Posted on 08/10/2004 5:54:38 PM PDT by USMCVIETVET
Search Search this site:
Recent Entries NARRATIVE TRUTH VS. HISTORICAL TRUTH:THE CASE OF JOHN KERRY
EURABIA'S WAR AGAINST AMERICA
OUR FRIENDS, THE EGYPTIANS
JOHN KERRY IN HIS OWN WORDS
JOHN KERRY: JUST A SENSITIVE CARING GUY
BUSH IS TO BLAME
BUSH BOUNCE II
JOHN KERRY, SELF-INVENTOR
DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ABOUT JOHN KERRY'S MILITARY CAREER
BUSH BOUNCE!
Archives Category: Baseball Culture History Middle East Miscellaneous Politics
Monthly: August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Old Horsefeathers Archives August 10, 2004 NARRATIVE TRUTH VS. HISTORICAL TRUTH:THE CASE OF JOHN KERRY We live in a post-modern world where historical truths can be 'photoshopped' to create alternate realities. Post-Modern intellectuals, from Derrida to Habermas assert that reality itself is 'constructed' and if the construction is narratologically persuasive then it's valid and 'real'. John Kerry is a quintessential post-modern Presidential candidate. Unfortunately for him, facts are stubborn things. His narrative has run aground. It made political narrative sense to portray himself, for example, as a Swift boat commander, secretly and illegally conducting warfare in Cambodia; it served to indict Amerika and to bolster his assault on President Reagan's anti-Communism. We now know that he was never in Cambodia, but that's just 'historical truth' whereas 'narrative truth' remains. Unfortunately for Kerry, there were other heroic Americans whose memories of him are not so flattering. Here's Bruce Kesler, one of the Vietnam veterans unwilling to submit to John Kerry's rewriting of history.
KERRY’S NAMGATE? BY Bruce Kesler
Will the SwiftBoat veterans’ affidavits revealing deceptions about John Kerry’s service in Vietnam and after, and the Kerry campaign and supporters’ counterattacks, become John Kerry’s “NamGate”? I’m neither an attorney nor great political prognosticator, but many who are believe it well may be.
First is the issue of truth. The SwiftBoat veterans have signed affidavits about what they witnessed, which are admissible in a court of law. They were in positions to know. They have nothing to personally gain. Indeed, as lawsuits always cost huge sums of money and none are independently wealthy, they have much to lose even when vindicated if the Kerry campaign’s lawyers were to bring a libel suit. The SwiftBoat veterans do not appear fazed, as they chose not to incorporate their 527, SwiftVets For Truth, to immunize themselves from such a lawsuit.
The factual counterattack from Kerry supporters is comprised of only a few points:
1. Except for one, the SwiftBoat vets were not in the same boat as Kerry: However, they were very nearby and involved, the fellow officers whose duty is to closely protect each other’s flanks, and with the unit duty to correct each other’s mistakes. These were small patrol boats that operated in groups.
2. The SwiftBoat doctor did not sign a Kerry injury report: However, he was the sole medical officer for the unit, swore an affidavit that he treated Kerry for a veritable scratch from what looked like a match-size piece of what looked like a US grenade, and his corpsman routinely signed paperwork.
3. The soldier who fell overboard from a mine explosion, whom Kerry pulled out of the water, repeats that there was enemy fire: However, Rassman also says “I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath”, while the SwiftBoat officers involved who were above water swear there was no enemy fire. One of those SwiftBoat officers was about to pull Rassman out of the water, when Kerry returned to the area of the explosion that he had fled from, leaving the other boats to deal with the situation.
Several Kerry assertions have been indisputably disproven. For example by Kerry’s own later changing of his tales as to his claim to have breached international law by patrolling into Cambodia. Kerry has also admitted that his words back in 1971 were a bit excessive.
The facts of many other witnessed affidavits by the SwiftBoat veterans have not been seriously challenged.
Second is the matter of who is libeling and slandering. Kerry partisans have launched ad hominem personal attacks against the Swiftees. For example, the Clinton White House legal counsel (hardly a recommendation for representing truth-telling), flat-out called the Swiftees “liars”. The Chief Counsels of the Kerry Campaign and Democratic National Committee have written similar words in a transparently thin thuggish letter of threats. However, words are cheap. They have not dared bring legal suit, as they would have to back up their slanders. Being political lawyers themselves, they probably have faith in hiding behind the confusing court system and its huge costs to pursue justice against them. However, it is these Democrat lawyers who have committed slander, as will increasingly be revealed. Mr. Simpson may have escaped a court with sharp attorneys, but not the court of public opinion.
Third, in the Watergate scandal, President Nixon committed a public coverup of his role in the break-in, his shaming and revealment leading to his resignation. John Kerry has always refused to swear an oath to his own charges or provide evidence, has publicly repeated his charges against his fellow Vietnam veterans and about his own role in Vietnam, and refuses to sign a Form 180 to release his full records that may clear up some matters. As during Watergate when some Nixon partisans did, Kerry’s surrogate partisans – maybe too quickly and faithfully -- repeat Kerry’s disclaimers and defenses.
Fourth, then, is the court of public opinion. It has been well-documented many times that the overwhelming majority of the “mainstream” press are liberal and support liberal candidates like Kerry. It can be seen from anyone’s newspaper that local papers all over the country depend upon the wireservice from the liberal New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press. Still, through the minority press that has remained less knee-jerk to defend Kerry or repeat his campaign’s spin, and through the facts struggling through, much progress has been made in turning this slanted tide. And, the majority of the American people have usually shown their ability to think for themselves. It seems that most veterans, 25-million, have already done so according to the latest poll, from Rasmussen, 58-35% against Kerry for election.
What both sides agree upon is two things: First, we wish for a higher level of discourse. The Swiftees have exerted themselves to act legally and responsibly, with sworn evidence. The Kerry partisans have responded with invective. Second, John Kerry has centerpieced his short Vietnam service as a junior officer 35-years ago as his major qualification to lead the US and the world in these dangerous times. The Kerry campaign has avoided discussing his 20-years in the Senate. The SwiftBoat veterans discuss Kerry’s central campaign claim. Now, it’s up to the press to be fair, and the American people to use the several months until election day to decide the issues.
(For full disclosure, I am partisan in this debate, although not a direct participant. In 1971, I organized the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace, which I will swear on a stack of bibles in court was not created by the Nixon White House. Several responsible news organizations have investigated this false charge, made by Kerry partisans to smear John O’Neill – a leader of the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth, and not found it true. I have not had contact with any of the SwiftBoat veterans between 1972 and 2004.)
Wow.
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.