The Democrat Convention---2004

You may not have noticed Cyclop that I generally ignore those who dicuss/debate via insult or via unsubstantiated innuendo. I reserve the right to continue to do so as I do not make other people the focus of the discussion and do not appreciate being the focus of the discussion. I made an exception in your case and regret doing so. So as I have completely left the realm of objectivity in your view, please feel free to ignore me.

(Edited to correct spelling error & syntax)

Thanks, timber

That's a lot easier on the aging eyes.

First review of the whole book "Unfit for Command" that I've seen:

Kerry's war record
Robert Novak (archive)

August 9, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The television ad that aroused the wrath of John McCain and journalist supporters of John Kerry just begins deconstruction of the Democratic presidential candidate's war record. "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," a 214-page critique of his performance in Vietnam and the antiwar movement, is off the presses ahead of schedule.

I have read the book and found it is neither the political propaganda nor the urban legend that its detractors claim. It is a passionate but meticulously researched account of how Kerry went to war, what he did in the war and how he conducted himself after the war. The very serious charges by former comrades deserve answers but so far have produced only ad hominem counterattacks.

Why should details of what Kerry did more than 30 years ago be part of this election campaign? Only because the senator has made them integral to his strategy. Kerry as war hero received more attention at the Democratic National Convention than plans for the future. Thus, what he did in his shortened four months of combat becomes a valid campaign issue.

John E. O'Neill, co-author of "Unfit for Command," replaced Kerry as commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 in 1969 and has been confronting him since 1971. O'Neill told me he is no George W. Bush partisan and probably would have supported John Edwards had he been nominated for president, but is committed to keeping Kerry out of the Oval Office. Thus, reversing the usual formulation, the assault on Kerry is personal but not political.

O'Neill told me neither he nor his co-author (Jerome R. Corsi, a writer and expert on the Vietnam antiwar movement) has had contact with the Bush White House or the Bush-Cheney campaign. He said he and Corsi, on their own initiative, went to conservative Regnery Publishing to offer the book.

The co-authors paint Kerry as a reluctant warrior. Contrary to claims by Kerry's supporters that he served two combat hitches in Vietnam, his one-year term aboard a guided missile frigate was far from action. His four months in the brown water navy were terminated eight months early by a third Purple Heart wound, none of which required hospitalization.

The book's strength is the vehemence of testimony by swift boat veterans, alleging that Kerry "gamed" the system to win decorations and later betrayed comrades by charging war crimes. Typical is the quote by Bob Hildreth, commanding an accompanying boat: "I would never want Kerry behind me. I wouldn't want him in front of me, either. And I sure wouldn't want him commanding our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan." Some 200 "Swiftees" on May 4 signed a letter to Kerry demanding full release of his service records.

The book's weakness is support for Kerry's presidential campaign by his swift boat crewmates, presumably people who knew him best. O'Neill told me that these former sailors served with Kerry no more than five weeks. Jim Rassmann, now part of the Kerry presidential campaign, was a Special Forces lieutenant spending a few days with Kerry when he fell or was knocked off the swift boat while under fire and was fished out of the Mekong River by the future candidate.

The "band of brothers" was organized by Kerry, according to this book. It tells of a 2003 telephone call to Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded swift boats in Vietnam, telling him he was running for president. Hoffmann, mistakenly thinking it was former Sen. Bob Kerrey, "responded enthusiastically." Once the admiral realized it was John Kerry, "he declined to give Kerry his support." Hoffmann is quoted as saying, "I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States."

"Unfit for Command" sends a devastating message, unless effectively refuted. Perhaps most disturbing are allegations that Kerry's combat decorations are unjustified. His first Purple Heart, the book alleges, was accidentally self-inflicted. His commander, Grant Hibbard, is quoted as saying: "I didn't recommend him for a Purple Heart. Kerry probably wrote up the paperwork and recommended himself." Full release of documents demanded by his critics could settle this claim quickly if it is unwarranted.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20040809.shtml
(I know it's Townhall but I didn't want to hunt up any of the more 'credible' sources like the NY Times to get a link.)

I don't want to ignore ya. I just would like to see you afford me the same courtesy I just afforded you, and provide answers when asked, or concede the argument.

I have no desire to insult you; rather, just have noticed a change in the posts you make and thought I would point it out.

Cycloptichorn

Hmmm. Insulting me is showing courtesy?

Give it a rest, kids, or get yourselves a room.

I'm not sure what you took as an insult in my post.

You said,



To which I responded,



I suspect you took umbrage to the last line, which upon review I could have stated better. But I really do feel that the level of debate between you and I and others has become more partisan and less conversational/ informational re: Kerry these last few weeks. I suspect that I may be guilty of the same thing as well, but I am trying to work on it.

Please don't be insulted, it was not my intention. Rather, let us take this opportunity to start fresh and try to keep an open mind about the debate in the exciting months to come.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclop, I am usually less offended than amused--okay also sometimes exasperated-- by those who consider only their own point of view or support for their favored candidate/cause/issue to be the 'objective' one. And I generally consider that I have won when the focus shifts from the thesis to my sins, errors, and/or waywardness and thus there is nothing left to discuss.

I do have a fairly consistent, not perfectly consistent, personal policy of just moving on when the insults become personal these days. It's how I keep the forum fun for me.

But I accept that your intent was not to be insulting and fresh starts are good.