All due respect for "Beldar" (futurama tip o' the hat) Nope. Coneheads.
Posted on 08/21/2004 4:07:33 PM PDT by gilliam
The single best development for Sen. John F. Kerry during the past two weeks is the just-published first-person account from former Swift Boat skipper William B. Rood of the action on February 28, 1969, that resulted in Kerry's Silver Star.
Mr. Rood's memoir, entitled "Anti-Kerry vets not there that day," deserves a respectful and careful reading from anyone interested in the SwiftVets vs. Kerry controversy. It provides context and some credible opinions that are unquestionably favorable to Sen. Kerry.
But neither it, nor the companion news article by Rood's Chicago Tribune colleague Tim Jones, directly contradicts the SwiftVets' principle allegations of fact.
To the contrary, for those who've paid close attention to what the SwiftVets have actually alleged, Mr. Rood's new memoir actually supports their main contentions regarding Kerry's fitness for the Silver Star, because they show that Kerry was not charging alone, through overwhelming enemy fire, into a dense concentration of the enemy when he hopped off PCF-94 that day.
That's not the way Mr. Rood's memoir will be spun by relieved Kerry supporters. But journey with me now, gentle readers, and decide for yourselves as we together examine, closely and with due respect, the details of Mr. Rood's memoir.
...
Mr. Rood's first-hand recollection of the facts of the day's combats are generally consistent with what Sen. Kerry has claimed, and with what both his supporters and critics have claimed.
(Excerpt) Read more at beldar.blogs.com ...
In his companion article, Tribune correspondent Jones reports: "Asked for his response to Rood's account, O'Neill argued that the former swift boat skipper's version of events is not substantially different from what appeared in his book. The account of the Feb. 28 attack draws heavily on reporting from The Boston Globe, O'Neill said."
And indeed, O'Neill has never claimed to have any first-hand knowledge of the events that day. Rather, as I understand them, his and the SwiftVets' critiques have relied on the facts reported by other veterans who were present that day, including Sen. Kerry's own recollections as reported in various places, including not only newspaper accounts, but also Douglas Brinkley's authorized biography Tour of Duty and Michael Kranish et al.'s John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best.
Notwithstanding contrary portrayals by Sen. Kerry's supporters and the popular press, O'Neill and the SwiftVets have stressed repeatedly that their criticisms of Kerry, and their skepticism of his fitness for the Silver Star, do not depend on whether Kerry shot the fleeing VC soldier from the front or the back, or whether his rocket launcher was loaded or not, or whether he was a teenager or full-grown, or whether he was in a loin-cloth or a full set of combat body armor.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/08/chitribs_willia.html
This media event is a trick, a nothing event, and should be labeled so by those in favor of the swifties' "version".
The Media has taken the Kerry camp bait. They haven't read the book.
No one is denying this specific incident occurred. The Swifties' main point about this specific event was whether any citation merited at all, and relation to Kerry's write-up. This point is probably past most people, especially the press.
Kerry camp understands that most people will comprehend the "did it happen or not" argument. The Swifties certainly claim other events did not happen. This is familiar, so the Kerry camp adopted it for this incident. The implicit push is that the Swifties similarly deny this event occurred, pull out a witness, hence prove, falsely, that the Swifities are liars.
By the way, I saw this attack line developing Friday morning on one of the monring news shows. They even had O'Neill say that he didn't think it was wrong of Kerry to shoot the person. In the context of the report this was implied to be a sort of revelation, a backtracking, proving the Swifties lied.
The Kerry disinformation campaign is very sophisticated and smart - sometimes.
Their greatest achievement was getting the whole Cambodia issue off the discussion table.
All due respect for "Beldar" (futurama tip o' the hat) but he think he finds support, but he doesn't understand the purpose of the article. Which he succumbed to, thinking it was in any way supportive of the Kerry story. It sounds good, but is a deflection from the Swifties's points.
You mean they didn't even have a corpse? Pyjama-man might have just chucked the RPG and Kerry might have just popped a round off in the mud. They didn't even have a body?
Well, remember, it was the Swifties themselves who moved on with their second commercial about Kerry's post-war betrayal of his "brothers." I'm sure they can put out something that puts this story in context with what they've said about this incident.
Hopefully they'll get the time of day from the MSM. And maybe they will, if Matthews and Carville and the rest think they've got O'Neill over a barrel with this story.
You make that sound like they are giving up on the arguement. That move was probably planned weeks ago.
I'm sure they can put out something that puts this story in context with what they've said about this incident.
In my opinion it should be just a press release. Talking about it is giving the Matthews types meat to focus on. They're desperate for distractions.
Just read the WP account of the Rassman incident and. No matter how they try to cut it, basically they say sKerry is a liar, and in a couple of places albeit perhaps unintentionally, they say it rather forcefully.
They also confirm the self inflicted rice in his ass PH affair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html
Just read the WP account of the Rassman incident and. No matter how they try to cut it, basically they say sKerry is a liar, and in a couple of places albeit perhaps unintentionally, they say it rather forcefully.
They also confirm the self inflicted rice in his ass PH affair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html
Brinkley, when reading Kerry's diaries conveniently ignores an entry about being cocky because he hadn't been shot at yet. The date is AFTER Kerry receives his first purple heart.
All due respect for "Beldar" (futurama tip o' the hat) Nope. Coneheads.
No one is focusing on Kerry's medals. Rood isn't discussing the Christmas in Cambodia tale or the VVWA stuff. That's what relevant. No wonder he can't back Kerry up on the points where he's really taking a hit.
Did anyone else here see The Capital Gang tonight? Robert Novak pointedly warned Al Hunt not to be too sure about some of his statements about the Swifties. It sounded like Novak knows about something that's about to come out.
When will a transcript of tonight's Capital Gang be available?
They haven't gotten the Cambodia thing off the table. Right now they have yet to find ONE eyewitness who supports Kerry. And I bet you cents to dollars they can't find one who supports Kerry's anti-war activism in the VVWA. Is this the best they can do? Quibble about irrelevancies? And the Swiftees have just gotten warmed up. Its amazing no big media journalist has yet read their book.
Even if the media hacks read the book they will deny doing so and continue with their agenda.
Read "Tour of Duty". Kerry rewrites the incident. He doesn't toss the grenade, he blames a Nung mercenary.
Rassman contradicts Kerry.
Dang, you're right! And I can't blame a Nung tribesman like Kerry did!
" Did anyone else here see The Capital Gang tonight? Robert Novak pointedly warned Al Hunt not to be too sure about some of his statements about the Swifties. It sounded like Novak knows about something that's about to come out. "
Novak kept cautioning Hunt, " not to be so sure no one on Kerry's boat " was supporting the SBVFT.
Since we know Gardner is on record, I got the distinct impression from Novak, that there may be either a defection from Kerry's Band or someone else coming forth.
Novak said it twice-although it was kind of hard to make out, as there was so much cross shouting.
Hunt and Podesta and Shields all believe the ad is helping Kerry, as does Susan Estrich.
Yet, then they start screaming and yelling down anyone who tries to discuss the ads or the book.
Nevermind trying to get the book banned and the FEC to pull the ads.
The Kerry campaign and their mouthpieces looks like the Keystone Cops at a Chinese fire drill.
Novak seemed deadly serious when he said it. It came off like he was warning Hunt not to go too far out on a limb that's about to get cut off. I hope Novak has an inside scoop on something big.
for later
Rood claims Kerry asked him to step forward but, "what matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did."
If that's his true motive, then why isn't he saying anything about Rev. David Alston, the sometime Kerry crew member who has claimed to be on Kerry's boat that day but who apparently wasn't? Kerry and the crew members who were actually there have to know Alston is lying, yet they're remaining silent. Doesn't this also hurt the crewmen who deserved to be honored for what they did?
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.