You see a lot more in this article than I do. Read it closely. This is legal parsing. Sounds as if it was written by Lanny Davis or Susan "was he on the exact same boat" Estrich.
Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."
"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.
A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.
"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."
Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.
First, it is really interesting that the Washington Post reporter refers to "a document" but does not identify it. Some reference to identify the document, at least the name of it, would be routine in a newspaper article. Better journalism would be to offer some explanation of how the document is used, its function, the process of its creation.
This detail, even brief detail, is missing from the article. So, before I jump the conclusion you have drawn that this is bad for the swift boat vets, I want more information.
I'm not dismissing that there is a contradiction between Thurlow's account and the document. But to weigh the contradiction I have to know the source. It is not given to us. And, Thurlow, according to the post, speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.
If it was learned that Kerry had direct input into the document, that would certainly call it into question. Even if Kerry had indirect input, that also will call it into question.
Again, given the controversy on this issue, I find it funny the reporter would leave such a hole in the story.
How did the document get written, what was the information stream? Are these documents always correct? Or are they subject to subjective input, padding, and manipulation?
The people challenging the credibility of the Swift Boat Vets have a document they can figuratively wave around and refer to until we actually learn what that document is. So, on that I will agree with you that it is a piece of something for those challenging the swift boat vets.
But here is the heart of the matter: Thurlow said, "It is sickening and disgusting." Is it sickening and disgusting because the truth of what really happened that day got twisted in the political ambitions and record manipulations of a Swift boat commander, those manipulations have now cast other vets medals in doubt? Is it sickening and disgusting because people challenging the Swift Boat Vets account are twisting truth on its head the same as lawyers sometimes do to make a case? Or is it sickening and disgusting to Thurlow because he has now been caught in a contradiction that shows him to be wrong?
bttt
This is an excellent point. What document?
Of course, the WaPo (and others) will bandy this about - even if they know it is not true, or that it is mis-leading, thus causing a perception of falsehoods.
A small "correction" on page B-29 would cover them.