Headline should read:
Lurch pimps Vets to smear Swift Boat Vets for the Truth
Posted on 08/21/2004 8:28:40 AM PDT by palmer
The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war record.
William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Headline should read:
Lurch pimps Vets to smear Swift Boat Vets for the Truth
And Rood's dispute then would be with Kerry:
Heroism, and growing concern about war
June 16, 2003
(by Kranish)
excerpt:
This exhausting and harrowing week was only the beginning for Kerry. On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's boat received word that a swift boat was being ambushed. As Kerry raced to the scene, his boat became another target, as a Viet Cong B-40 rocket blast shattered a window. Kerry could have ordered his crew to hit the enemy and run. But the skipper had a more aggressive reaction in mind. Beach the boat, Kerry ordered, and the craft's bow was quickly rammed upon the shoreline. Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher.
~snip~
Since Rood felt the need to include his recollection as evidence against the Swift Vets, I submit it is not an incidental and insignificant thing that Rood and Kerry part ways on this remembrance. I'm sure Rood recalls what he says he does, but his memories ought not be presented against the Swift Vets. 'Tis Kerry his quarrel is with.
I don't doubt Rood's credibility. But his recent story does not address the essential point of contention relating to Kerry's Silver Star. That point being whether there was a numerically superior enemy force, routed by Kerry's act of beaching his boat.
Rood should make himself available to answer questions surrounding the point of contention. It's only fair.
Please see the article I linked at #122.
It is Kerry that describes the VC as a teenager in a loincloth.
Rood's dispute is with Kerry, not the Swift Vets.
(Plus the article discusses the tactical decision making)
Great find
They are unknowingly smearing themselves!
O'Neill has made this point on a number of occasions, that Kerry's own account contradicts Kerry's citation letters.
Elliott also says that it is Kerry's bio, by Brinkley, that leads him to the conclusion that Kerry's after-action reports were not honest.
He also leaves out Reese's substantial participation that I delineate in post #119
You are correct. See post 122 for an excerpt and link to a Kranish (Kerry biographer, donchaknow) article with that account.
excellent find, thanks.
Also thanks to cyncooper I reread the Boston Globe article and it backs up the SBVTs in both respects: the loincloth and the fact that Kerry's action was stupid (but he got a medal anyway). So both of Rood's discrepencies are demonstrably false. Nice try Chicago Tribune.
Yes I was, thanks. Another FReeper has also pointed out that the Swifties aren't the only ones who refer to the "teenager in a loin cloth". The 2003 Kranish article also states "Kerry often would go beyond his Navy orders and beach his boat, in one case chasing and killing a teenage Viet Cong enemy who wore only a loin cloth and carried a rocket launcher".
So not only does the Kranish article support the SwiftBoat Vets account and not Rood's, Kranish clearly states that Kerry often went beyond Navy orders.
Prairie
I like your letter.
Rood also claims for himself and Kerry - ALONE - the right to speak about the events of that day. Why? There were three officers, fifteen crewman and *many* American soldiers and Vietnamese on the 3 boats. Reese, a pro-Kerry Army vet, said the boats were filled that day with others who went on land and attacked ambushers. The officers and crew of the three boats had already agreed to attack agressively any fire they encountered. Some, not all, recalled specific medals - Bronze and Navy commendations - being talked about the night prior to this.
"But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong," Rood wrote. "While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."
Mr. Rood ignores: What Kerry did while a leader of the VVAW *really* impugned all others who had been and were still in Vietnam. What Kerry did after leaving Vietnam impugned the honor of ALL.
I'm glad you said this! I have two uncles who served in WWII. Both purple heart & bronze star winners. One landed on D-Day, the other fought through Africa & Italy right through the Battle of The Bulge.
Both had the same reaction to this debate. 'Many men don't get medals who deserve them because the guy gets killed or because there are no witnesses or because their C.O. is a jackass.' The idea that anybody could fake not one, but five, medals is a bit hard for them to swallow.
They're certainly not Kerry voters but they are really ticked off by this mess and both feel it's likely to backfire. At the very least they both feel that it casts doubt on every soldier's medal if the Swifties keep asserting that the system can be 'gamed' so easily.
And despite the fact that William Rood says he will not give more interviews (likely to avoid becoming embroiled in this fiasco)...he did post the photo of his Bronze Star citation as well as a photo of the after action report signed by Hoffman. It's possible that he doesn't feel that it's his obligation to subject himself to interrogation by the talking heads. He posted his statement and back-up evidence and leave it to the public to decide for itself.
OTOH, failing to confront a "gamer" who has falsely obtained military honors is hardly a fitting tributed to those who served bravely to obtain them. If mistakes were made by those on up the chain of command, then let them take their lumps along with Kerry.
Oh. Well, if the media is now taking Kerry's side, then I'm convinced. :-D
At the very least they both feel that it casts doubt on every soldier's medal if the Swifties keep asserting that the system can be 'gamed' so easily.
OTOH, failing to confront a "gamer" who has falsely obtained military honors is hardly a fitting tributed to those who served bravely to obtain them. If mistakes were made by those on up the chain of command, then let them take their lumps along with Kerry.
C'mon.....you can't make a definitive argument about these medals 35 years after the fact. All they are doing now is carping and reducing the value of all medals awarded. What they're really ticked about is Kerry's post-war activism. They should stick to that rather then reducing their credibility by nit-picking medals so long after they were awarded.
As many before me have said....more often than not a good man does without a medal that was richly deserved. Vets are not going to buy the story that 5 medals were given without any cause.
Too many Vietnam vets got short shrift when they returned home IMO. I'm happy that many are finally being given the honor they deserve and I'm tired of their service being questioned. The Swifties should debate him on the statements he made after the fact and not muddy the waters with this stuff.
Just my 2 cents
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.