Why two of John Kerry’s critics were defending him in 1996.(SIlver Star questioned)

May 06, 2004, 8:27 a.m. Overspun Defense Why two of John Kerry’s critics were defending him in 1996.

The Kerry campaign clearly didn't want Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to go unanswered this week. A candidate who had rocketed to the Democratic nomination on a war-hero biography and by referring to his service in Vietnam in almost every answer to every question, including ones on animal rights, didn't need a boatload of his former commanders declaring him "unfit to be commander in chief."

So after Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made their presentation at the National Press Club Monday, the Kerry campaign arranged for two of the candidate's crewmates to appear at a later news conference along with positive evaluations from his former commanders.

The Kerry campaign also showcased what it appeared to believe was a smoking gun: video of two of Kerry's critics, Capt. George Elliott, and retired Cmdr. Adrian Longsdale, at a 1996 news conference at the Charlestown Navy Yard.

Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who commanded U.S. Navy forces in the Vietnam War, also appeared with Kerry that day. His son, retired Lieutenant Colonel Jim Zumwalt is among the Kerry critics. The Kerry campaign also made sure reporters got a sheet of quotes from the press conference eight years ago.

But they appear to have omitted that the veterans' 1996 appearance wasn't a typical, "hey,-isn't-John-Kerry-a-great-guy-who-should-be-reelected" backslapping photo opportunity.

They were there to defend Kerry against the charge of committing a "war crime" from a Boston Globe columnist.

On October 27, 1996, nine days before Election Day, Kerry was locked in the fight of his political life against Republican Governor William Weld. In the Sunday edition of the biggest paper in the state, business columnist David Warsh wrote about discrepancies in recent accounts of day that Kerry won the Silver Star.

According to the citation, ". . . an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not 10 feet from Swift boat 94 and fled. Without hesitation Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber." Twice more the expedition came under fire before returning safely to base, according to the citation. Ten Viet Cong were killed during the day and one was wounded; many weapons were captured; no Americans were hurt.

Last Monday, as he described the long-ago events to me, Tom Bellodeau said with no inflection in particular, "You know, I shot that guy. He jumped up, he looked right at me, I looked at him. You could tell he was trying to decide whether to shoot or not. I expected the guy on Kerry's boat with the twin 50s to blast him but he couldn't depress the guns far enough. We were up on the bank." Bellodeau said he fired at the man, wounding him.

But didn't Kerry shoot him? "When I hit him he went down and got up again. When Kerry hit him, he stayed down," said Bellodeau....

What's the best interpretation? That a breathless young lieutenant, his pulse pounding with the exhilaration of battle, ran some distance from the river bank in pursuit of a soldier, turned the corner behind the hootch and came face to face with an enemy ready to kill him — and that he fired in self-defense.

What's the ugliest possibility? That behind the hootch Kerry administered a coup de grace to the Vietnamese soldier — a practice not uncommon in those days, but a war crime nevertheless, and hardly the basis for a Silver Star. And that he went back the next day with a movie camera, perhaps to build his own case for what happened. Different people will draw different conclusions from the limited information that is available, depending on their experiences."

Kerry was outraged, and his Senate reelection campaign quickly set out to refute the allegation.

Zumwalt, who commanded U.S. Navy forces in the Vietnam War, said at the conference that the column "was such a terrible insult, such an absolutely outrageous misinterpretation of the facts, that I felt it was important to be here."

Kerry said that his fatal shooting of the Vietnamese soldier, who was carrying a loaded rocket launcher, occurred in full view of Belodeau and crewmember Michael Medeiros.

"I was never out of sight of Tom Belodeau or Mike Medeiros," Kerry said. "I went straight out from the boat to the path so I had a line of fire. I never went behind the hootch, and this is the first time in 30 years that anybody has suggested otherwise."

Zumwalt said he traveled to Boston from Washington because "a wartime commander has a lifetime responsibility to look out for the guys under him." Kerry's conduct on that day was also commended by retired Capt. George Elliott, Kerry's commander at the time; and retired Cmdr. Adrian Longsdale, who supervised shoreline operations.

Kerry was helped by the fact that Belodeau stood beside him and said he had been misquoted.

"This man was not lying on the ground. This man was more than capable of destroying that boat and everybody on it. Senator Kerry did not give him that opportunity," Belodeau said. He also said that he was not sure whether or not he had hit the attacker.

Kerry went after Warsh personally at the press conference. "This was a firefight, life or death, and it was that way every single day, and for some desk jockey who wants to come in, who hasn't seen a firefight in his life, to try to say that, it's just wrong. Period. Wrong."

It's worth noting that Lonsdale and Elliot didn't say during that conference what a great president Kerry would make, or that his accusations of war crimes in 1971 weren't distortions or a hurtful betrayal, or even that they endorsed him for the Senate. They just said that they believed Kerry earned his Silver Star in that encounter and that they recalled nothing to justify an accusation of war crimes.

The controversy burned out as quickly as it flared up. Weld didn't touch the issue, and the column didn't make much impact on the rest of the race. The Globe's Ombudsman, Mark Jurkowitz, later wrote, "Warsh may have added something — the possible wounding — to the record. But the evidence does not justify raising even the specter of a "war crime" by a senator in the final days of a bitter and close election campaign. Not by a long shot."

Does the appearance of Lonsdale and Elliot at a 1996 event to fortify Kerry's denial of war crimes invalidate what they have to say about Kerry's war protests today? Not by a long shot.

and more: this guy Warsh got kicked around for BRINGING IT UP!!!

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/alt1/archive/news/96/10/31/quote.html

Cheap shot

The Globe's David Warsh takes aim at John Kerry's war record
by Dan Kennedy

Give David Warsh this much: in his Boston Globe column last Sunday, he made no attempt to hide how little he had to go on before speculating that maybe -- just possibly -- John Kerry had committed a "war crime" 27 years ago by shooting to death a helpless, wounded Vietnamese soldier.

By cobbling together a few intriguing but minor inconsistencies, Warsh offered a grotesque theory of how Kerry won a Silver Star and later became a leader of the antiwar movement. Even worse, Warsh floated this unsupportable theory in the final days of Kerry's bruising re-election battle with Governor Bill Weld.

Warsh claims that he regrets the timing, and adds that he plans to revisit the issue after the election. But given how little he has to back up his speculations, his real regret should be that he wrote anything in the first place.

The fallout has been intense, and not just from the Kerry camp. James Carroll, a freelance Globe columnist whose recent New Yorker profile of Kerry was cited by Warsh, wrote in his Tuesday Globe column that Warsh had violated the "honor of journalism," and that the paper's editors had exercised poor judgment in running Warsh's piece. And staffer Charles Sennott, who wrote a lengthy profile of Kerry last month, is furious -- not only that Warsh ignored Sennott's misgivings, but that he cited Sennott's work twice, the second time after Sennott had asked him not to. (Warsh says he did so "very reluctantly," at editor Matt Storin's request.)

"I really think that what Warsh wrote was dishonest, disingenuous, and gutless," Sennott told the Phoenix, in an unusually harsh display of anger even by newsroom standards.

The central factoid of Warsh's column disintegrated while the ink was still wet. He had quoted Tom Belodeau, the rear gunner on Kerry's boat, as saying that he (Belodeau) had wounded the Viet Cong soldier whom Kerry subsequently killed, the first time anyone has suggested that Kerry dispatched an injured man. But at a Sunday news conference at which Kerry and retired admiral Elmo Zumwalt Jr. blasted Warsh (reported on the front page of Monday's Globe), Belodeau made it clear that Warsh had misunderstood him.

"This man was not lying on the ground," Belodeau said of the Viet Cong soldier, who was armed with a rocket-launcher. "He was more than capable of destroying that boat and everything on it. Senator Kerry did not give him that opportunity. For that reason, myself and three other people are here today."

According to Sennott, the account Belodeau offered at Sunday's news conference was consistent with what Belodeau told Sennott during a two-hour interview, as well as with numerous naval records that Sennott examined while he was researching his profile of Kerry.

Warsh is unrepentant, and says his interview with Belodeau left a strong impression on him. "I attached a high value to his words that day," he says. "I guarantee you that's what he told me." Warsh also defends his right to speculate, saying of the "war crime" passage: "It clearly is a possibility. But I just don't know. I don't think anyone is ever going to know. I think I wrote pretty clearly that there was a wide range of possibilities."

The 52-year-old Warsh, who worked at the Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine before coming to the Globe in 1978, is an intelligent, experienced journalist best known for his eclectic Business-section columns on economics. Although Kerry derided Warsh's own Vietnam service as that of a "desk jockey," Warsh insists he saw plenty of action covering the war for two years for Pacific Stars & Stripes and Newsweek.

Storin, who read and signed off on the column before publication, continues to stand behind it, saying that Warsh "takes on-the-record quotes and documents, then expresses his opinion about them. It's a column. It's his opinion." Storin (who covered Vietnam as the Globe's Asian correspondent in the 1970s) says Warsh's column was actually supposed to run on October 24, but that he decided to hold it after receiving assurances from Kerry-campaign official Tom Vallely that Warsh would have an opportunity to interview Kerry and re-interview Bellodeau. That, Storin adds, never happened. (Attempts to obtain comment from the Kerry campaign were unsuccessful.)

"I am more comfortable about why we ran the column than I would be explaining why I killed it," Storin says.

Marvin Kalb, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, at Harvard's Kennedy School, agrees with Storin's decision to run the column, but says that Warsh "brought a degree of dishonor not upon the senator but upon himself and the profession."

But Bob Steele, director of the Poynter Institute's Ethics Program, says Warsh's speculations simply shouldn't have run without considerably more evidence. "These are profound, personal, and highly pejorative speculations that can cause great harm," he says. "I don't think it is appropriate or logical in this case to draw a distinction between a reporter or a columnist. The power of the words is basically the same."

Steele is right. Storin's reluctance to interfere with a columnist's prerogatives was misplaced in this case; the minor inconsistencies Warsh documents aren't nearly enough to warrant such a foul attack on Kerry's reputation, no matter how carefully hedged.

Warsh was so far out of bounds that the backlash will probably help Kerry's campaign, but that's not the point. The point is that his column never should have seen the light of day.

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.