Posted on 08/26/2004 2:14:52 AM PDT by kattracks
CNSNews.com) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reveals that the then anti-war activist admitted to writing many of the battle reports during his four months of combat in Vietnam.
Kerry told the committee on April 22, 1971, "...I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission..."
Kerry also said that many in the military had "a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."
Kerry's comments about the battle reports came in response to a question from then Senator Stuart Symington (D- Mo.), who wondered about the accuracy of information from military sources.
According to the testimony , which is available in the Congressional Record, Sen. Symington asked Kerry, "Mr. Kerry, from your experience in Vietnam do you think it is possible for the President or Congress to get accurate and undistorted information through official military channels.[?]"
Kerry responded, "I had direct experience with that. Senator, I had direct experience with that and I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission; and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which we would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was. And I often read about my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been on had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures.
Kerry later added, "I also think men in the military, sir, as do men in many other things, have a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."
The 34-year-old testimony could shed light on the present debate over who wrote key battlefield reports that critics of Kerry say allowed him to win awards.
B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, calls the 1971 testimony "significant."
"What is significant about this is [Kerry] is readily admitting that he often submitted reports and he is implying that he himself exaggerated in those reports," Burkett told CNSNews.com.
"We have no way of knowing specifically which documents Kerry composed; and of the the ones he did compose -- did he in fact exaggerate or outright lie in those reports? That is the issue here," Burkett said.
\tx0
The controversy about who authored the now controversial after-action reports arose earlier this week, when the Washington Post obtained the military records of Larry Thurlow, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Thurlow's military records indicated that enemy fire erupted after Kerry's boat was hit by a mine explosion on March 13, 1969.
Thurlow now insists there was no enemy fire that day. The best selling new book by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, details the groups' critique of Kerry. Kerry has denounced the book and the Swift Boat vets and accused them of being an affiliate of President Bush's re-election campaign.
Thurlow and Kerry were each awarded a Bronze Star for heroism on that 13th day of March. Kerry also received his third Purple Heart as a result of the events of that day.
At the center of the controversy is whether or not there was enemy fire during Kerry's rescue of James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River. Kerry and Rassmann and others say there was enemy fire, while Thurlow and other swift boat veterans insist there was not.
Thurlow's own Bronze Star citation states that there was "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units." But Thurlow believes his citation was based on Kerry's own account of the day.
"I am convinced that the language used in my citation ... was language taken directly from John Kerry's report," Thurlow said earlier this week. "John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incident," Thurlow added.
The Washington Post summed up the controversy this way: "Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else."
Burkett believes that Kerry stated the controversy surrounding his war record.
"Kerry thought that he could make a grand presentation of his combat record, and there would be no response, obviously, from the Republicans, considering the lack of military experience on that side of the aisle," Burkett said.
"I think [Kerry] completely misjudged the anger of Vietnam Veterans collectively and their ability to organize and have an answer to John Kerry," he added.
See Related Articles: Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former Military Colleagues (05/03/2004) Kerry Files Complaint With FEC Against Swift Boat Veterans (08/20/2004) Kerry Campaign, Liberal Group Attack Anti-Kerry Book ((08/20/2004) MoveOn Ads OK; Swift Boat Ads Not OK, Kerry Campaign Says (08/20/2004)
E-mail a news tip to Marc Morano.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Bump, ping
According to O'Neill, the people around Kerry figured him out pretty fast. They just wanted him gone.
The people who processed the paperwork were the ones who never expected a naval officer to lie.
bump for finding later
I don't see any such admission in Kerry's statements here.
Again I say, God bless John O'Neill, Van Odell and the rest of the vets whose courage in defense of our country has not diminished in over 35 years.
Ping!
Nice find!
Thanks.
Appears to be at least one honest statement documented.
Question to anyone who might know. If Kerry had filed the after action reports of the incidents in question, wouldn't those then be the property of the unit and contained in the unit archives and not under his control? Wouldn't an investigator be able to access those reports and verify who signed off on them without Kerry filing form 180?
I just heard Bill Samman on Fox say C-Span rerun of testimony is at 8, which I assume is Eastern.
Does anyone know what this means? I'm not old enough to remember the Vietnam war. Why is he saying that the Republicans lacked military experience?
your speculation sounds right to me. should be followed up.
It just seems to me that in the 5 or 6 years the Swift Boat Division was in existence there must have been thousands of after action reports filed. Are all of these only available if the signatories of each report signs off on releasing them? That doesn't make much sense to me. If any are available to researchers, all should be available. Correct?
What if some author decided to do a history of the division in Viet Nam? Would he have to ask for permission to see the reports from each surviving person who authored one or would he have unfettered access to all reports to be able to write a complete history.
If these reports are available through a FOIA request might this be the next shoe to drop on Kerry.
"blub, blub, blub"
Yes, those are official government documents and should be accessible via the freedom on information act.
With one month or less of employment, perhaps he got a paper cut, opted out and continued spending the rest of his life protesting work.
I heard Cowan yesterday (IIRC) say that they have all been declassified and are in the National Archives. Like anything else in research, it might depend on knowing keywords and where they might be filed. He said it would be time-consuming, but they could be found.
I just heard on FNC that C-SPAN is going to air Kerrys' 1971 testimony before Congress!!! IIHC, it will be on tonight at 8 PM!
Bet Kerry is about to blow a gasket.
How to get this in Sean Hannity's hands, Bill O'Reilly's hands, Rush's hands and so on?
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.