Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record

Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But one accuser quickly recants, and other witnesses disagree. August 6, 2004 Modified: August 6, 2004

A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. However, one of the veterans who appears in the ad has already recanted his principal accusation against Kerry, in an interview with the Boston Globe

Some other veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen. One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account.

Analysis

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination. It held a news conference May 4 denigrating Kerry's military record and his later anti-war pronouncements during the 1970's. The group began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which 13 veterans variously say Kerry is "not being honest" and "is lying about his record."

There is reason to doubt the ad . For one thing, one of the men who appears in it, George Elliott, told the Boston Globe he had made a "terrible mistake" by accusing Kerry of not deserving one of his awards. Elliott appears in the ad saying "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam." Another reason for doubt is that the group's financing is strongly partisan.

The source of the Swift Boat group's financing wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston.

Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .

Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database

At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according the a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics .

Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves. However, one of those affidavits already has been recanted by the man who signed it, Lieutenant Commander George Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer. Elliott was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry.

The statement Elliott now says was wrong had suggested that Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- his highest decoration -- which was awarded for an incident in which Kerry beached his boat and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore. Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

It was Elliott who recommended Kerry both for the Silver Star and for the Bronze Star, his other decoration for valor. Despite recanting his affidavit regarding the Silver Star, Elliott told the Globe he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve the second award, based on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him.

The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses.

Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled one of his crewmen from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."

None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.

Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."

The Kerry campaign put Rassmann and some of Kerry's former crewmen on a conference call with reporters to rebut the new ad.Gene Thorson told reporters, "These assertions are garbage; these people weren't there with John Kerry."

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."

The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.

Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.

And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.

The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise.

In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.

Another major discrepancy raises a question of how close Kerry's accusers actually were to the rescue of Rassmann. Tour of Duty describes Rassmann's rescue (and the sniper fire) as happening "several hundred yards back" from where the crippled PCF-3 was lying, not "a few yards away," the distance from which the anti-Kerry veterans claim to have witnessed the incident.

In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."

That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")

Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.

Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.

Sources

Michael Kranish, "Kerry Faces Questions Over Purple Heart," The Boston Globe, 14 April 2004: A1.

One might reasonably ask why the SwiftBoat Veterans have signed affidavits to record their statements.

Recall that one tactic adopted for handling Klinton's bimbo eruptions was to have the reported bimbo sign an affidavit to the effect that nothing happened. This gets the person clearly on the record and makes it very difficult for the person to change their story. One would expect them to sign a new affidavit contradicting their first, and naturally their credibility would be zero without a good explanation for why the first affidavit was false.

Now we have a Globe reporter interviewing someone who the reporter claims is now contradicting his affidavit. Does the reporter ask that the contradiction be sworn to and signed in the presence of a notary? No? Why not?

Now we hear that the veteran in question has signed yet another affidavit claiming that the Globe report is false.

The actions of the veteran are exactly in line with what one would expect from a person who has a story to tell and who has no fear of going on the record.

It remains for the Globe reporter to sign an affidavit concerning the interview, explaining the nature of the notes taken, if any, explaining why no recording was made, and further explaining why no attempt was made to have the veteran sign a contradictory affidavit in light of the seriousness of the charges being made.

If I was on a jury deciding whether the Globe acted with malice, I would want to know why they have treated such material in a fashion that could result in a signed contradiction of their report without proof of their own. I think that the presumption would have to go to the veteran.

syriacus, I submitted the following e-mail to Annenberg:

----
Annenberg,

You need a fact check on your "fact check".

You wrote, "There is reason to doubt the ad . For one thing, one of the men who appears in it, George Elliott, told the Boston Globe he had made a "terrible mistake" by accusing Kerry of not deserving one of his awards."

Not true. In fact, shortly after the Globe article, Elliot submitted an affidavit stating the author of the Globe article misquoted him and that Elliot stands by everything in the ad.

You wrote, "None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him. "

That was very misleading. Steve Gardner, one of the swift boat members who was not in the ad, served on Kerry's boat as a machine gunner. Gardner strongly disputes the circumstances surrounding at least one of Kerry's medals.

You wrote, "...medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm."

Wrong again. J.C. Carreon was not a medical officer. Dr. Letson treated Kerry. Carreon, an enlisted hospital corpsman who worked with Dr. Letson at the time, most likely completed the paperwork. It was common practice for enlisted men and women in the medical field to fill out the required record entries. I did when I served in the U. S. Navy medical and dental fields.

You wrote, "A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 ...".

If you are going to try to smear the swift boat veterans by pretending this is a partisan matter, then shouldn't you provide partisan references for the staff responsible for this so-called "fact check? For example, list those on your staff who have worked for, or for the election of, democratic politicians, and list your campaign donations. Shouldn't you also mention that the Boston Globe is an extremely partisan newspaper, and the reporter that wrote the bogus Elliot article, Michael Kranish, has strong ties to Kerry, and that Kranish currently has four books published or being published on Kerry and the Kerry campaign, including a Kerry biography?

You make a big deal out of McCain, as if he is in some way relevant. Read this carefully: MCCAIN WAS NOT THERE!

To see how partisan you sound, read these three paragraphs from the swift boat vets website:

"John Kerry has been able to convince about 13 men who served on Swift boats in the Mekong Delta to support him, 7 or 8 of whom were at various times crew members on his own 6-man boat. Those are the men the Kerry campaign so prominently featured at the Democratic Convention. The photograph we have posted at SwiftVets.com shows Kerry with 19 of his fellow Swift boat OICs (Officers In Charge) in Coastal Division 11. Four OICs were not present for the photograph. Only one of his 23 fellow OICs from Coastal Division 11 supports John Kerry.

Overall, more than 250 Swift boat veterans are on the record questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. That list includes his entire chain of command -- every single officer Kerry served under in Vietnam. The Kerry game plan is to ignore all this and pretend that the 13 veterans his campaign jets around the country and puts up in 5-star hotels really represent the truth about his short, controversial combat tour.

The Swift boats fought in groups, so the other OICs who fought alongside Kerry know him well and can accurately describe what he did and did not do. In many cases Kerry's fellow OICs had a better perspective than his own crew members, since the latter had no way to determine whether he was following orders and how well he worked with his peers. "

Frankly, this so-called "fact check" is little more than an attack ad for John Kerry. It contains all the DNC talking points, currently being printed in similar attack ads, disguised as journalism, by left-wing "newspapers" all over the nation. You are smearing over 250 brave Vietnam veterans in an attempt to provide aid and comfort to one of the lowest scoundrels ever to seek high public office.

Shame on you.

"At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth." ~ AnnenbergPoliticalFactCheck

Really? Let's go over this again:

Rush: "....in Kranish's own book on page 102 he quotes Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Vietcong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around -- meaning he shot him in the back!"

32 posted on 08/07/2004 9:42:18 AM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1186852/posts?page=32#32

"For my belief that he was wounded and fleeing (and was shot in the back, I rely upon many sources, including Michael Kranish's (the Boston Globe reporter) own quotation of John Kerry.... "

This is the delicious part--

The Kerry/Kranish account of the incident contributed to Elliot's understanding that the man was shot in the back.

12 posted on 08/07/2004 8:20:30 AM EDT by syriacus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1186852/posts?page=12#12

I think the "terrible mistake" was his decision to sign the affadavit even though it contained a line he could not personally vouch for (that Kerry shot a man in the back).

No ..... look at these two sentences from Elliot's two affidavits:

1. "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

2. "had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong"

In the first he says that he hadn't been informed of the paltriness of Kerry's actions in the matter being referred to him for recommendation for the Silver Star. In the second he said that if he had known what had actually happened, he wouldn't have done it.

It's pretty clear that the mistake was signing the recommendation for Kerry's Silver Star based on limited information, not signing the first affidavit about Kerry based on limited information about that particular incident.

What Kranish did was dishonesty of the first magnitude. Not surprising, though, coming from the Boston Globe.

19 posted on 08/07/2004 8:40:53 AM EDT by aruanan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186852/posts?page=19#19

Michael Kranish "dowdified" George Elliott quote for his story. JustoneMinute ^ | 08/07/04 | TOM MAGUIRE
Posted on 08/07/2004 5:55:20 AM EDT by Pikamax
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1186852/posts

Kranish Is Cooked

Michael Kranish rocked us on Friday with a story, headlined "Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry", which told us that:

"a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

Get Maureen Dowd on the line - that may have been the most misleading ellipsis ever published, but since the affidavit was not public, who knew?

Subsequently, Capt. Elliot retracted his retraction, prompting some head-scratching.

Now, both the original affidavit and the re-affirmation (the retraction of the retraction) are available here. I will read it again, and you should, too, but my first reaction is that Kranish wrote a wildly deceptive and misleading story.

Let's restore the missing ellipsis, emboldening the excerpted bit:

3. When Kerry came back to the United States he lied about what ocurred in Vietnam, comparing his commanders to Lt. Calley of My Lai, comparing the American armed forces to the army of Ghengis Khan, and making similar misstatements. Kerry was also not forthright in Vietnam. For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

Hello, Mr. Reporter! When Capt. Elliot "backed of one of the key contentions", was it the My Lai complaint, or the Ghengis Khan comparison? Or was it one example preceded by "for example"?

Unbelievable. In his re-affirming affidavit, Capt. Elliot cites the same material I did to reach this conclusion - he was not informed of the facts, and "had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing VietCong".

This, from the Globe, now looks wildly ironic:

In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book.

It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement.

Oh, it is going to be pretty clear, I bet. They still need to back it up, but there will be more.

Earlier, I had guessed that the Swiftees would disappear under the headline of "Cranks can't get story straight". But if Kranish has been this irresponsible, the Swiftees will sail on as the heroes of a "Liberal media attempts to squash Veteran truth-tellers" drama.

Don't even ask me about Joe Wilson.

*

"What Elliot is saying is that he does not know if it is true that John Kerry shot a wounded Viet Cong in the back..."

Wrong.

Excerpt from the excerpt below:

"....in Kranish's own book on page 102 he quotes Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Vietcong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around -- meaning he shot him in the back!"

32 posted on 08/07/2004 9:42:18 AM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1186852/posts?page=32#32

"Boston Globe 'Reporter' Paid By Kerry Demonstrates Huge See, I Told You So on Campaign Finance Reform Folly August 6, 2004" http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

Excerpt:

"The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in [today's] Boston Globe... [Viet Vet] Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as 'extremely inaccurate' and 'highly misstating' his actual views.

He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played."

Essentially Captain Elliott is renouncing what is said of him in this Boston Globe Mike Kranish story.

The statement then goes on to say, "Additional documentation will follow. The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around."

Let's just stop there. Kranish, the author of the Boston Globe story, wrote a book on John Kerry, is his biographer, and on page 102 of that book that Kranish wrote, he quotes Kerry acknowledging that he 'killed a single, wounded, fleeing Vietcong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.'

Yet, Kranish writes today in the Boston Globe: "Yesterday a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a 'terrible mistake' in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star..."

"Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry 'lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.' The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star.

Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew....

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star. I still don't think he shot the guy in the back,' Elliott said. 'It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words.'"

Yet in Kranish's own book on page 102 he quotes Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Vietcong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around -- meaning he shot him in the back!

Who is Mike Kranish? Mike Kranish is a reporter covering the Kerry campaign for the Boston Globe. Mike Kranish is also a biographer of John Kerry, and as I just learned during our break at the top of the hour, Mike Kranish has also written the yet-to-be-released official campaign book for Kerry-Edwards. It is entitled "Kerry-Edwards."

You can get it now on Amazon. It's not available. The item has not yet been released but you can order it and they'll ship it to you when it arrives. List price, $12.95, your Amazon price, $10.36.

What does it [AMAZON] say about the author?:

"Michael Kranish has worked for the Boston Globe for more than 20 years, including the last 16 in the newspaper's Washington bureau. He is coauthor of, 'John Kerry the Complete Biography' published this year by Public Affairs." ..... [snip]

32 posted on 08/07/2004 9:42:18 AM EDT by Matchett-PI http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1186852/posts?page=32#32

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.