A challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' 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"?

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.

"First I picked Edwards BUT now I pick Hanoi Jane!"

Edwards played football in 1971 when he turned 18
instead of serving in Vietnam.
Hanoi Jane at least was a Viet Cong!
Just like me!

Hanoi Jane and I know how to demoralize US Troops serving today!

We hate US Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We hate all US Troops!

We lie about them in 2004 the same as we did in the 60's and 70's!

We vow to insult and undermine Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi

We vow to protect the UN and the Oil for Food Scandal

We vow to keep secret the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida

We vow to free Saddam Hussein with help from our old friend Ramsey Clark.

John F. Kerry
Timeline of a traitor.
Click Here

I think the Swift Boat Veterans' case is substantial, but to me the real heart of the matter is not whether or not their case can be substantiated, but the fact that they have drawn attention to some of the problems and contradictions within the documentary records released by Kerry and within the Kerry camp's own oral recollections. I have tried to draw attention to some of these in one of my articles:

Forging a Paper Hero: The Mystery of Kerry’s Medals

Some of the key issues I see within Kerry's own documentary and oral records:

For Kerry's first Purple Heart, why did Kerry withhold the after-action report and only show the medical report to select reporters, in contrast to other medals where he released after-action reports?

For Kerry's Silver Star, why did he deny going behind the hootch to shoot his target when witnesses friendly to him such as William Rood affirm that he did go behind the hootch? Why was Kerry's citation revised to omit mention of him going behind the hootch? Why the anachronism of Lehman's signature on one of the revisions of the citation? Why was the citation revised at all?

For Kerry's third Purple Heart and Bronze Star, why does Kerry's own recollection attribute his buttocks wound to a rice bin explosion when the after-action report attributes it to a mine explosion? Why does the after-action report describe Kerry's boat as having crippling damage, yet there are no injuries described to anyone on Kerry's boat other than Kerry, there is mention of another boat (PCF-3) suffering mine damage and injuries to crew members more serious than Kerry's, and there is reference to Kerry's boat towing PCF-3 even though Kerry's boat was supposedly incapacitated by the mine? Why are there inconsistencies in Kerry and Rassman's accounts of which boat Rassman was on? Why does the after-action report describe 5000 meters of gunfire from both banks but no bullet damage to any boats or crew?

These are problematic questions that may be put directly to the Kerry camp's own documentary and oral record, independently of the additional eyewitness testimony supplied by the Swift Boat Veterans. It is evident from the internal evidence that there are problems in the after-action reports Kerry has released and in his and his friendly witnesses' own recollections of events. In light of this, the Swift Boat Veterans' contention that Kerry doctored his after-action reports is very credible and goes further towards explaining the data than Kerry's claims do.

Beldar is wise, Beldar is good.

The duplicity of the Stupid Party and their Stupid candidate is on full display here. Their Big Lie #1 (Kerry is a War Hero) took on water and sunk, so trot out Big Lie #2 (Swift Boat Vets are discredited). This is all they can do to reform Big Lie #1, but I agree with Beldar that MSM and Stupid Party operatives are not being nailed enough when repeating Big Lie #2.

The key items I focus on when explaining the medal issue is to open with Christmas in Cambodia, then explain that even Kerry's campaign has backed off his first Purple Heart claim, backing that up with a select link:

"Even Mr. Kerry's people have admitted the Swift Boat critics were right about 'Christmas in Cambodia'. Nor has big media yet been able to disprove the assertion of the critics that Kerry's Purple Heart wounds were mostly immaculate. As Sen. Bob Dole, who spent a couple of years in hospital after his ghastly World War II wounds, said: 'Three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of.' In fact, Fox News reported (recently) that the Kerry campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional self-inflicted wound -- just as the swift boat critics alleged in their book." --Tony Blankley, Washington Times

Then remind them of Kerry's journal entry that his crew "hadn't been shot at yet":

"In a reversal of their staunch defense of John Kerry's military service record, Kerry campaign officials were quoted by Fox News saying that it was indeed possible that John Kerry's first Purple Heart commendation was the result of an unintentional, self-inflicted wound." And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2, 1968. But in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, "hadn't been shot at yet," unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible this first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional self-inflicted wound." --Massnews.com

And then further explain that if the first Purple Heart, and just the first Purple Heart alone, was inappropriately issued, then Kerry's entire web of lies comes unraveled (this always sets the hook).

"Why?", they ask. Because, I explain, no three tickee, no shirtee. No three Purple Hearts, no trip stateside. He does his full tour of a year just like everyone else had to.

No three Purple Hearts, no trip stateside.

In my reading of Unfit For Command, I believe it was not Kerry that elected to take the three purple-heart exit but rather that his Band-of-Brothers did not want Kerry to sail with them as he was a loose canon. They may have even advised him of the rule to get rid of him. That rejection may have been what triggered his hate for Vietnam Veterans.

The most damning bit I got out of the book was that Kerry interpreted a "free-fire zone" as a command to kill everything that moved. The veteran that explained this said that this was the thing that separated a good leader from a poor leader. A good leader knew when to hold back. Kerry's burning down of a village and slaughtering all the small farm animals was exactly the wrong command from a leader.

It's "debunked" because the mainstream press says it is.

Exactly. They didn't cover the story, at first. Then they found out a majority of people knew about it, and in some detail, adverse to Campaign Kerry. That's exactly what shocked them the first time around. But as Trump would say - they're SO stupid! They didn't learn a thing from that.

They're just back where they were in MAY and JUNE. But instead of not covering it, they're saying it's not worth covering. I can see Sean pulling that hair from his head even now.

The dinosaurs are still dangerous. But the meteor is coming this November. A lot of lefties are going to be repudiated. Maybe it'll usher in a new fresh air as others fill the void left by certain of the leftwing 'mainstream'. Maybe they'll grimly hang on. Can't say.

In my reading of Unfit For Command, I believe it was not Kerry that elected to take the three purple-heart exit but rather that his Band-of-Brothers did not want Kerry to sail with them as he was a loose canon. They may have even advised him of the rule to get rid of him. That rejection may have been what triggered his hate for Vietnam Veterans.

That was Lt. Tom Wright. He wanted Kerry out of An Thoi, and got his wish for awhile. And when #3 PH came up, Wright again approached Kerry with a couple of others and said - maybe you should leave. It's in the book, but also in Wright's onair interviews. Kerry said - I'm agonna stay. Next day, he was gone. He was for staying before he was against it.

Rejection is Kerry's middle name. Sure, he literally got kicked out of Vietnam. I mean, that's not how actual soldiers treat an actual Audie Murphy type, if he really were. But Kerry felt he was shunned at St. Paul's, the elitist HS. I think he felt Gridley wasn't as friendly as he'd have liked. I think, ultimately, he even felt the VVAW wanted him gone, after all he did for the cause of Communism. And now, in this election, he will face his greatest rejection yet, and hopefully, find a good two day a year job on this or that corporate board, write his memoirs, and start to deal with his past.

"In my reading of Unfit For Command, I believe it was not Kerry that elected to take the three purple-heart exit but rather that his Band-of-Brothers did not want Kerry to sail with them as he was a loose cannon. They may have even advised him of the rule to get rid of him. That rejection may have been what triggered his hate for Vietnam Veterans."

Right. That's the Admiral's take (i.e., 'Get out.'), but it doesn't completely square with the other UFC accounts of Kerry having to back-channel campaign to get the first Purple Heart; and then there's the article about how Kerry had to cite chapter and verse military code in an official request to make three-PH-and-you're-out resonate up the chain of command.

Of course, we can have it both ways. At least PH#1 is phony (and thus, no three-and-out); and the theater brass, once they saw that three-and-out was Navy code, seized the moment and lanced the boil.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.