threshold)
Bingo:

3. That Nightline show (Oct '04) was neither bogus, nor was I connected to it in any way.

Mr. Reese, just for the record, did you have any dealings/contacts with Margie Mason and/or any other representative of the People's Weekly World or Dan Rather and/or any other representative of CBS News in relation to the Bay Hap incident or any peripheral issues associated with it?

Have you read the after-action report, Kim?

I've read the after-action report Mr. Reese, and it hardly serves as the "smoking gun" of SBVFT mendacity on the subject that you purport it to be. Their position that Kerry's actions that day didn't rise to Silver Star levels of heroics one might normally associate with the second highest award for valor our nation can bestow is certainly still legitimate, AAR notwithstanding.

That opinion is also buttressed by the untypical brevity of the investigation process used to validate it and morale considerations which appear to have been highly salient.

...and thanks for your service.

Hello Bingo. . . . . ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Hello Bingo. . . . .

If the AAR was all that damning, why did Unfit for Command ignore it, and put up that smokescreen of miscellaneous crap in the book? You do remember that, don't you?

Furthermore, John O'Neill just couldn't stop himself from saying "Shot that kid in the back" every chance he could, even though several people, including one officer who was not a member of Kerry's crew said that he wasn't shot in the back.

It was a shameless attempt on his part to smear Kerry, pure and simple.

Now that it's clear that not a single guy present that day will come forward with any kind of dirt on Kerry from that incident (and believe me, the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" private investigator tried his best), there seems to be a shift with some people -- now they're going to the "it didn't rise to the standards of Silver Star heroics" line of attack.

So if that's the case, I suggest you take it up with Elliott and that bunch, as they are the ones who handled the investigation process and awarded the medal.

Margie Mason: I spoke to her on the phone (I was in the USA, she in Hanoi) a week or so after the article came out. At that point, no one except a few friends knew I had gone there -- she certainly didn't. Basically, we compared notes about who we met, etc. I didn't know about the article before it came out, had no contact with the people she worked for before or since, and I haven't spoken to her since that phone conversation.

People's Weekly World: Not only have I had no dealings/contact with them, I don't even know who they are/what it is. I'll Google them after posting this.

Dan Rather/CBS News: No dealings/contact whatsoever, about anything. My one and only contact with CBS was when I handled the ground arrangements for Hugh Thompson and the 60 Minutes crew for their 30th anniversary visit to My Lai in 1998.


So, if by speaking out about the truth as I know it -- and also as I experienced it -- makes me as somehow "working for Kerry" in the minds of some, who do you work for :)

Doug Reese

So was his grounding the bo... (Below threshold)
kim:

So was his grounding the boat a good idea?
=============================

"Grounding" the boat?... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

"Grounding" the boat?

Doug Reese

So, if by speaking out a... (Below threshold)
Bingo:

So, if by speaking out about the truth as I know it -- and also as I experienced it -- makes me as somehow "working for Kerry" in the minds of some, who do you work for :)

Just for the record Mr. Reese, in any exchanges you or I have had, you'll not find an instance of me questioning your political loyalties (which are obvious) nor your motivations, which are your own business.

As I take you at your word in that regard, and have done so throughout, I guess you can can say we both voluntarily "work for" the "Truth" as we see it.

If the AAR was all that damning, why did Unfit for Command ignore it, and put up that smokescreen of miscellaneous crap in the book?

It's your CONTENTION that the narrative contained in the AAR would definitively justify the SS and that UFC purposely and deceitfully ommited it. I read that AAR Mr. Reese and, like MANY others have posited, there was nothing contained within that struck me as de facto rising to Silver Star levels of valor inre Kerry's actions.

One can hardly be SHOCKED that UFC might focus on an event in that day's activities which both Kerry himself and the award narrative highlighted as singular.

As to:

Furthermore, John O'Neill just couldn't stop himself from saying "Shot that kid in the back" every chance he could, even though several people, including one officer who was not a member of Kerry's crew said that he wasn't shot in the back.

I'm unfamiliar with time period your allegation became available, how thoroughly it was vetted and whether or not O'Neill was even privy to it at the time of his various observations (there was, as you will recall, LOTS of irons in the fire), so I can't comment on that. However , with reports such as this...

In an interview for a seven-part biographical series that appeared in the Globe last year, Kerry said: ''I don't have a second's question" about killing the Viet Cong. ''He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/?page=2

..."shot that kid in the back" might arguably be impolitic, but hardly illogical, unsubstantiated or gratuitous in making a case for overstated valor.


Regarding that quote from K... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Regarding that quote from Kerry -- at the bottom of your post.

Go back (I'm not, just going from memory) to the entire quote/link and I believe you will see the entire statement by Kerry. I think it is the only time he has spoken directly to the question of whether or not he shot the guy in the back.

Correct me if I am wrong, but he said "No" . . is that correct?

Then Kerry went on with what you posted . . . and look at that a little more closely -- notice that he said "and, I thought, poised to fire".

And guess where the killing wound was -- in his left side -- which would have had him turned towards Kerry's boat, which was to his left rear, at that point.

I have always said that we'll never know if he was planning to fire the B-40, or is he was in the process of looking over his shoulder to see if anyone was following him.

More later, but KFC (they deliver here) is at the door, and that means it's lunchtime!

Doug Reese

PS. I know you don't work for anyone. I was just messin' with Kim, through you :)

Correct me if I am wrong... (Below threshold)
Bingo:

Correct me if I am wrong, but he said "No" . . is that correct?

Then Kerry went on with what you posted . . . and look at that a little more closely -- notice that he said "and, I thought, poised to fire

Nope, not correct...out of sequence and incorrectly quoted...and I supplied you the exact quote from the story..."poised to TURN AROUND and fire it"

And here's the rest, with an evasive non-sequitur bigger than Dallas and ZERO follow-up from Kranish (why am I not surprised)...

Asked whether that meant that he had shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, ''No, absolutely not," adding that the enemy had been running to a hut for cover, where he could have destroyed Kerry's boat and killed the crew.

Dat's it for me...bedtime. Enjoy your capitalist chicken and my best regards to #24 at "Magic Fingers".

Kerry shot the enemy soldie... (Below threshold)
kim:

Kerry shot the enemy soldier before he realized the international community ought to vote on where the shot was placed.
================================

When he parked his ride and... (Below threshold)
kim:

When he parked his ride and abandoned it. Was that a good idea or not?
======================================

His boat wasn't abandoned. ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

His boat wasn't abandoned. There were still a number of people on it, including two officers and several very experienced crewmembers -- and then there was Bill Rood's boat, which was also backing him up.

But go ahead, keep banging on that drum, despite the fact that none of the 25 people actually present for this had a problem with this.

I'll will now put this in the same box with Don Droz, although for vastly different reasons.

Doug Reese

# 24 -- How did you know? I... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

# 24 -- How did you know? I kid you not, that's her number!

I use her name, Nho (means "grape"), but 24 is indeed her number.

No, it isn't "Magic Fingers" (I looked up to make sure I had this, even simpler quote, correct), but a foot massage place.

Doug Reese

I didn't say the boat was a... (Below threshold)
kim:

I didn't say the boat was abandoned, I said he abandoned it. Was it a good idea to beach his boat as he did?

Sure, put it in a shoebox. Along with all of the pix John War Hero Kerry took.
==================================

Did Rood have to hang aroun... (Below threshold)
kim:

Did Rood have to hang around the helpless Swiftboat and not cover your ass by any chance? Was Rood brooding over a sitting duck while your forces withered?
===============================

You were there, let's set t... (Below threshold)
kim:

You were there, let's set this scene a little better. These Swift boats were supposed to provide covering fire for your forces. Some had disembarked from the boats. What was Kerry's boat doing aground with its fixed gun elevated over the horizon? Where was the commander?

Oh yeah, directing cuts. Why do you support this man? I do question your motivation.
==================

At that point, Rood didn't ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

At that point, Rood didn't need to be covering us. We were doing just fine then.

Then again, who am I to tell you what was happening? You seem to be chocked-full of knowledge about who was doing what and when in the course of that incident.

Heaven forbid someone who was actually there should tell you anything about that day.

Doug Reese

I kinda thought so. You gu... (Below threshold)
kim:

I kinda thought so. You guys were mopping up when he went on his fine adventure. I do thank you for your perspectives. Why haven't you read the Army's after action report? Was it a good idea the why and way he beached his boat? And why do you support this cowardly narcist?
=====================================

So your perspective is that... (Below threshold)
kim:

So your perspective is that the battle was nearly over when Kerry went on his remarkably foolhardy little episode which was heroic in his own mind. Mind you, there was an element of personal physical bravery mixed with extremely poor judgement.

You've actually improved my opinion of his performance that day. I thought he went off on his personal quest for self-destruction while the battle still raged. Now you tell me it was the aftermath; the moment of hysterical release, and bravura performances.
==============================

Truly fit for the silver sc... (Below threshold)
kim:

Truly fit for the silver screen, but as a star?
===========================

Doug,My reasons fo... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Doug,

My reasons for disliking Kerry have nothing to do with Swiftboat claims. I actually had thought for 30 years that he had served a full 12 months in Vietnam and that his medals were unquestioned and I still thought of him as an SOB for other reasons.

What I take exception to is the campaign to call all the Swiftboat claims lies and the people making them liars. By all accounts, the many (if not all) members of that group served their country honorably and at great risk to themselves.

As you have implied, the battle was fierce that day and the scene large. Different people at different times and at different locations could reasonably have very different opinions of what they saw. Add 30 years to that and, of course, the "truth" becomes even more elusive.

I have no reason to doubt Bill Rood's account. I have no reason to doubt the claim of those present who spoke harshly of Kerry. I assume, as generally is the case in life, that there is some truth in both accounts.

I think if important that all have the opportunity to tell their story. Let the people listening make up their own minds.

However, when someone tells me that we cannot question Kerry's actions because he's a medal recipient and served in Vietnam, then I would expect that person to not question the actions of other medal recipients who served their country in Vietnam as well. Calling the second group liars invalidate the original premise.

KERRY made his service in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign by "reporting for duty" at the convention. He would have gotten some of the questions anyway but, by the direction he took with the campaign, he invited them. He should have been better prepared to deal with them.

I realize that I have addressed some questions that weren't put forth by you specifically. I include them only because I suspect you may wonder why credence is given to the Swiftboat group when their opinion of that day is different than yours.

Thank you for your service to your country.

Kim Said: "So your perspect... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Kim Said: "So your perspective is that the battle was nearly over when Kerry went on his remarkably foolhardy . . . . . "

Actually you wouldn't know my perspective it it was written in stone.

Your take on my perspective is quite wrong -- and your constant asking the same question over and over I find a little strange -- and annoying.

Doug Reese

Ohio Voter,If you ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Ohio Voter,

If you were speaking of the Silver Star incident (and I think you were) when you said "I have no reason to doubt the claim of those present who spoke harshly of Kerry." . . . and "Different people at different times and at different locations could reasonably have very different opinions of what they saw."

You must be mixing that incident with another, as there was no one involved in that incident who spoke harshly of Kerry -- nor were there different opinions of what people there saw.

Doug Reese

Doug,I'm sorry, Do... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Doug,

I'm sorry, Doug.

I thought you were someone interested in an honest dialogue. Thank you for correcting my misconception. I will now know to look at your writings as the partisian shill that you apparently are.

Old, forgotten, far-off thi... (Below threshold)
kim:

Old, forgotten, far-off things, and battles long ago.
===========================

Ohio Voter . . . just what ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Ohio Voter . . . just what was it in my reply set you off like this?

I am quite interested in honest dialogue, as Bingo can attest. And what I replied to you showed nothing but that.

If you were referring to the Bronze Star incident, then what you said was on the money -- there certainly were differing views in that incident.

However, it appeared to me you were talking about the Silver Star incident, as not only was that what was being discussed (with Bingo and Kim), but it is the one and only incident Bill Rood has ever spoken about.

My reply regarding the Silver Star incident is correct. None of the 24 of us present that day has come forward with differing views of what happened, and none has spoken harshly about Kerry regarding that incident. If you feel I'm wrong about that, please feel free to correct me.

Doug Reese

Ohio Voter . . . j... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Ohio Voter . . . just what was it in my reply set you off like this?

I am quite interested in honest dialogue, as Bingo can attest. And what I replied to you showed nothing but that.

Based on your previous reply, you chose to assume what I meant rather to respond to what I said.

Don't automatically assume that you are being attacked.

As I stated in my earlier comment, my problem with Kerry has nothing whatsoever to do with his medals. I wasn't trying to argue with you about them. You missed my point in entirely in your rush to defend them and him - which is one of the things that made you look so partisian.

None of the 24 of us present that day has come forward with differing views of what happened, and none has spoken harshly about Kerry regarding that incident.

And this is the other thing ....

All 24 people at the event and they all have the exact same memory of what happened?

No differing view whatsover? Even on the smallest detail? Their stories are exactly the same?

That defies common sense.

If 24 people were sitting in a meeting room, someone else walked in and walked out again, I doubt that all 24 would tell the exact same story of THAT event and they weren't in the middle of a battle. Some details would logically differ.

As to the second part of your comment, I see that you have rephrased it from what you said earlier.

Then it was:

....no one involved in that incident who spoke harshly of Kerry

.. while now it is ..

.... none has spoken harshly about Kerry regarding that incident
.

While it still strains credibility, it makes more sense than what you first said.

If all 24 of my students couldn't find a single thing to criticize about something I'd done, I would assume that at least 20% weren't being entirely truthful.

I have no interest in parsing out individual moments of what occurred then. It was 30 years ago.

I remain skeptical of claims of perfection.


I was not assuming anything... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

I was not assuming anything -- that's the reason for me starting off with "If".

I also didn't assume you were attacking me. You didn't do that until your second reply to me -- the one that referred to me a "partisian shill". I consider that an attack, but not anything in your original reply.

I was trying to point out . . . and trying now in a way that will make sense . . that there was Kerry, and 24 others of us present that day -- Feb 28, 1969. And that none of the 24 has a problem with what Kerry did, says he did, or what the Navy says he did.

And we certainly don't have the same story. I wasn't trying to claim otherwise. Yes, there are variations here and there, but not on the main parts of the story as to what happened -- just the usual minor variations.

People there that day who have come forward publically, myself included, have come forward and supported Kerry in regards to what happened that day and his (Kerry's) involvement -- in each and every instance.

What you don't have, as was the case in the Bronze Star incident, is people coming forward with comments like "Kerry said there was fire coming from the riverbank, but that isn't true.", or "Kerry lied about what happened."

Let me go to the next-to-last paragraph in your original reply. It might (note I say "might", as I am not sure) allow me to make my point a little better than I have so far . . . then again, perhaps not . . . but I'll try anyway!

"I realize that I have addressed some questions that weren't put forth by you specifically. I include them only because I suspect you may wonder why credence is given to the Swiftboat group when their opinion of that day is different than yours."

Yes, the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" have a different opinion of that day than I do.

They also have a different opinion of that day than Peter Upton, Bill Rood, Wayne Langhofer, John Kerry, Larry Lee, Mike Mederios, Bill Hirschler and the other 17 who were actually present.

Not one person of the 255 member SBV"t", save Larry Lee, was present that day. Larry supports Kerry being awarded the Silver Star, and has no criticism of his actions that day.

Doug Reese

I am quite interested in... (Below threshold)
Bingo:

I am quite interested in honest dialogue, as Bingo can attest.

You have, on occasion, surprised me with your candor Mr. Reese. Unfortunately, I can't attest to your consistency in that regard.

...there was Kerry, and 24 others of us present that day -- Feb 28, 1969. And that none of the 24 has a problem with what Kerry did, says he did, or what the Navy says he did.

Here you present (yet again, but with an interesting and slightly toned down variant) another rendition of your fallacious suggestion that an unwillingness to publicly comment in an extremely high profile national controversy somehow implies not having a "problem" (you used to suggest "support"). You simply cannot, in good conscience, infer anything from the reticence of those reluctant to stake such a public position or who exercise their right to be non-commital and left alone.

I'll defer to another the discussion of the quasi-relevance of the below-mentioned testimonies to an alleged impeachment of the UFC allegation.

But for now, another recitation of the "Larry Lee" misrepresentation and half-truth. I can understand your inability to resist this one Mr. Reese, and you're hardly unique...

Not one person of the 255 member SBV"t", save Larry Lee, was present that day. Larry supports Kerry being awarded the Silver Star...

I believe you've been shown this before Mr. Reese...

Some Kerry opponents have claimed that he didn't deserve the Silver Star, and even Lee said that a lesser Bronze Star might have been more appropriate.

Louisville Courier-Journal - Aug 26, 2004

I believe the phrase you're looking for might be "acquiesced to" Mr. Reese...hardly "supported" as the meaning of that word is commonly understood.

Can we see all of Kerry's p... (Below threshold)
kim:

Can we see all of Kerry's pictures, please? Especially the one with the fixed machine gun pointing up in the air. Or how about the cache even Brinkley didn't see?
==========================

His dishonesty is in things... (Below threshold)
kim:

His dishonesty is in things like 'support' morphing to 'no problem with'. He's as clever as Kerry.

sophist. ::spits::
==============

I keep asking the same ques... (Below threshold)
kim:

I keep asking the same question, which you find irritating and the questioning strange, to point up the fact that you refuse to address it, and it is a key question.

Was the beaching a good idea? Is it good tactics? I know this was pretty thoroughly discussed in other threads by naval and military commenters far more knowledgable than you or I. I know the answer. It was a monumentally bad idea, and it was a worse idea to commend it. There is blame to lay around on others besides Kerry for the commendation. And there is blood spilled and lives lost because of that foolish idea. That's the dirty idea you don't want to go near.
===================================

The lives lost were those o... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

The lives lost were those of the VC, Kim, and you know it.

Doug Reese

Kim -- I made you an offer ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Kim -- I made you an offer you haven't commented on.

Perhaps you'd care to comment on it now.

Would you like to meet with Don Droz's widow and discuss your false (and totally bizarre) idea about why her husband died?

I am not kidding when I say I'd try to arrange it.

Doug Reese

I'm talking about later eve... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'm talking about later events, like the day Don Droz died.

I resent that Don's memory has been demeaned. I have no need to disturb his widow with my resentment. What your needs are, I can't control.
===============================

Bingo -- Yes, I remember th... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Bingo -- Yes, I remember the discussion about Larry Lee. I don't agree with your conclusion, but I do remember it.

Please keep in mind, that like the Bronze Star incident, the private investigator hired by the SBV"t' contacted as many of those present for the SS incident as possible.

The SBV"t" was not, in any way, interested in discovering the truth about either incident. They were simply interested in smearing Kerry.

If they were interested in the truth they would not have totally ignored the after-action report. They also would not have cherry-picked what I told them either.

Anyway, they found no one willing to play their game when it came to the SS incident.

Yes, it is true that every single person present hasn't commented, but what's so surprising about that?

Is what Larry Lee said the best you can do? What was the question posed to him that caused him to give that answer?

As closely as you seem to have followed this, would you care to comment on Kim's question/comment? If you know what I'm talking about, that is . . . . that Don Droz died trying to copy Kerry's beaching maneuver, or something along those lines

I'll give #24 your regards.

Doug Reese

But let's get back to your ... (Below threshold)
kim:

But let's get back to your sophistry as pointed out by Bingo. What say all these folks? What say Kerry's boatmates, after their original statements around the convention. Where were his 'brothers' when the Swifties allegations were buzzing around him like C-130's in Aug. of '04? Was David Alston, the Man of God, commended for his action when Kerry was 'takin' it to 'em'? Hey, that was the Silver Star action. Did you see David Alston there that day? Your the big expert for that day. Is he on his knees praying for forgiveness for the damnable lies he told at the convention? Where are you, David Alston?

Oh, it's you, Doug. Sorry.
=====================

My point is not just as you... (Below threshold)
kim:

My point is not just as you allege, Doug. I maintain that after Kerry's charge at the shore, incapacitating his vessel, got lucky, and he wrote it up well, and it was rewarded with a medal, other skippers were tempted, nay encouraged, to similar foolhardiness. After a little unhappy carnage, the tactic was reconsidered. I maintain that insofar as this idea was Kerry's, either spontaneous of with insufficient forethought, he is responsible for the consequences. I do not know whether or not Don Droz died emulating Kerry. I know he admired Kerry, and Kerry's behaviour had been rewarded.
==========================================

I repeat my question -- wou... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

I repeat my question -- would you like to meet Judy and discuss this with her?

Answer, please. . . .

Doug Reese

PS. As I have said before, and the records show, the tactic was discussed AHEAD OF TIME. It was not, I repeat, NOT spontaneous.

Which tactic, letting off t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Which tactic, letting off troops, or beaching his boat at an awkward angle and abandoning it? Which was rewarded? Which was a good idea?

You go tell Judy her husband is a hero. That's not my business.
===================================

Let's see, so far we've got... (Below threshold)
kim:

Let's see, so far we've got that you think this foolish maneuver was planned and not spontaneous. We've got that it was commended. We've got that you were there. You've failed to say whether or not it was a good idea, which is a key question. Instead, you want to drag Don Droz out of the box you claimed you put him in.

What is wrong with this picture. What is your motivation?
====================================

Sure, like I'm even going t... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Sure, like I'm even going to mention your name to her.

I figured you'd weasel out.

Doug Reese

Hey, I didn't bring Don Dr... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey, I didn't bring Don Droz's family into this. Last time you dragged his poor innocent daughter into it. Why the hell don't you let him be the hero he was?
==============================

Would you like me to pull u... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Would you like me to pull up your past comments from JOM about this?

You are truly disgusting.

Doug Reese

Bingo -- Yes, I remember... (Below threshold)
Bingo:

Bingo -- Yes, I remember the discussion about Larry Lee. I don't agree with your conclusion...

A rather remarkable position to take given the qualifying statement attributed to Larry Lee, but cling to it if you will.

Please keep in mind, that like the Bronze Star incident, the private investigator hired by the SBV"t' contacted as many of those present for the SS incident as possible.

Proving exactly what? other than the fact that only 6 of your alleged 23 (excluding Kerry) elected to comment at all by whatever means or stimulii? Nor do I doubt for a NY minute that a similar effort was made by the Kerry campaign. Since you're open to infering meaning from non-responses, would you care to postulate why a meager 4 of your 21 present (excluding Kerry, Rood and Lee) would step up to the plate publicly for Kerry? For that matter, in what phone booth are they holding the next gathering of Swift Boat Veterans for Kerry?

The SBV"t" was not, in any way, interested in discovering the truth about either incident. They were simply interested in smearing Kerry.

Not even worthy of comment other than so's yer old man.

If they were interested in the truth they would not have totally ignored the after-action report.

Asked. Answered. (see above)

They also would not have cherry-picked what I told them either.

More than likely Reese minutiae...probably irrelevant to their allegation...which was, by the way, that Kerry's actions that day didn't rise to Silver Star levels of valor. YMMV

Anyway, they found no one willing to play their game when it came to the SS incident.

Kerry's SS award is a minor player in the totality of their Kerry indictment. Pity his post-war sedition and treason weren't given the attention due them.

Yes, it is true that every single person present hasn't commented, but what's so surprising about that?

"Every single person?" How 'bout 6? (see above)

Is what Larry Lee said the best you can do?

The best I can do and more than adequate to refute your now continuing misrepresentation of his position. Yup.

What was the question posed to him that caused him to give that answer?

I have no idea, nor does it appear to be particularly important given his rather pointed (albeit paraphrased) observation...and from a newspaper that was Kerry-friendly as well.

As closely as you seem to have followed this, would you care to comment on Kim's question/comment? If you know what I'm talking about, that is . . . . that Don Droz died trying to copy Kerry's beaching maneuver, or something along those lines

Not a chance in hell.

I'll give #24 your regards.

much obliged

I was not assuming... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
I was not assuming anything -- that's the reason for me starting off with "If".

Well, "if" you think that you can justify Kerry's VC lover riding on the boat that day ....

Oh, wait a minute, you didn't say anything at all about Kerry HAVING a VC lover - let alone letting hin/her ride on the boat that day.

These word games are what is hurting your credibility with me.

As my example shows, we could both make up a HUGE number of "what ifs" - but for what purpose? Wouldn't if be simpler to discuss what was acutally said?

I also didn't assume you were attacking me.

Then there was no justification for you responding to me as if I had.

You didn't do that until your second reply to me -- the one that referred to me a "partisian shill". I consider that an attack, but not anything in your original reply.

Well, when you attack people first, they will sometimes respond with an attack ....

I was trying to point out . . . and trying now in a way that will make sense . . that there was Kerry, and 24 others of us present that day -- Feb 28, 1969. And that none of the 24 has a problem with what Kerry did, says he did, or what the Navy says he did.

Well, as Bingo has pointed out that's streching the story somewhat, but at least it makes more sense that Version #1 (or was it Version#2?) of how you phrased it earler.

However, why are you mentiong "what the Navy says he did"? Wasn't your point that the SwiftBoat Veterans were only interested in smearing Kerry because none of them were there that day? Well, neither was "the Navy". The Navy only knows what it was told and therefore - by your standards - should not be considered a source.

And we certainly don't have the same story. I wasn't trying to claim otherwise. Yes, there are variations here and there, but not on the main parts of the story as to what happened -- just the usual minor variations.

Well, you did claim otherwise.

Bill Rood on the subject:

Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

That's why I believed Bill Rood's account when I read it. What he said made sense in the real world and he didn't try to claim anything more than he could absolutely say to be true.

(BTW, whether or not the man was already wounded was a "minor detail"?)

Not one person of the 255 member SBV"t", save Larry Lee, was present that day.

Nor have they claimed that they were.

As I said earlier, if everyone claims to have no criticism of Kerry that day, I would suspect that a fair percentage were not being entirely truthful.

If I saw those who came forth contstantly being referred to as "liars", "only interested in smearing", etc, and sophmoric "" being used around my group's name, I would keep my mouth shut too.

Had Kerry not had his own credibility problems on the subject (and there is far more than just "Christmas in Cambodia" in that file), I suspect the Swiftboat VETERANS would not have found the size of audience that they did.

I certainly don't damn them solely based on their funding source. When a man with a half billion dollars personal fortune tells one story and you feel that you have another, you will need financial help or he will be able to bury you without ever being heard.

OhioVoter -- If you could p... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

OhioVoter -- If you could point me to where someone there that day expressed criticism of Kerry, I'd be more than happy to read it. Perhaps the reason there is none, is because there is nothing to criticize. I mean, the man isn't perfect, but I fail to see what he did wrong that day -- apparently no one else does either.

When I say "Kerry and/or the Navy", as I often do, that is to recognize the fact that it makes no difference if Kerry wrote the after-action report, or someone else wrote it. If it was someone else, then "the Navy" applies. If it was Kerry, well, then "Kerry". Of course, regardless as to who actually authored the report, it had to be a compilation of a number of people who were present, as no one person could have observed everything that went on.

Moving on . . . I'll just have to say that I don't agree on a variety of other points you've made, and leave it at that.

As for something new you've posted, I'd like to comment -- that quote from Bill Rood's article.

"Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ."

Yes, it is absolutely for certain that we don't all have the same recollections, expecially after all these years. I have never said otherwise, or intended to give that impression. In fact, I have said much the same thing many times when talking about this incident, and about our recollections in general regarding things that happened to us so long ago.

As for Rood and Leeds comment -- I don't find this surprising at all. Not only might they not remember, they very well may not have seen him being wounded. Afterall, Rood's boat was some distance away from Kerry's boat. He was certainly close enough to see at least some of what was going on, as Rood saw the VC (and his assistant) and called for Kerry to turn in towards that spot along the canal bank.

The distance from where we (advisors and Vietnamese soldiers) were on the ground, and where Kerry eventually ran up against the canal bank and that VC was about 150 yards. Apparently Kerry was closer than Rood, or Rood would have gone there himself.

If you didn't already know, when Kerry went up against the canal bank, the VC in that hole was extremely close to his boat -- I'd say about 10 feet off to the right.

Kerry's forward M-60 guy is at the very front of the boat, in a hole meant for an anchor (he was standing in it up to his chest), and has his M-60 resting on the deck of the boat. He fired at the VC at what would have been point blank range, but the gun jammed after just a few rounds. He did manage to hit him at least once, in the leg, as he jumped up out of his hole. They VC stumbled, but got up and ran away -- at first straight away from the boat for a few yards, and then off to the left and down a trail. The trail was set back a short distance from the canal.

Assuming they had an angle where they could see all this (and I think that is very possible) Rood and Leeds would have to be looking right at Kerry's boat and the VC at the moment when he was shot. From what I understand, it just took a few seconds. So, maybe they saw it happen, maybe they didn't. And if they saw it, they didn't remember it according to the article.

I have no idea if Leeds was on the ground later, and talking to Kerry or others. I know Rood was, as I have a photo of him right there, given to me by another Swift Boat guy.

I walked up to Kerry some minutes after all this (him killing the VC) happened, and he told me about it as he was standing next to the dead body.

Doug Reese

PS. Who told you about the VC lover? That was classified.

Doug, it's disgusting what'... (Below threshold)
kim:

Doug, it's disgusting what's been done with Don Droz's memory. If you'll look back, I'm the one who suggested that people look at the JustOneMinute thread. You should be ashamed of your comments there; I'm not of mine.
=====================================

You know, if you'd read the... (Below threshold)
kim:

You know, if you'd read the Army's after action report of the incident you could be even more authoritative about your presentation of the scene. How many times have you been at the scene, and for what reasons? You are the one who is disgusting.
==============================

For instance, let's wander ... (Below threshold)
kim:

For instance, let's wander to the year 1992.
===========================

We're really in a draw here... (Below threshold)
kim:

We're really in a draw here re: JOM. He's got 1400+ comments to mine, and I can always refer readers to context. It was a pretty active skirmish, with the three Kerry defenders badly outgunned. Last year, and now, Doug Reese is offended by my speculation that Don Droz so admired Kerry, and was so star-struck by his silver medal and the behaviour it commended that he somehow hoped to copy it on the day he died. This is speculative, but certainly not implausible and certainly not shameful to suggest. What is shameful is the way Don Droz's existence has been perverted by the forces who opposed our involvement against the Stalinists in Southeast Asia. The Stalinists with whom Doug Reese works hand in glove.
=================================

How many times have I been ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

How many times have I been at the scene? Let's see . . . . three times. The latest being a few weeks ago. So what?

And what's with 1992?

Doug Reese

Imagine a pissant like you ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Imagine a pissant like you calling me disgusting. You were a US Army officer. I thank you for your prior service, but I despise for your present work.

::spits::
=============

I salute you alright; you h... (Below threshold)
kim:

I salute you alright; you have the ethical standing that Kerry does. That's my living.
=======================================

I repeat . . . . H... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

I repeat . . . .

How many times have I been at the scene? Let's see . . . . three times. The latest being a few weeks ago. So what?

And what's with 1992?

You don't care to answer? Why? Or did you just miss my question?

Doug Reese

So was the rocketeer injure... (Below threshold)
kim:

So was the rocketeer injured before or after the boat went aground? If he was injured. Do we know what weapon injured him? If he was injured.

I'm waiting for someone else to wonder about 1992.
================================

Remember, I've said that I ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Remember, I've said that I don't have a whole lot of criticism for Kerry's actions that day other than grounding his boat in a panic and claiming it was superheroic afterwards. You were as brave or braver that day and showed much better judgement. I suspect I'd have saluted you differently then than I do now.
====================================

The problem is Doug, you ar... (Below threshold)
kim:

The problem is Doug, you are trying to hold an untenable position. You were with Kerry at an honorable, if relatively unheroic, moment in his naval career. You missed the mass of his service there, which was relatively reckless, and self-destructive; he was a danger to others, not just to Don Droz. I understand your resentment that the characterization of Kerry at your battle seems unfair from your perspective, and actually, I do understand that and agree. But it's just spillover in excess from all the rest of his misdeeds.

By the way, let's see the historical record that Kerry controls from that time period; all the military records, all the stills, all the movies. Surely that is a mine of information. Or are you more interested in disinformation?
================================

It's emblematic that Kerry'... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's emblematic that Kerry's last best defender is a soldier. Of what, though?
============================

Pray, David Alston, pray; s... (Below threshold)
kim:

Pray, David Alston, pray; someday you may discover the need for repentance.
=====================

Kim Said: "So was the rocke... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Kim Said: "So was the rocketeer injured before or after the boat went aground? If he was injured. Do we know what weapon injured him? If he was injured."

That's an easy one.

All who were on the scene have said it was Tommy B, the forward M-60 gunner -- including Tommy. And that would make sense, as he was easily the closest.

It's what Kerry told me soon after it happened. It's in the after-action report. I believe it's in the original citation, but I don't have it handy to say for sure.

So yes, he certainly was injured, and it was after the boat was beached on the canal bank. It seems they (guys on Kerry's boat) didn't see him until they beached, or just a second or two before. It was Bill Rood who saw him (and a another VC with him) initially, and told Kerry to turn in there.

Hmmm, 1992. You asked the question. If you want an answer, you're going to have to be a little more specific.

Doug Reese

Alston? Hardly. I'd say if ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Alston? Hardly. I'd say if anyone, it's bandit.

Did Kerry's crew all get together in 1969 and take a photo of themselves, and include Alston, so they could fake the fact that he was with them for the 2004 election? I don't think so.

Did you see that photo?

Do you think all of Kerry's crew is lying about him being with them?

Doug Reese

So Bill Rood told him to tu... (Below threshold)
kim:

So Bill Rood told him to turn in there. Did Bill Rood tell him to ground the boat? Wait, haven't you claimed this was a planned maneuver? Whose idea was this, anyway?
================================

Kerry controls all the mili... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Kerry controls all the military records? Are you kidding?

Many of the records -- after-action reports, for example -- are controlled/kept by the military, NOT the individual.

Doug Reese

Now you've really stepped i... (Below threshold)
kim:

Now you've really stepped in it. You know perfectly well I'm talking about Alston alleging he was on the boat during the Silver Star incident.

Doug, you can fool the ignorant. You are an excellent rhetorician, but fundamentally your sophism is perverted by your bias. I'm sorry that you can't see it. I would be even sorrier if you could.
========================

Again, it's sophism. I cle... (Below threshold)
kim:

Again, it's sophism. I clearly said all the records that Kerry controlled. Go back and read it.
============================

Again, it's sophism. I cle... (Below threshold)
kim:

Again, it's sophism. I clearly said all the records that Kerry controlled. Go back and read it.
============================

You speak with forked tongu... (Below threshold)
kim:

You speak with forked tongue and cannot be trusted to speak the truth.
==========================

Whose idea was it and was i... (Below threshold)
kim:

Whose idea was it and was it a good one?

This is a key question which you keep wanting to dance, read slither, around.
==============================

Now, I'm not stepping any c... (Below threshold)
kim:

Now, I'm not stepping any closer for now; I've got the co-ordinates.
====================================

Kim, you need to read up on... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Kim, you need to read up on this a bit. We've been over this already, don't you remember?

All the boats DID turn in and beach at the location where we (Army guys and VN soldiers) got off.

A little later -- perhaps a couple of minutes, Kerry was checking out things up the canal -- something like 200-300 or so yards away. He was then coming back towards our/Rood's location when Rood observed the vC and his assistant on the canal bank, and told Kerry to turn in.

Kim, you can get into a minute-by-minute, second-by-second account of who was doing what. And then you can cherry-pick what you want, and in your usual way, distort it or go off on some odd tangent. Feel free . . . .

That's the answer to your question.

Doug Reese

I have said, time and time ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

I have said, time and time again, that it was a good idea.

Kerry's commanders even said it was a good idea.

Larry Lee said it was a good idea.

Got it?

Doug Reese

So his turning in there whe... (Below threshold)
kim:

So his turning in there where Rood spotted the VC was not planned? And did Kerry get credit for Rood's good idea? Are you still trying to conflate two different things, the planned landing of troops and the unplanned grounding and pursuit of the rocketeer? Was grounding the boat a good idea? Whose idea was this anyway?
===============================

What you call 'odd tangents... (Below threshold)
kim:

What you call 'odd tangents' is me cross checking your story. From you I've heard a number of stories about the origination of the idea of using the boats as landing ships, and I've heard you try to conflate that with Kerry's impulsive and reckless maneuver after Rood's direction. Whose idea was his charge to the shore, and was it a good idea?
====================================

Reese's conflict here is th... (Below threshold)
kim:

Reese's conflict here is that it was a bad idea, but it was spectacularly commended. I should say, his advantage and his conflict; it remains a bad, and deadly, idea.
===========================

How about 1992? You ask a c... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

How about 1992? You ask a cryptic question, then don't explain it.

Doug Reese

Reese's idea is nothing of ... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Reese's idea is nothing of the sort. That would be Kim's idea.

How about it? 1992?

Doug Reese

Doug, You have con... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Doug,

You have convinced me of one of two things:

Either you have a severe reading comprehension problem. (Your last reply to me was an incoherent, mishmash of "factoids" that had nothing to do with what I said.)

Or, you aren't "The" Doug Reese who was there that day.

Either way, since no honest discourse is forthcoming, there is no need for me to continue.

Have a good day. I hope that you make a bundle off your chosen role.

Me -- make a bundle? I wish... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Me -- make a bundle? I wish.

But yes, I am the Doug Reese that was there then.

You have a good day too.

Doug Reese

Well it is becoming clear t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well it is becoming clear that it is either reading comprehension, or willfully dishonest rhetoric. It was neither my idea nor your idea. It was Kerry's idea, or Rood's idea, or someone who pre-planned it, or maybe the idea only came after the self-promotion and commendation. Whose idea was it and was it a good idea?
===========================

What part of this (below) d... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

What part of this (below) do you not understand?

Doug Reese
.............................................
I have said, time and time again, that it was a good idea.

Kerry's commanders even said it was a good idea.

Larry Lee said it was a good idea.

Got it?

Doug Reese

Posted by: Doug Reese at April 22, 2007 11:53 AM

It was a good idea to charg... (Below threshold)
kim:

It was a good idea to charge the bank, ground the boat, leave some weapons unusable and have the commander run off into the boonies? Kerry was lucky.
=========================

No weapons were "unusable".... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

No weapons were "unusable".

Kerry didn't "run off into the boonies". He was a stone's throw, literally, from the boat.

Doug Reese

And the overwhelming enemy ... (Below threshold)
kim:

And the overwhelming enemy force threw no stones.
================================

Bingo, your well-thought... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Bingo, your well-thought out and lengthy reply deserves a similar response. Sorry for taking so long, but this wasn't a one-liner I could pass off in a few seconds.
I'm going to reply in bold. I want to be sure I don't screw-up like I did when I was waiting for KFC and wasn't careful about one of your quotes . . . sorry about that, it was unintentional . . . . BINGO -- now that I have posted my reply, it seems that it isn't all in bold as I intended, just the first sentence in some instances. Can't figure out why. Hopefully you can sort it out .

Bingo -- Yes, I remember the discussion about Larry Lee. I don't agree with your conclusion...

A rather remarkable position to take given the qualifying statement attributed to Larry Lee, but cling to it if you will.

Well, I'd rather cling to the opening paragraph of the article:
"A Kentucky Vietnam veteran who was involved in the fighting that earned Sen. John Kerry the Silver Star for gallantry says the Democratic presidential nominee deserved the award."

Or this quote, from Lee:
"I have no problems with him getting the Silver Star,"

Or this, from the author of the article:
"Lee said Kerry earned his Silver Star . . . . "

And while I'm at it, here's what Lee thought about turning into the ambush:
"Lee said of the tactic. "I think it was great."

Please keep in mind, that like the Bronze Star incident, the private investigator hired by the SBV"t' contacted as many of those present for the SS incident as possible.

Proving exactly what? other than the fact that only 6 of your alleged 23 (excluding Kerry) elected to comment at all by whatever means or stimulii? Nor do I doubt for a NY minute that a similar effort was made by the Kerry campaign. Since you're open to infering meaning from non-responses, would you care to postulate why a meager 4 of your 21 present (excluding Kerry, Rood and Lee) would step up to the plate publicly for Kerry? For that matter, in what phone booth are they holding the next gathering of Swift Boat Veterans for Kerry?

Where did you get that it was only six?

The number was slightly higher. Let's exclude Kerry. Besides those two you mentioned (Rood and Lee), and myself, we have . . . .

All five of Kerry's crew -- Medeiros, Sandusky, Short, Thorson, and Beladeou. Interviews in 1996 and since then (except for Beladeou, who died in 1997) - that's 8

Lt.Jg. Peter Upton, a UDT guy on Kerry's boat that day, wrote an article - 9

Lt.Jg. Charles Gibson, also on Kerry's boat, wrote an article - 10

Jerry Leeds, I believe on Droz's boat, was interviewed -- 11

Then we have the crewmen Rood spoke to, and mentioned in his article. He had their permission to mention them, and they contributed in part to his article. I'm thinking this falls under your "elected to comment at all by whatever means or stimuli", so I will include them. Langhoffer, Lamberson, Cueva, and Martin - 15

Then there's fellow Army advisor Capt. Bill Hirschler. He and I authored a piece in support of Kerry. In addition, Bill was interviewed by a local TV station -- he lives west of LA. He supports Kerry politically, and in regards to that day. - 16

And last, but certainly not least, we have Don Droz. In addition to the fact that he was likely the closest of the Swift Boat officers to Kerry (and therefore it's virtually certain we'd have heard positive comments from him - would only that we could), we have his letter to his wife, and comments from his wife as to what he told her -- For those of you who don't know, Don was killed six weeks after this incident. -- 17

The SBV"t" was not, in any way, interested in discovering the truth about either incident. They were simply interested in smearing Kerry.

Not even worthy of comment other than so's yer old man.

If they were interested in the truth they would not have totally ignored the after-action report.

Asked. Answered. (see above)

They also would not have cherry-picked what I told them either.

More than likely Reese minutiae...probably irrelevant to their allegation...which was, by the way, that Kerry's actions that day didn't rise to Silver Star levels of valor. YMMV

Well, that was one of their allegations for sure, although it seemed a minor one to me. I guess they liked to hedge their bets.

I would say their main allegation was that his commanding officers had no idea what actually happened. That is demonstrably false. It's just as false, and closely linked to, them saying the medal "was based on false and incomplete information provided by Kerry himself" (page 81).

Take a look at the six pages (pp 80-86) that cover the Silver Star incident. It's in the chapter titled "More Fraudulent Medals" - the title alone almost makes my point.

There is very little in those six pages devoted to them making the point that Kerry's actions didn't rise to the Silver Star levels of valor. And some of the times when they actually try to make that point, it is linked to the bogus claim that Kerry's commanders didn't have complete information, or what they had was false.

If their allegation was that his actions didn't rise to Silver Star levels of valor, why was their kick-off promotion piece on the drudge report, chocked-full of inaccuracies and lies? Here's a portion:

"Doug Reese, a pro Kerry Army veteran, recounted what happened that day to O'Neill, "Far from being alone, the boats were loaded with many soldiers commanded by Reese and two other advisors. When fired at, Reese's boat--not Kerry's--was the first to beach in the ambush zone. Then Reese and other troops and advisors (not Kerry) disembarked, killing a number of Viet Cong and capturing a number of weapons. None of the participants from Reese's boat received Silver Stars.

O'Neill continues: "Kerry's boat moved slightly downstream and was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade. . . .A young Viet Cong in a loincloth popped out of a hole, clutching a grenade launcher, which may or may not have been loaded. . . Tom Belodeau, a forward gunner, shot the Viet Cong with an M-60 machine gun in the leg as he fled. . . . Kerry and Medeiros (who had many troops in their boat) took off, perhaps with others, and followed the young Viet Cong and shot him in the back, behind a lean to."

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/08/05/20040805_211402_ufd1.htm

I need not go into detail as to the inaccuracies, but one lie is that I spoke to O'Neill about any of this. In fact, I have never said one word to him about that day. That particular lie, however, I am willing to put on drudge. But this piece from drudge is notable for what it doesn't claim - any mention about levels of valor, etc.

I just posted part of the report. You have probably seen it in it's entirety, but if not, the link has it all.

Anyway, they found no one willing to play their game when it came to the SS incident.

Kerry's SS award is a minor player in the totality of their Kerry indictment. Pity his post-war sedition and treason weren't given the attention due them.

Minor or not, if should have been discussed more honestly. It wasn't.

Yes, it is true that every single person present hasn't commented, but what's so surprising about that?

"Every single person?" How 'bout 6? (see above)

No, how about 17? (see above)

Is what Larry Lee said the best you can do?

The best I can do and more than adequate to refute your now continuing misrepresentation of his position. Yup.

Well, if you call Larry Lee saying Kerry earned the Silver Star, and that he had no problems with him getting the Silver Star, or that Kerry deserved the award, then yes, I am misrepresenting his position.

What was the question posed to him that caused him to give that answer?

I have no idea, nor does it appear to be particularly important given his rather pointed (albeit paraphrased) observation...and from a newspaper that was Kerry-friendly as well.

And the other quotes and one attributed observation I posted aren't important?

As closely as you seem to have followed this, would you care to comment on Kim's question/comment? If you know what I'm talking about, that is . . . . that Don Droz died trying to copy Kerry's beaching maneuver, or something along those lines

Not a chance in hell.

Understood . . .

I'll give #24 your regards.

much obliged

Doug Reese

I wanna see all the pix he ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I wanna see all the pix he took that day.
========================

Ask him. Ask the others who... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Ask him. Ask the others who took some that day -- he wasn't the only one with a camera.

Doug, Kerry's charge to the... (Below threshold)
kim:

Doug, Kerry's charge to the back was a foolish maneuver and it happened as you were mopping up. You know that. Why do you support this man?
====================================

Do you ever know what you'r... (Below threshold)
Doug Reese:

Do you ever know what you're talking about?

You know next to nothing about what happened. Your ignorance is astounding.

Needless to say, that doesn't stop you from running your mouth.

Please feel free to make more baseless claims on this board. I will feel free to ignore them

Doug Reese

And the overwhelming enemy ... (Below threshold)
kim:

And the overwhelming enemy force threw no stones.
=================================

Let me try to address all y... (Below threshold)
Bingo:

Let me try to address all your comments in a slightly different sequence...

First, several related quotes from different areas in your post:

"Well, I'd rather cling to the opening paragraph of the article:

'A Kentucky Vietnam veteran who was involved in the fighting that earned Sen. John Kerry the Silver Star for gallantry says the Democratic presidential nominee deserved the award.'"

"Well, if you call Larry Lee saying Kerry earned the Silver Star, and that he had no problems with him getting the Silver Star, or that Kerry deserved the award, then yes, I am misrepresenting his position."

"And the other quotes and one attributed observation I posted aren't important?"

There's only ONE "quote" attributed to Larry Lee on the subject of Kerry's SS.

Embrace what you will, but Gerth's reportage, "Lee said Kerry earned his Silver Star..." and "...(Lee) says the Democratic presidential nominee deserved the award..." are arguably overstated or mis-representative given Lee's supplied "quote" and the following paraphrase which serve to qualify both Lee's position and the reporter's verbiage...

"'I have no problems with him getting the Silver Star,' said Lee"

"Some Kerry opponents have claimed that he didn't deserve the Silver Star, and even Lee said that a lesser Bronze Star might have been more appropriate."

Both you (rather habitually) and Mr. Gerth ascribe a meaning or interpretation to "no problems" that is, in my opinion, arguable if not unsupportable. YMMV

Mr. Lee's comment, in fact, may well be a reflection of the natural reluctance of most veterans to examine the subject of anyone's military awards, a reticence upon which Kerry relied mightily throughout his career in constructing and selling his public persona. Seeking the Presidency, Kerry's track record of calumny and slander was motivation enough for legions of veterans to overcome it...nor will historians feel so constrained.

And while I'm at it, here's what Lee thought about turning into the ambush:

"Lee said of the tactic. "I think it was great."

Not my issue and irrelevant to our discussion. Why are you injecting it here?

Since you're open to infering meaning from non-responses, would you care to postulate why a meager 4 of your 21 present (excluding Kerry, Rood and Lee) would step up to the plate publicly for Kerry? For that matter, in what phone booth are they holding the next gathering of Swift Boat Veterans for Kerry?

Where did you get that it was only six?

From an earlier post of yours that I assumed, erroneously, was inclusive (and I should have, obviously, counted you as a 7th)...

They also have a different opinion of that day than Peter Upton, Bill Rood, Wayne Langhofer, John Kerry, Larry Lee, Mike Mederios, Bill Hirschler and the other 17 who were actually present.

The number was slightly higher. Let's exclude Kerry. Besides those two you mentioned (Rood and Lee), and myself, we have . . . .(excluded for brevity - see above)

OK...so stipulated. Your count of "commenters" is 17 of 24...but it begs the question. You stated "They also have a different opinion of that day than...the other 17 who were actually present." Was that a lie? A stretch of the truth? An exaggeration? Hyperbole? Another assumptive inference from a non-comment? What was that Mr. Reese?

And what of the comments themselves? Did they say this Mr. Reese: "Based upon my personal knowledge of John Kerry's actions, I would have recommended John Kerry for a Silver Star?"

How 'bout YOU Mr. Reese. Just for the record, will you unequivocally state: "I, Doug Reese, state for the record that I would have recommended John Kerry for the award of 'The Silver Star'?"

I think I know the answer...I just want you to confirm it. Nor is the fact of Kerry's Silver Star versus your ARCOM for the same action any less troubling and disconcerting.

More than likely Reese minutiae...probably irrelevant to their allegation...which was, by the way, that Kerry's actions that day didn't rise to Silver Star levels of valor. YMMV

Well, that was one of their allegations for sure, although it seemed a minor one to me.

So we've now arrived at a debate over the relative significance and overall characterization of the Swiftvet allegations referencing Kerry's SS (MOMMA!).

(Aside: ya know Mr. Reese, I'm developing a sense that this is more ado about YOU and your EGO than Kerry OR the Swiftvets...but I digress)

I would say their main allegation was that his commanding officers had no idea what actually happened.

...and I would say you'd like it to be so 'cause you think you can demonstrate otherwise. It's actually evidence in support of their main contention, that Kerry's actions that day didn't rise to Silver Star levels of valor.

That is demonstrably false.

It's just as false, and closely linked to, them saying the medal "was based on false and incomplete information provided by Kerry himself" (page 81).

Take a look at the six pages (pp 80-86) that cover the Silver Star incident. It's in the chapter titled "More Fraudulent Medals" - the title alone almost makes my point.

There is very little in those six pages devoted to them making the point that Kerry's actions didn't rise to the Silver Star levels of valor. And some of the times when they actually try to make that point, it is linked to the bogus claim that Kerry's
commanders didn't have complete information, or what they had was false.

Look Mr. Reese, I'm not about to parse 7 pages of UFC (which, BTW, is HARDLY the be all-end all of the Swiftvet case, but rather more foundational) in an attempt to refute YOUR OPINION OR CHARACTERIZATION.

As to the allegation "...but it was based on false and incomplete information provided by Kerry himself", I will concur that the statement did lack supporting documentation or argument...and it should have been included at that point.

However, the circumstantial evidence suggesting the probability of that allegation being substantive is compelling...

1. Kerry's affinity for writing and composing AAR's
2. The Officer in tactical command? is generally tasked with writing the AAR or "spot report"
3. Kerry was the OTC of this operation

[snip] most of the irrelevant Drudge stuff...except (just for completeness)...

I need not go into detail as to the inaccuracies, but one lie is that I spoke to O'Neill about any of this. In fact, I have never said one word to him about that day. That particular lie, however, I am willing to put on drudge.

Well, that's quite a concession on your part seeing as how Drudge misquoted O'Neill.

...and do me a favor willya? Your responses are lengthy enough without including non-sequiturs. Please spare me (us) them in the future.

But this piece from drudge is notable for what it doesn't claim - any mention about levels of valor, etc.

I just posted part of the report. You have probably seen it in it's entirety, but if not, the link has it all.

Take it up with Drudge...and I'll refer you to paragraph 2 of UFC's "The Silver Star" and numerous public comments by John O'Neill (which I'm not about to document here just to rebut you).

You can have the last word Mr. Reese. I'm done here.

I gotta leave you with a li... (Below threshold)
kim:

I gotta leave you with a little irony, Doug. You owe your living to the warp in people's lives caused by the unnatural surrender to the Stalinists in Southeast Asia.
============================

SO TRUE ! ""swiftboating,"... (Below threshold)
Ashford Schwall:

SO TRUE ! ""swiftboating," (which I don't) I would use it to refer to whistle blowers who organize and use both paid and free media to spread the truth about a person or issue that is being ignored by mainstream reporters."




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy