SwiftBoat Challenge

[Annie]

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/09/a_challenge_to_.html

A challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' allegations have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated"
My lawyer readers will immediately recognize this as an invitation to Kerry supporters to make a motion for partial summary judgment on the SwiftVets' claims.

This short paragraph from a New York Times article perfectly illustrates the liberal media's widespread characterization of the results to date of the SwiftVets' campaign (boldface added):

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which drew national attention with advertisements making unsubstantiated attacks against Mr. Kerry's military service, has less money and uses several strategies to stretch its dollars, said one of its leaders, John O'Neill.
To find a similar example from the blogosphere, one need look no farther than Andrew Sullivan's passing dismissal of the SwiftVets' campaign (boldface added):

As word spread, anti-Kerry forces sent in more money to the Swift Boat Veterans for truth website, allowing them to ramp up their ad efforts. And within a few days, the old media was forced to cover the claims extensively — even if much of their coverage amounted to a debunking.
As someone who's followed the SwiftVets' campaign closely — someone who's read Brinkley's Tour of Duty, O'Neill's Unfit for Command, and Kranish et al.'s John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography cover to cover, plus all of the mainstream media reports I could find on the internet and a goodly portion of what's appeared from both political sides of the blogosphere — I'm simply stunned to read these sorts of statements.

I can think of one major SwiftVets allegation on which they've arguably failed to offer more than circumstantial evidence — that Kerry "gamed the system" to get his medals. Kerry's stonewall — his refusal to sign Standard Form 180 and thereby release the documentation that should, if it exists, reveal still-hidden details like how he came to get his first Purple Heart — has been effective in keeping the SwiftVets from nailing down that point with direct evidence. Yet the circumstantial case is powerful — Kerry's commanding officer at the time, Skip Hibbard, says he refused to approve that Purple Heart in December 1968, yet Kerry showed up with the medal anyway in March 1969 in some as-yet-unexplained fashion.

I can think of other SwiftVets allegations on which there is directly competing evidence that requires the public to draw conclusions. For example, does one credit Adm. Bill Schachte's account of his first-hand knowledge of how Kerry received the trivial wound that led to his first Purple Heart, or does one credit Zaldonis' and Runyan's claims that Schachte wasn't aboard the skimmer? Which of the eyewitnesses does one choose to find credible on the question of whether Kerry was or wasn't under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann from the Bay Hap River? Other allegations require an exercise of subjective judgment. For example, was Kerry's pursuit and dispatching of a single VC soldier sufficiently valorous to merit his Silver Star?

But on none of these issues I've just listed have the SwiftVets' allegations been "debunked" or proven "unsubstantiated." Andrew Sullivan or the NYT repeating over and over that they have been simply don't make them so. To employ the legal jargon of summary judgment proceedings, a rational factfinder could conclude from the evidence that the SwiftVets have produced on each of these allegations that, indeed, they're true. A trial judge who dismissed these allegations outright, without letting the factfinder (typically a jury) consider them, would certainly be reversed on appeal and told to let the jury do its work. They haven't, in lay terms, been "debunked" — but rather, they're fiercely disputed by competent evidence (some of it eyewitness, some of it circumstantial, some of it documentary).

Hence my challenge for the weekend to my readers — you're probably a minority, as these things go, but I know from my comments pages that you're out there — who may agree with the NYT or Mr. Sullivan:

Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"?

Some ground rules for this challenge that I think are not unreasonable:

By "specific," I mean to exclude sweeping conclusions like "John Kerry wasn't as big a hero as he's made out." By material, I mean to exclude trivia like "the VC soldier John Kerry shot was in a uniform instead of in a loincloth." And I ask that if you're to make an honest effort to meet my challenge, you provide quotes and links, both to the SwiftVets' allegations and to the evidence that you offer to show debunking or lack of substantiation.

If you rely on documents — for example, Larry Thurlow's Bronze Star citation as support for the proposition that he and Kerry were under enemy fire after PCF 3 was struck by a mine — then to reach "debunked" status, you ought to show that there are no contrary eyewitness accounts to those documents, nor other contrary documents. Otherwise, you've merely established that a dispute exists — what lawyers would call a "genuine issue of fact" that must be resolved by a judgment call as to which side has the greater weight of the credible evidence.

Saying your side has the greater weight of the evidence isn't "debunking" or showing that something is "unsubstantiated," it's saying that your side ought to ultimately prevail on the factual dispute, and that's a very different kettle of fish. To use a converse example by way of illustration: I would argue that the "Christmas in Cambodia" story repeatedly told by Sen. Kerry has indeed been thoroughly debunked and proved unsubstantiated — that is, there simply is no credible evidence from which any rational factfinder could conclude that Kerry's claim to have spent Christmas 1968 several miles inside Cambodia, under friendly fire and on a secret mission, was truthful.

I of course reserve the right to offer a rebuttal, as will, I'm sure, my like-minded readers. But I'm genuinely curious about this, and will try to summarize the results of this challenge fairly in a new post sometime early next week.

Posted by Beldar at 06:52 AM

 

[musicman]

Why do I get the feeling that beldar will find very few takers?

 

[Annie]

Why do I get the feeling that beldar will find very few takers?

 

[Merlin1047]

Why do I get the feeling that beldar will find very few takers?

He may get some takers, but they will come "armed" with rhetoric, sound bytes and talking points. They will, as usual, be remarkably short on facts.

 

[poebassman]

Did Kerry earn (Bay Hap River 1969) his Bronze Medal of Valor which is given

http://www.medalofvalor.com/ArmyMedals_Awards.htm


"For Heroic or Meritorious Achievement of Service, not involving aerial flight,
in connection with Operations Against an Opposing Armed Force."





Fact:

Larry Thurlow was piloting a swiftboat at the same time Kerry was when one of the swiftboats hit a mine and was disabled. Kerry sped away and returned to pick up a green beret (John Rassmann) who was riding on Kerry's boat prior to the explosion.

Two others Van O'dell and Jack Chenoweth back this up.

Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."

Thurlow was adement that there was no enemy fire.

Thurlow received a bronze medal of valor for his heroic actions that day of aiding the disabled boat while under enemy fire. This is on his citation for the medal.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Thurlow Citation.pdf

The official record states that Thurlow earned his medal.

All three, O'Dell, Chenoweth, and Thurlow say there was no enemy fire.

Thurlow, Kerry, and Lambert all received a bronze medal of valor for their actions that day.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Thurlow Award Recc.pdf

If there was no enemy fire, neither earned the medal.

Thurlow said Kerry gave the official account and that's why the official account included enemy fire.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/05/ip.01.html

THURLOW: For one thing, I did not know that John had been put in for a Bronze Star, a Silver Star or, for that matter, a Purple Heart on that day. I did not see the after-action report, which, in fact, was written by John. And as the years went by, John was not running for the highest office in the free world.

This Thurlow said after Rassmann, the green beret, said:


RASSMANN: There were definitely rounds hitting the water around me. If Mr. Thurlow feels that what his story is purported to be was the case, he had ample opportunity 35 years ago to deal with it. He never did, nor did anyone else. John Kerry did not tell this story. I told this story when I put him in for a Silver Star for coming back to rescue me. The Navy saw fit to reduce it to a Bronze Star for valor.


On a boat behind Kerry another person gave an account of eneny fire.

On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.

Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.

From Thurlow's boat, Cheif Petty Officer Robert Lambert said:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5835000

PORTLAND, Ore. - A Swift Boat crewman decorated in the 1969 Vietnam incident where John Kerry won a Bronze Star says not only did they come under enemy fire but also that his own boat commander, who has challenged the official account, was too distracted to notice the gunfire.
Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert, of Eagle Point, Ore., got a Bronze Star for pulling his boat commander — Lt. Larry Thurlow — out of the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. Thurlow had jumped onto another Swift Boat to aid sailors wounded by a mine explosion but fell off when the out-of-control boat ran aground.

So its really Rassmann's account versus Thurlow's as Rassmann gave the official account as he put Kerry up for a silver medal of valor. Lambert and Thurlow both received bronze medals of valor for their actions under enemy fire. The navy reduced Kerry's medal to a bronze medal of valor for his actions of pulling the green beret from the water under enemy fire.

If enemy fire was not there that day, all of the three bronze medals would not have been earned.

As Lambert suggests, Thurlow was most likely too busy being a hero to notice. We should applaud his actions.

 

[Bonnie]

He may get some takers, but they will come "armed" with rhetoric, sound bytes and talking points. They will, as usual, be remarkably short on facts.

I just find it so hypocritical that the media will ignore the story these men have to tell and rush to try and discredit them..but run to put on a story that some mythical Lucy Ramirez hands to Burkett under the cover of darkness, who then makes copies, burns the originals to hide forensic evidence, then faxes them over from Kinkos to CBS...

So lets recap; Some 200+ decorated veterans are liars, but mythical Lucy Ramirez is credible.....

 

[poebassman]

I just find it so hypocritical that the media will ignore the story these men have to tell and rush to try and discredit them..but run to put on a story that some mythical Lucy Ramirez hands to Burkett under the cover of darkness, who then makes copies, burns the originals to hide forensic evidence, then faxes them over from Kinkos to CBS...

So lets recap; Some 200+ decorated veterans are liars, but mythical Lucy Ramirez is credible.....

During the short 4 months kerry was in Vietnam, how many of the 200+ were there?

About 30.

Of the 30, How many had contact with Kerry?

17.

Of the 17, Thurlow is discredited because he either accepted a bronze medal of valor under false pretenses or he lied. Either way, he lacks the integrity to say that kerry didn't earn his bronze.

The facts are there! I used official Naval documents, the testimony of Thurlow and his supporters, the testimony of Rassman and his supporters. I did not use Kerry's testimony because you wouldn't accept it.

You can choose to accept them or disregard them. The song remains the same.

 

[CSM]

During the short 4 months kerry was in Vietnam, how many of the 200+ were there?

About 30.

Of the 30, How many had contact with Kerry?

17.

Of the 17, Thurlow is discredited because he either accepted a bronze medal of valor under false pretenses or he lied. Either way, he lacks the integrity to say that kerry didn't earn his bronze.

The facts are there! I used official Naval documents, the testimony of Thurlow and his supporters, the testimony of Rassman and his supporters. I did not use Kerry's testimony because you wouldn't accept it.

You can choose to accept them or disregard them. The song remains the same.

Truthfully, I have no problem with Kerry's medals. I do have a problem with his actions AFTER he got back from SE Asia and the his accusations regarding atrocities and war crimes.

 

[Bonnie]

Still doesn't address why the media completely ignored the swift boat vets but chose to blindly accept Burkett and a woman who can't even be validated as real??

Even if it is only 30 or 17 that still beats 0 unless my math is wrong.

 

[Avatar4321]

During the short 4 months kerry was in Vietnam, how many of the 200+ were there?

About 30.

Of the 30, How many had contact with Kerry?

17.

Of the 17, Thurlow is discredited because he either accepted a bronze medal of valor under false pretenses or he lied. Either way, he lacks the integrity to say that kerry didn't earn his bronze.

The facts are there! I used official Naval documents, the testimony of Thurlow and his supporters, the testimony of Rassman and his supporters. I did not use Kerry's testimony because you wouldn't accept it.

You can choose to accept them or disregard them. The song remains the same.

See the problem with accepting Kerry's claim here is that he refuses to disclose his military documents. The whole matter could have been settled within 24 hours if Kerry's version is true. But rather than actually deal with the details you try to decide to attack the credibility of these men.

Kerry could have ended the debate immediately. the question is why not end it then by doing what Bush did and releasing the records? What is Kerry hiding?

Instead Kerry decides to threaten litigation against the news media to shut the story up. And then tries to keep bookstores from publishing "Unfit for Command"

Even if we bought your argument that the stories are equally credible, Kerry's reaction to them is what really raises the question to his account.

Quite frankly i couldnt care less what happened in Vietnam. Whether Kerry earned his medal or not is irrelevant to the fact that he came home and betrayed his fellow troops. It doesnt change the fact he has time and time again voted to make our military and inteligence communities weaker while at the same time voting to take more and more of our money. It doesnt change the fact that despite being the richest Senator in the US, he is only chartible with other people's money.

 

[Bonnie]

Truly this guys medals are not relevant to me either, but I have a serious problem with his actions after, and his radical affiliations after.
And an even more serious problem with his inablility to give a straight foward consistent answer to anything. This tells me he has no moral compass or integrity and that precludes him from being fit to run our country.

 

[dilloduck]

During the short 4 months kerry was in Vietnam, how many of the 200+ were there?

About 30.

Of the 30, How many had contact with Kerry?

17.

Of the 17, Thurlow is discredited because he either accepted a bronze medal of valor under false pretenses or he lied. Either way, he lacks the integrity to say that kerry didn't earn his bronze.

The facts are there! I used official Naval documents, the testimony of Thurlow and his supporters, the testimony of Rassman and his supporters. I did not use Kerry's testimony because you wouldn't accept it.

You can choose to accept them or disregard them. The song remains the same.

Even if it were all true it doesn't mean that Kerry would be the better man to serve as president!

 

[Merlin1047]

During the short 4 months kerry was in Vietnam, how many of the 200+ were there?

About 30.

Of the 30, How many had contact with Kerry?

17.

Of the 17, Thurlow is discredited because he either accepted a bronze medal of valor under false pretenses or he lied. Either way, he lacks the integrity to say that kerry didn't earn his bronze.

The facts are there! I used official Naval documents, the testimony of Thurlow and his supporters, the testimony of Rassman and his supporters. I did not use Kerry's testimony because you wouldn't accept it.

You can choose to accept them or disregard them. The song remains the same.

First, you obviously have no clue regarding the awarding of medals during the Viet Nam years. I could have put my dog in for a Bronze Star. In many commands, medals were tossed about like rice at a wedding.

Second, you continue to believe kerry's account despite the fact that the man is a proven pathological liar and has been one all of his adult life. Yet you jump all over Thurlow because of there was no hostile fire. That mine that blew one of the boats apart certainly wasn't friendly.

But that's equivocating, and I won't do that. No matter whose account you believe, there is one troubling question that cannot be answered to your satisfaction. There were five boats on this mission. One was damaged by a mine. That left four. Kerry hauled ass. That left three. These three remained behind to aid their stricken comrades. They were shooting with everything they had because they logically assumed that there would be a follow-up attack after the mine exploded. These boats were not racing up and down the river, they were essentially stationary. The boats were fifty footers on a river which was between 300 and 400 feet wide. Given these conditions, ask yourself; If there was enemy fire, why was there no damage reported to any of the other boats, including kerry's? And don't try to tell me that they ran across poorly trained Viet Cong. I was there and I can tell you some of those little bastards could put one squarely between your running lights at 1000 feet.

 

[UsaPride]

Of the 17, Thurlow is discredited because he either accepted a bronze medal of valor under false pretenses or he lied. Either way, he lacks the integrity to say that kerry didn't earn his bronze.

This is how I feel about Kerry's testimony about war crimes. He said he participated in it. So, he's either a war criminal or a liar, either way he lacks the integrity to become President of the United States of America!!

 

[poebassman]

First, you obviously have no clue regarding the awarding of medals during the Viet Nam years. I could have put my dog in for a Bronze Star. In many commands, medals were tossed about like rice at a wedding.

Second, you continue to believe kerry's account despite the fact that the man is a proven pathological liar and has been one all of his adult life. Yet you jump all over Thurlow because of there was no hostile fire. That mine that blew one of the boats apart certainly wasn't friendly.

But that's equivocating, and I won't do that. No matter whose account you believe, there is one troubling question that cannot be answered to your satisfaction. There were five boats on this mission. One was damaged by a mine. That left four. Kerry hauled ass. That left three. These three remained behind to aid their stricken comrades. They were shooting with everything they had because they logically assumed that there would be a follow-up attack after the mine exploded. These boats were not racing up and down the river, they were essentially stationary. The boats were fifty footers on a river which was between 300 and 400 feet wide. Given these conditions, ask yourself; If there was enemy fire, why was there no damage reported to any of the other boats, including kerry's? And don't try to tell me that they ran across poorly trained Viet Cong. I was there and I can tell you some of those little bastards could put one squarely between your running lights at 1000 feet.

First off... If you read my post... there was no kerry quote or account of what happened. I specifically didn't post it so you couldn't say kerry was lying. But voila you did. Thurlow's accounts don't coincide with that of Lambert who was on thurlow's boat but you call kerry a liar eventhough it was lambert, rassmann, and langhoffer who said thurlow wasn't giving the correct account.

Second its not a kerry vs thurlow thing. Rassmann (the green beret) as I posted if you read it... said the he gave the official account.

Third.. I said as a fact that kerry left and came back. this was not denied by anyone's account.

Fourth I posted the link to the citation which mentions enemy fire separate from the mine just so you couldn't say the mine was the enemy fire. Sorry if that wasn't plain enough.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Thurlow Citation.pdf


And Kerry was not proven to be the liar. His account matches Rassmann (green beret who kerry pulled from the water), Lambert (cheif petty officer of thurlow's boat), Langhoffer (crewman aboard kerry's boat), and Sandusky (crewman aboard kerry's boat).

Two others Chenoweth (pilot of one of the boats) and O'Dell (crewman on Chenoweth's boat) and give the account no enemy fire was seen to side with thurlow.

here's a good place to look to get the truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

 

[Merlin1047]

First off... If you read my post... there was no kerry quote or account of what happened. I specifically didn't post it so you couldn't say kerry was lying. But voila you did. Thurlow's accounts don't coincide with that of Lambert who was on thurlow's boat but you call kerry a liar eventhough it was lambert, rassmann, and langhoffer who said thurlow wasn't giving the correct account.

Second its not a kerry vs thurlow thing. Rassmann (the green beret) as I posted if you read it... said the he gave the official account.

Third.. I said as a fact that kerry left and came back. this was not denied by anyone's account.

Fourth I posted the link to the citation which mentions enemy fire separate from the mine just so you couldn't say the mine was the enemy fire. Sorry if that wasn't plain enough.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Thurlow Citation.pdf


And Kerry was not proven to be the liar. His account matches Rassmann (green beret who kerry pulled from the water), Lambert (cheif petty officer of thurlow's boat), Langhoffer (crewman aboard kerry's boat), and Sandusky (crewman aboard kerry's boat).

Two others Chenoweth (pilot of one of the boats) and O'Dell (crewman on Chenoweth's boat) and give the account no enemy fire was seen to side with thurlow.

here's a good place to look to get the truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

There you go, picking the fly shit out of the pepper and ignoring the main point. I will repeat it again just in case you missed it the first time:

If there was enemy fire, why was there no damage to any boat other than the one that struck the mine??

All the rest are conflicting accounts of what had to have been a very confusing situation. Tap dance till your toes fall off, but you can't get around the fact that in this allegedly fierce fire fight NOTHING AND NO ONE GOT HIT. Ain't that amazing?