Posted on 08/07/2004 3:39:49 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
In Vietnam, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and Dallas attorney John E. O'Neill commanded the same Swift boat, although not at the same time.
Two years later they debated bitterly on national TV about America's conduct in that war.
This week they're the focus of an equally bitter continuation of that conflict.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group O'Neill helped form, has taken out $500,000 in TV advertising challenging Kerry's highly decorated war record, claiming stories of his heroism were fabricated, and that he wasn't entitled to two of the three Purple Hearts or the Bronze and Silver stars he was awarded.
From his earliest campaign ads, including at least two aired in Tucson, through his rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention, Kerry has highlighted his service in Vietnam as evidence of his leadership ability, particularly at a time of war.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, running in Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia, but not Arizona, say the group formed to "provide solid factual information" about Kerry's tour of duty.
The group includes veterans who served on Swift boats in Vietnam, including some of the commanders who recommended Kerry for the awards they now say he didn't deserve.
Although none served under his command, they say they were close enough to the 1969 events - in some cases within 50 yards - to know the truth.
Although they aren't affiliated with the Republican Party, they are backed by several of the party's longtime big contributors and activists.
A number of them have acknowledged they are still bitter toward Kerry for his highly vocal role more than 30 years ago in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and his 1971 statements that American soldiers, himself included, committed war crimes in Vietnam.
The anti-Kerry ads are something of a role-reversal from a few months ago, when some top Democratic leaders were questioning President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam.
Although the National Guard has been a prime source of personnel for Iraq, in the Vietnam era it was generally seen as an alternative to being drafted and sent to Vietnam.
In February, Kerry asked his Democratic colleagues to stop challenging Bush on that issue, but stopped short of repudiating their charges.
Similarly, the Bush White House has neither endorsed nor denounced the ad criticizing Kerry's war record, nor asked the group to withdraw it.
Thirty-seven years after the fact the challenge against Kerry's service boils down to one side's word versus the other's. Military records and statements by most crewmen who served with him support Kerry's side, while the recollections of nearly 200 veterans who served at the same time disagree.
This is what is known about the points raised in the dueling TV versions of history:
Kerry enlisted in 1966, while still a student at Yale. He volunteered to go to Vietnam and to command a Swift boat.
President Bush enlisted in the National Guard in 1968.
John O'Neill, one of the founders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, took over Kerry's command when Kerry was sent home after being awarded his third Purple Heart.
White House tapes from 1971 show O'Neill was recruited by Chuck Colson, then an aide to Republican President Nixon, to debate Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show over Kerry's claims Americans were committing war crimes, and to appear at news conferences. Colson was later convicted for his role in Watergate.
Merrie Spaeth, the anti-Kerry group's Dallas-based media representative, is a former White House media director under Republican President Reagan. She was a communications consultant to Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr during his investigation of Democratic President Bill Clinton. She gave a maximum $2,000 to the Bush re-election campaign, and has given about $5,000 to other national GOP candidates since 2000.
As of their last campaign finance filing, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth received $100,000 of their $158,000 in contributions from Bob J. Perry, a Houston home builder. He has contributed at least $260,000 to national Republican candidates and organizations over the last five years. He also gave maximum $2,000 contributions to the Bush 2004 re-election campaign and to Attorney General John Ashcroft's unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign in 2000.
Significant political contributions could be found for only two leaders of the anti-Kerry group.
Eleven of the 12 men who actually served with Kerry support his version of events, according to Scripps Howard News Service.
Although none of Kerry's detractors served on the same boat, retired Adm. Roy F. Hoffmann said they were operating 25 to 50 yards away, while others have described the distance as "a few yards." By contrast, "Tour of Duty," a Kerry biography, describes his wounds and the rescue of Army Special Forces Lt. Jim Rassmann that resulted in one Purple Heart and his Bronze Star as happening "several hundred yards" from the second boat involved.
The detractors also deny Kerry was under enemy fire when he pulled Rassmann from a river, a claim Rassmann disputes and that is inconsistent with the Navy citation accompanying the award. Rassman is featured in pro-Kerry ads.
In a May interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Hoffmann said he didn't have any firsthand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims.
A sworn statement by Dr. Louis Letson claims he treated Kerry for a shrapnel wound in the arm that led to his first Purple Heart. He described the wound as a "slight injury" and says a Kerry crewman told him there was no hostile fire and the shrapnel was from a grenade Kerry had thrown himself.
But military medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to the nonpartisan Annenberg Institute show he was treated by a J.C. Carreon, not Letson, and Kerry crewmates deny talking to Letson.
Navy Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard, Kerry's former commander, who appears in the anti-Kerry ad, signed a statement saying he turned down the request for Kerry's first Purple Heart because the wound was insignificant. But in a Boston Globe interview in April, Hibbard acknowledged he eventually acquiesced to the award, despite having questions.
Also, Hibbard's statement describing the wound as "a tiny scratch, less than from a rose thorn" is inconsistent with Letson's description of it as shrapnel lodged in the arm.
Much of Hibbard's statement is devoted to criticizing Kerry for "betrayal of his shipmates" for his anti-war activities after returning from Vietnam.
Former Lt. Commander George Elliott, another former Kerry commander who appears in the anti-Kerry ad, retracted his comments Thursday, saying he made "a terrible mistake" when he said Kerry didn't deserve a Silver Star for shooting a Viet Cong who was carrying a rocket launcher.
It was Elliott who glowingly recommended Kerry for that award in 1969, and he said he still believes Kerry deserves it. He also recommended Kerry for the Bronze Star.
Elliott said he felt pressured to sign the statement presented by the group because it was rushing to put out an anti-Kerry book before the election.
Contact reporter Joe Burchell at 573-4244 or jburchell@azstarnet.com.
I'm afraid with the Media's help this is going to backfire. I'd much prefer to see veterans demand an apology from him for what he did on his return from Vietnam, IE: accuse other veterans of war crimes, siding with Jane Fonda, and throwing his ribbons/medals over the white house fence.
A talking point to hammer on: hanoi john spent 132 days in Vietnam vs 730 days as an anti-war activist along with hanoi jane.
Much more connection needs to be made to him and her.
>>Although none served under his command, they say they were close enough to the 1969 events - in some cases within 50 yards - to know the truth. <<
The story is breaking down, it was not even consistant a little later:
>>Although none of Kerry's detractors served on the same boat, retired Adm. Roy F. Hoffmann said they were operating 25 to 50 yards away, while others have described the distance as "a few yards."<<
>>Eleven of the 12 men who actually served with Kerry support his version of events, according to Scripps Howard News Service<<
What happened to no one one his boat disagreed?
It is happening, and the media is freaking out!
Cool!
DK
No mention that the military records culled for inclusion on Kerry's website are far from complete.
I agree.
bias?
As long as the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth get media focus, Kerry's honesty, in the minds of the voters, will come into question.
The media is going to defend Kerry no matter what. If this gets some more people to back away from Kerry in disgust, all the better.
That ain't their job. They're LIBERALS and they want the power of the White House back in Democrat's hands.
Bump!
This story is itself a lie. A lie of omission. They left out a lot of relevant information, In this story they claimed Kerry left Yale to enlist and volunteered to go to Swift Boats, they omitted that Kerry's deferrments ran out and he served on a boat offshore before volunteering for the Swift boats. Other pertinent fact were left out of the story and then they admitted only the records Kerry allowed to be released have been seen.
John Kerry chose to make Viet Nam service the centerpiece of his campaign, for whatever reason. Having done so, every moment of the time spent there is subject to deep scrutiny. The Kerry campaign finds this distasteful and uncomfortable, and lets the world know that this is a very uncouth thing to do.
Hundreds of vets served on the swift-boats on river patrol, yet the Kerry story is unique, both in the range of exploits claimed, and in the very briefness of the time spent on tour. Both these aspects are under question, primarily whether he really did what he claimed to have done, and exactly why he was sent out of Viet Nam with such summary haste. Answers to these questions bear directly on his fitness to serve as President, and should properly be asked.
In 1974, Richard M. Nixon would have avoided much criticism and very likely never would have resigned, if he had revealed his motivations and explained the entire story on Watergate. But Nixon was bound by loyalties and concerns for others who were directly affected by the events, and held his silence.
John Kerry has also chosen to hold his silence, and he must weather the storm. If he can. Or he could own up to his complicity in the very things he has accused his "band of brothers" of doing. But to whom is Kerry being loyal?
I don't think this is going to backfire. I think it's going to keep on until the election, and is very powerful.
How about the "Oldsmobile Admiral" who is TOTALLY backing him, and probably "owns" him??
THAT"S WHO HE IS LOYAL TO AND WOULD NEVER HAVE GOTTEN WHERE HE IS RIGHT NOW WITHOUT HIM !!
IMHO, this is as close to the presidency as teddy will EVER get, and kerry will probably let him "drive" (much to the TOTAL dismay of hitlery,) as much as can be done without it becoming too obvious...
see...it's kinda like x42 said to all the American people:
"We're really getting TWO presidents with our ONE vote for them!!".......
I passed up that "bargain the first time it was offered to me, and I'm gonna pass on teddy and kerry's offer also.
On the one hand, you have several hundred people saying one thing.
On the other hand, you got one guy saying something else.
It's only natural for the media to pay attention to the one, not the 250.
"White House tapes from 1971 show O'Neill was recruited by Chuck Colson, then an aide to Republican President Nixon,... Colson was later convicted for his role in Watergate."
Now isn't this subtle. Guilt by association. Colson went to prison, so therefore O'Neill must be....WHAT?
I watched one of the veterans on Chris Matthews this morning and it was depressing. He had the veteran twisting around and seemingly confused about whether Kerry did or did not rescue anyone. I have no doubt Kerry is lying about his record, but the media will defend him and make this look like a smear campaign. Moore's film backfired on the Democrats and I fear this will too.
I just don't think this will backfire.
It takes all the focus off Bush and the WOT, and places the focus squarely on Kerry and his Vietnam record. The truth will ring out loud and clear.
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.