McCain condemns ad, Kerry's commander backs off

I don't know how on earth someone can portray himself as a big war hero and also try to portray the war and all those who fought in it as terrible people.

Can't have it both ways, of course that's the way he operates.

I myself felt very patriotic to fight in Vietnam, while in the Navy. Like Kerry, once I got out I realized the immoral nature of it and protested from 1965 til now. It's not being hypocritical; it's acting on the information at hand.

I'm noted for both :wink:

Gotta ask, edgar, when you were actively protesting the war did you denigrate and slander the loyal and honorably serving troops, or did you direct your dissent toward the politics which had placed them in harm's way? I see a big difference there. Kerry apparently didn't.

Not all the troops were honorable, including some I knew personally.

Not all police or priests or politicians are honorable, either; how is that relevant, and how does that answer my question? Not bein' mean, here ... just tryin' to clear up a point.

Of course you can. He fought best as he could in what he decided was an unjust war, and then did all he could to stop it once he had done his duty.

Foxfyre, again, the New York Times quote was very specific about putting it in the context of Elliott defending Kerry from that specific accusation. The New York Times may well publish a correction tomorrow saying they were wrong, but as it stands, it has context.

I haven't looked for the quote anyplace else. (Saw it when I was reading the paper this morning, not something I went looking for at all.) Will now.

There are no matches for the exact quote, (including today's NYT -- just zero matches.) So hard to get a hook to confirm/ deny, I did find this:



http://wfmynews2.gannettonline.com/election2004/gns/20040504-45843.html

What that says to me is support for the idea that Elliott specifically defended Kerry, if not the exact words. In other words, yes, Elliott defended Kerry in 1996.

"Slander", timber, really? Are you talking about recounting the testimony that he had received from the soldiers themselves?

Piffka has the best response to that whole thing that I've seen:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=584203

The same source you posted Sozobe has this:


Again, an honorable person will give credit where credit is due, will object to unfair accusations/aspersions, and may still oppose a person on other grounds.

Up until just before the DNC Convention, my personal stance on this, and you'll find it in numerous A2K postings, was that he served, he received an honorable discharge, and that is sufficient. Leave his military record alone. But he is the one who decided to make it the cornerstone, if not virtually his entire qualification to be president, and is dodging any more recent record. When he slaps us in the face with it, he forces us to look at it. I come from a long line of military types, many of whom were highly decorated. Even those who spent up to four years in or near the front lines in Europe or slugged it out in Korea or Vietnam never flaunted their military experience or flashed their commendations like Kerry does.

If Kerry has told the truth about his war record, he should be able to find plenty of people who will support his version of the facts. If he has misrepresented the facts, lied to Congress, embellished his heroism,
or unjustly smeared the men he served with in his postwar activities, he's the one who has put it all out there for close scrutiny.

He's the one who has made close scrutiny fair game here.

I protested, and still do, against the injustices I percieve. If a soldier was dishonorable, the protest was aimed at him. The civilians calling the shots, it was always aimed at them. Ordinary soldiers who did their job to the best of their ability I had no quarrel with.

John F. Kerry, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971, Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session (April-May 1971), Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971, page 204


Maybe its just me, and a few hundred thousand other vets besides, but I think that's about as close as one needs to get to slander to qualify as a slanderer.

And I have no quarrel with that.

Me either

The Vietnam War was a needless waste of so many lives. Nothing we gained was worth all that. Kerry did his duty as a soldier and came home and did his duty as a civilian. Unlike Bush who hid.

As I have already said, Elliot is a waffler and has no credibility. edgarblythe




A key figure in a book and ad campaign questioning Democratic Presidential Candidate John F. Kerry's war record recanted his claims and now has recanted his recant.

But retired Lt. Commander George Elliott has a history of changing his opinion on how he feels about Kerry.

Elliott now claims he was misquoted when he said he was wrong about what he said about Kerry in a controversial ad sponsored by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"Had I known the facts I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star simply for pursuing and dispatching a single wounded Viet Cong. I do not claim to have any personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong."

Yet Elliott earler told different versions to both Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish and Capitol Hill Blue reporter William D. McTavish.

"I was wrong to sign the affidavit (claiming Kerry did not deserve the medals)," Elliott told McTavish. "I am sorry."

Elliott told Kranish he regretted signing the affidavit and did so because he was rushed. He added that he felt Kerry had served honorably and deserved his medals.

The stories sparked a rash of controversy on conservative talk radio shows, fueled by an erroneous report on the Drudge Report that Kranish had worked on the Kerry campaign and written the introduction for a campaign-authorized book on Kerry.

Globe editor Martion Baron said Friday Drudge's report was flat-out wrong and said Kranish had worked on an proposed independent book about Kerry that was to be published but ended his relationship with the publisher when they announced plans to publish a book for the Kerry campaign.

"The Globe stands by the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate," Baron said.

Capitol Hill Blue Editor Teresa Hampton said her web site also stands by its earlier report.

"And Mr. McTavish has never written for any publisher that has published any book on the Kerry campaign," she added.

Elliott has a record of changing his stories when it comes to Kerry.

In 1996, he appeared in Boston for Kerry's Senate campaign, defending the candidate against charges of hyping his war record, saying Kerry "acted properly and deserved the Silver Star (one of the medals Kerry won while serving in Vietnam)."

Some who served with Elliott in Vietnam say it is not surprising that he has changed his story more than once.

"George runs hot and cold when it comes to John Kerry," says one Swift Boat veteran who asked not to be identified.

The ad, sponsored by an anti-Kerry organization called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, features 13 Vietnam veterans accusing the Democratic presidential nominee of betraying his shipmates and telling lies to win medals in Vietnam.

Elliott, one of the 13 accusers in the ad, was one of Kerry's superiors in Vietnam when Kerry was awarded medals for heroic actions, including the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.

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

In a signed affidavit he provided to the ad sponsors on July 21, 2004, Elliott suggested Kerry did not deserve his Silver Star.

At issue is an event in which Kerry killed a fleeing Viet Cong guerrilla while on patrol on the Mekong River. According to accounts provided by Kerry and his swift boat crewmates to Kerry's biographers, Kerry left his boat and pursued the guerrilla because he was armed with a Russian-made rocket launcher capable of penetrating armor.

Kerry has denied shooting the guerrilla in the back.

Republican Sen. John McCain, also a Vietnam veteran, called the attack ad dishonorable and dishonest, and urged the Bush administration to also denounce the ad. The administration distanced itself but did not condemn the ad.

© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue

Top of Page

Not that I condem or defend the practice, but how else than in the back does one shoot a fleeing enemy, wounded or otherwise?

The fact Kerry left his boat and pursued the enemy makes it apparent it was no skeet-shoot. Shame on people who disparage a soldier for doing his duty a little bit better than average.

Thanks for the article, edgar.



That's certainly the impression I've gotten.

As for shot in the back -- George's earlier quote made sense to me. ;-)

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=829598#829598

I have a huge problem with quotes from people 'asking not to be identified' as being considered credible in any way, shape, or form.

I have an even huger problem with tearing down to rubble the character of a person for the sake of winning an election.