The Democrat Convention---2004

Meanwhile, on what should be step #1 for anyone's fact-checking research, here's Snopes.



Lots of detail to read through for those who are suspiciously inclined ...

OK.



Fox. Shall I tell you how I went about this? Its not so difficult. I found out what the names of the men were. You dont have to do that anymore, they're already listed above. Then I opened www.google.com . Then I added each of these names, between quotation marks, and Kerry.

For practically all these men, you get link after link after link, sometimes pages full of 'em. Newspaper articles, reports, interviews, in which they testify about what Kerry was like when they served with him.

I am really, really sorry that some of them haven't each individually turned up in the headlines of your daily paper. But all I needed to do was feed their names into Google, and I got reports from as far afield as the Rock Hill, SC, Herald, The Bradenton Herald and regional newspapers around the country. I also found articles from The Boston Globe, ABC, the New York Times.

And of course they were all there (minus Steve Gardner), in Boston, some of them speaking to the Convention (do read Reverend Alston's speech, its beautiful).

These people are "showing up" all-right. These men are being quoted in the daily paper and they are getting TV interviews - hell, I just quoted from them.

So what exactly is your point? Here you have a series of testimonies from former swiftboat colleagues, posted and quoted for your convenience -- but since you havent come across them by accident in your own reading yet (how you did that is a mystery to me, considerng journalists' nausea with the vets' sheer everpresence, but OK) - "it just isn't adding up"?

Earlier you said that it didnt add up because, you know, the number of these veterans - there's six on a boat, here's ten of 'em, doesnt add up. OK, we've solved that one. Now why doesnt it add up?

Sounds like "it doesnt add up" simply because, well - a Democratic presidential candidate cannot possibly have been heroic in Vietnam. Period.

Au contrare Nimh. I come from a long proud line of military types and many, if not most, of them were Democrats. And they have quite a collection of medals and ribbons among them.

Lets move this over to the "Unfit for Command' thread as it gets boring repeating all my arguments, brilliant as they are.

Nah, I gotta go, Ive spent enough time on this. Time for someone else to do some research. I'll post the Snopes link over there, then be gone.

However, I'll be curious to hear your arguments about how the testimonies from nine out of ten of Kerry's former crewmates (plus another crew's man whose life was saved by Kerry), as recounted in a wide range of articles and interviews in media across the country throughout this year, just "doesn't add up" in terms of saying anything of importance about John Kerry's time in Vietnam.

Thus far, I've seen you express only suspicions, but not a single concrete argument about why these testimonies are not what they seem, apart from that you yourself somehow hadnt come across them. Oh, and JW's assumption that they've all been bought off, of course - all nine of 'em, and Rassman too.

Nimh, I can also get some of Bush's compatriots that he has served with to make glowing references for him. Would that change your opinion of him?

You mean - if he had in fact been in Vietnam?

Yeah - any man who's served in war and whose fellow-soldiers recount with passion how he saved their life, fought with courage, and cared for his crewmates, goes up in my opinion of him, most certainly.

Why - doesnt such things change your opinion of a man?

(Well, apparently not, I guess)

OK, now I'm off.

Served with? In Vietnam? Wow!

I think Gary Trudeau has some money for ya!

Did I say Vietnam?

Nope!

You said "served."

And you were referring to what analagous experience?

Been busy, but most of was all typed up when I got back here and saw the thread had moved on some. Still, I want to address a few of nimh's earlier points.


I don't think there's much cause to wonder what I, or some others think about Kerry the Man, Kerry the Commander, or Kerry the Candidate. As for partisanship, well maybe that's a matter of perspective ... with each side puzzled by the other side's stance, with some given to the intellectual laziness of blanketly attributing oppositional viewpoint to shallow, illfounded bitterness. Personally, that's not a practice to which I subscribe.

As for the Rassman account, that was a valorous act on Kerry's part, and deserving of commendation. I have no quarrel with that at all. And, as Rassman very likely does owe his life to Kerry, and to the accompanying boats men operating under Kerry's command at the time, I can't fault Rassman a bit for his loyalty and gratitude.

I do have a few points of concern with the accounts of some of the others, though. For example;


Apart from other controversy surrounding this incident, separating one's boat from the unit formation, negating that craft's key and primary design/function asset - its mobility and manueverabilty combined with its all-around fire-delivery ability, thus depriving the rest of the operational manuever formation of that boat's capabilities, is tactically a very bad idea. In fact, and as such, doing so was strictly against standing orders. Such an action would be akin to abandoning your wingman, or to setting out apart from the rest of your fire team contrary to specific orders. There's a long and well proven list of reasons combat is a team effort. Dunno if you've been there or not, but I learned the playbook right there on the playing field. Kerry, by any number of anecdotal accounts, including this very example, was apparently not a team player, but a hot-dogger. Hot-doggers may get medals they can brag about later, if they survive, but they tend to get lots of folks, not infrequently including themselves, hurt or killed. There's a big difference between bravery and bravado. I've met, and even been personally close to some very highly decorated folks ... folks with every right to claim the title "Hero" and to regale others with factual, thrilling accounts of their valor under fire. To a man, they don't. If anything, its tough as hell to get 'em to talk about any of it, period. I am immediately skeptical of a braggart, particularly if his self-aggrandizement recounts something of an essentially shared experience I perceived to have been very different from that as related by the braggart.

No one should have to see the sights of combat; none the less, in the real world, some must. Those who "don't lose their cool" are doing neither more nor less than the job for which they were trained, and to which they were sworn. That's what a military is about. As for Lt. Kerry's wounds, well, I suspect I've been hurt worse opening a beer bottle inattentively. A number of times.


Commendable. Fortunate. Not notably characteristic of riverine patrol craft operations, therefore notable in and of itself.


First, there's a problem with Thorson's timeline as recounted; he served a year as the aft gunner with Kerry though Kerry served only 4 months as a boat commander? What am I missing here? Well, nevermind ... that's a minor quibble. Second, of course the first thing the ranking serviceman does upon cessation of a combat engagement is to inventory his unit for casualties, and then inquire after ammunition and equipment. One cannot effectively continue one's mission in the absence of knowledge of one's available assetts, nor can one assess the effectiveness of any action which might have been undertaken without determening and comparing the costs and benefits resultant therefrom. That's command SOP, and just plain common sense, nothing special. That's the job.

Now, I understand there's a bond among folks who've served together as a unit, particularly a small unit such as a swiftboat or tank crew, an infantry fireteam, or a bomber crew (all roughly similar in size -something like 4 to 8 men); its supposed to be a tightknit team with mutual respect and strong group loyalty ... if not it could hardly function optimally. Such bonds are not only strong at the time, but may tend, understandably so, even to be life-long thereafter. In general, as long as The Skipper didn't ride your ass or hang it out to dry, The Skipper is always gonna be The Skipper; when you see him at a reunion, you buy him a drink. If you hear he needs help, you're there for him, as you would be for any of your other close buddies. You expect the same from him. I don't doubt the boys who served those 4 months and some-odd-days with Kerry are no different than a lot of guys I know in their attitudes towards both their assigned unit and their direct superior officer and/or immediate ranking noncom, myself included. If those boys had become men who felt much differently than apparently they do, I'd be surprised. I'm not at all surprised not all of them share that glowing assessment of Kerry's command qualities either; there's always going to be an outlier. I do find it significant, tellingly significant, that the great preponderance of Kerry's fellow boat commanders, along with a generous sampling of his superiors, both direct and from other commands, assess the man somewhat differently than do most of the boys he ate and slept and fought with.

I don't like Kerry. I don't like his politics. I don't like his Senate voting record. I don't like what he did following his return from Vietnam. I don't trust Kerry. I can't tell from one soundbite to the next where Kerry stands on any issue. I don't buy his own account of his own adventures. I know an awful lot about Kerry, and so do lots of other folks ... many know far more than I. What no one seems to know, however, is exactly what Kerry plans for this nation, nor even vaguely how he might intend to go about implementing his plans. His own key financial wonk, Rubin, was quoted recently as saying explicitly Kerry intends to "not reveal his economic plan untill he is elected", nor does Kerry say how he would go about finding new allies or strengthening the bonds with others.

I'm particularly perplexed by Kerry's claim that our actions in The War on Terror have "made us less safe" and have increased the ranks of those who would do us harm. As I see it, since 9/11, the roster of key terrorist-supporting/enabling states has been reduced by more than half; Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria no longer stand with Iran and North Korea among that group. Over 50 Million people in two nations been liberated from brutal, despotic regimes. The Islamofascists have seen not only their available manpower but their key leadership drasticaslly reduced, while indigenous popular counter-reaction to their wanton, indiscriminate, inhuman brutality has reduced both their operational freedom and their recruting pool. Yes, they've had successesses to some extent, but nothing so far as yet on the scale of 9/11, or even remotely resembling the operational sophistication of that attack. Daily we hear of terrorist leaders killed or captured, of terrorist cells disrupted or neutralized, of plots foiled, of assetts siezed. It is nonsense to assume an enemy might be incapable of inflicting harm, and of doing so in unexpected manner; that's the nature of warfare, and this is war. All in all, it is my impression the enemy has inflicted far less harm on us than have we on him, and I feel the momentum and initiative are ours. By my reckoning, that's pretty much how one keeps score in these affairs, and the way I tally the score, we're winning. We're still at war, there are still enemies to be captured, there are still battles and casualties and triumphs and tragedies yet to come, but we're winning. I expect no less of us. I suspect Kerry's expectations are not quite so high. I feel it is my obligation and duty to do all in power to prevent him from placing himself in a position from which he might realize his expectations ... diplomatic or economic, foreign or domestic. While I harbor no delusion Bush the Younger is "The Best Man for the Job", I see from among the available options no viable better choice.

And just to give credit where its due, I thank Kerry, the Democratic Party, and their most ardent, strident supporters for all the help they've been in seeing to it my obligation might be fulfilled. Thanks, folks; I really appreciate your efforts in such regard, and trust your continued cooperation in the matter may be relied upon. Good job so far, and, please, keep it up; the Nation and the world are counting on you.




There ... I feel beter. Now, I'll address stuff relating directly to The Democratic Convention/Kerry's campaign here, and slog through other issues on other threads as may seem appropriate at the time. For this thread, for me, here-and-now, Vietnam is over.

Not that it's needed, but excellent post Timber.

Yes Timber. That was awsome.

I was thinking of the fairly many letters of recommendation I have written for subordinates, coworkers, friends, and my own superiors over the years. Unless the person really sucks, its something you just do when asked. And you put only complimentary things into the letter. You just sorta leave the part out that s/he isn't always punctual or s/he sometimes spends too much time at the water cooler or s/he hums off key and drove everybody nuts or couldn't type 'nuts' without misspelling it. You include things like well liked, dependable, loyal, trustworthy, friendly, kind. You don't stick your neck really far out but you don't cut him/her off at the knees either. (Managers get pretty good at reading between the lines in letters of recommendation.)

For the ones you really respect, you put in specifics: goes the extra mile to get it right, has produced several well researched reports that have improved the company's bottom line, is innovative when. . ., creative at. . ., skilled with. . ., etc.

It does seem reasonable that Kerry's crewmates would write a letter of recommendation if asked by a sitting U.S. Senator. I just wonder how specific they were in those recommendation?

Anyhow, that's as far as my swift boat expertise goes and, like Timber, I'll leave it there until we have more evidence.

Not to want to be too pesky in reminding you of the exact details of all thats been posted in this thread, but we're not exactly talking about a mere "letter of recommendation" here.

These men have all come to Boston to personally testify to Kerry's war-time courage. They have campaigned for him, all around the country. Some, like Rassman, have devoted all their time to the Kerry campaign ever since March.

Many of these men have personally speeched, gone to campaign stops, done interviews, the lot.

Yeah, I can imagine, to bring this back to your frame of reference, that in a letter of recommendation for a former colleague, you know, you might skip on the water cooler thing. But here we are talking about recounting acts that saved lives, acts that risked Kerry his own life, and men so moved to tell it that they spend days or even entire months on doing so.

Category "not quite the same thing", perhaps?

They have? Where are they? The guy Kerry saved was on Hannity & Colmes tonight but he's the only one I ever see. Where are these guys that are out campaigning for Kerry? Why aren't we seeing news clips, getting sound bites, seeing front page (or back page) photos of them in the newspaper. It still just isn't adding up.

Of course, you can easily turn this one around. Those men, the fellow boat commanders and the odd superior, knew little of Kerry personally. But they all know a lot about Kerry's actions upon his return to the States. And they hate it. Each and every of the denounciations you posted earlier skips over any detail of what Kerry supposedly did wrong in Vietnam, to jump right to what apparently really matters to the denouncer: his "misdeeds" in the anti-war protests.

Fine - thats their perspective, they're entitled to their opinion. But if that's what they're mostly upset about, it places their rather generalised condemnation of the combat actions of the man they hardly met in Vietnam in a rather different light.

All the more since Kerry has singled out some of those superiors for distinct criticism in Tour of Duty. For example, one of the men now condemning Kerry for his wartime behaviour, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman (back then Captain Hoffman),



Kerry protested against the practice even while he was still in Vietnam, and Tour of Duty author Brinkley "argues that it was the [..] insanity of the Swift boat operations that would turn Kerry into such an ardent protester against the war and dedicated advocate for fellow veterans."

The bottom line is this: almost everyone who served under Kerry and was with him on his boat, swears by his courage and actions. The majority of other vets who were around the same place around the same time, some of whom in charge of the very strategies Kerry has blasted since, dislike him strongly. Your call.

Well, speeching at the Democratic National Convention, for example, like Reverend Alston did. That good enough?

And if you really wanna know where they've been doing interviews, talking of what Kerry's done, you could always still switch off Fox and follow my advice: Google up the full name of the crewmember (between quotation marks) with Kerry.

Like this:

313 results for "Steve Hatch" kerry

1,550 results for "del sandusky" kerry

453 results for "gene thorson" kerry

5,830 results for "david alston" kerry

782 results for "fred short" kerry

4,170 results for "jim rassman" kerry

283 results for "drew whitlow" kerry

809 results for "jim wasser" kerry

481 results for "Mike Medeiros" kerry

Well, you get the drill. Really, it yields many interesting stories ... many of these men are not Democrats, were not Democrats, yet now they're doing their bit for Kerry.

It is subject to call, nimh, that's for sure. I understand your call that his detractors' attitudes were shaped by his postwar activities, and while I don't discount that as a factor, I don't see it as the primary causal factor ... a number of his detractors likewise opposed the war actively upon their release from the military, though perhaps nither in concert nor particular sympathy with Kerry. That only one of his surviving fellow boat commanders endorses him is quite telling to me; yes, those directly under his command, so long as that command was fair, just, and not entirely reckless, may be expected overall to have a positive view both of him and of their shared experience. As I said, I'd expect nothing less of them. That his fellow commanders, those frankly with whom he fraternized, ate, and slept more regularly than with his crew (he was an officer, recall, and protocol and tradition and Officers Quarters and The Officer's Galley or Mess, the Officer's Head or Latrine, the Officer's Club, The Officer's Motor Pool, The Officer's Laundry, and all that ... and all very much a feature of and fully institutionalized and operational in Vietnam as everywhere else before or since), those who knew him both socially and professionally, those who were in a first-hand position to observe and assess his command qualities, his actual equals, almost to a man reject him. That tells me a whole lot more than it seems to tell you. Add in the commentary from his superiors, his direct superiors, those who knew and effectively commanded him, and I have even more difficulty with the man's claims and the protestations of his supporters. Yeah, its a call, alright. I've made my call based on my experience and on my familiarity with things military. Given what I have to work with, its the only call I can make. You may have other resources on which to draw in the formation of your call.

nimh - I need your search engine! I have looked and looked and I still can't find anything that supports how Kerry received his "wounds". Nothing definitive, that is. I guess I will just have to assume that they were, indeed, self-inflicted since he won't release that part of his military records to set us straight.

Darn. Maybe Lumpy will do a movie about it. There's a happy thought

Sorry Nimh, the sources you posted are all the same stuff I've turned up - mostly rehashes of DNC press releases fed to the media. The only place I've seen or heard any of them live has been on Fox and that was Rassman tonight. They've been remarkably absent everywhere else. I'll keep watching, however, for evidence of them out campaigning for Kerry as you say. The news stories seem to depict them back in their home towns doing their regular jobs.

Oh yes, it was unconventional, the choice Kerry made. It was unconventional, but his men swear that it saved their lives. Of course, it might have been in better "teamspirit" if Kerry had sacrificed their lives and his own, but he went out and did the thing that turned out to be able to save them. And he got a medal for it. Not as high a medal as it could have been - exactly because, well, it had been a bit of a bold move. But even his superiors at the time thought, unconventional or not, that it was a move that deserved recognition for its heroism, and gave him a Silver Star.

Here is ABC recounting it - and what fellow crewmate Gene Thorson thought of it (allow me the copy/paste from the other thread):