Rassman Rebuts
Posted by Dale Franks
Jim Rassman, the former SF lieutenant whose life was saved by John Kerry in 1969, and who recommended him for the Silver Star, writes an Op/Ed for the Wall Street Journal to rebut the Swiftvets ad against Kerry.
<font size=4>
I won't address the specifics of what happened on that day in March, 1969, since it's impossible for any of us who weren't there to know what actually happened. But Rassman doesn't do his credibility much good with 'graphs like this:
<font color=blue>
Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.
"Some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush"<font color=black>? More like the vast majority of those who served with him. Of all the officers who served with him, only one supports kerry. So the <font color=blue>"some"<font color=black> qualifier is disingenuous, to say the least.
Look, I'm sure that if I was running for presidnet, some of the people I served with in my military career would oppose me too. If 90% of them opposed me, it would not be unreasonable for for people to ask questions about my service, if I made it a centerpiece of my politcal campaign.
Also, note the <font color=blue>"Republican-financed"<font color=black> adjective phrase. Of course they are financed by Republicans. It would require an extraordinarily great leap of imagination to suppose that Democrats would do so.
<font color=blue>
"They are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam."<font color=black>
Yes, they are. Perhaps it's because they feel that his testimony before Congress and his activities for VVAW were traitorous, and they resent it. Perhaps they feel Kerry's accusations about their complicity in war crimes cheapened their service, and the array of Purple Hearts, Silver Stars, and Bronze Stars they also earned.
<font color=blue>
"This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. "<font color=black>
Which Navy records would those be, precisely? Presumably, Mr. Rassman is speaking about the award write-up associated with Mr. Kerry's medals. Because the after-action reports appear not to indicate that the PCF crews took any enemy fire at all. So, at best the account of the <font color=blue>"Navy records"<font color=black> appear to be...contradictory.
John Kerry appears all over the country with essentially the same 10 <font color=blue>"band of brothers."<font color=black> Almost the entire remainder of his <font color=red>"brothers"<font color=black> appear to vehemently oppose him.
It is not unreasonable to note that fact, as much as Mr. Rassman may attempt to obfuscate it.
As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is <font color=blue>"dishonest and dishonorable."<font color=black>
With all due respect to Mr. McCain, and the the awe the sacred invocation of his name is supposed to automatically convey, he wasn't there, either, so he doesn't know the first thing about it. That makes his opinion about the factual content of the Swifvets' allegations worthless.
<font color=blue>
Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.
<font color=black>
I am unsure what this means. IS he saying that Admiral Hoffman didn't serve with John Kerry? Or any of the other swiftboat vets who claim to have served in the various PCF divisions in which John Kerry served? Or, is he using the Kerry Campaign's definition of <font color=blue>"served"<font color=black>, which means, <font color=blue>"they weren't actually on board his boat, so a distance of 50 yards means that their perceptions of Mr. Kerry were impenatrably shrouded in ignorance of the truth?" <font color=black>
Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform.
<font color=red>
Unless, of course, they served in the National Guard, in which case they're fair game. And, presumably, Americans weren't yet tired of smearing America's soldiers when John Kerry was accusing those them of being rapists, murderers, and baby killers in sworn testimony before the United States Senate.
And, of course, calling the Swiftvets liars does not constitute a smear.
<font color=black>
Mr. Kerry's eagerness to volunteer is somewhat mitigated by his request for a deferment to study in France, before it was rejected by his draft board. then his request for a naval officer's billet in Paris. Then his acknowledged volunteering to serve in PCF boats in Vietnam at a time when, by Mr. Kerry's own account, PCF duty was not hazardous, or directly involved in Riverine combat.
Mr. Rassmann may be utterly sincere in his memories of what happened on that river in 1969. But, the Swiftvets who were also their may be utterly sincere in their memories as well.
<font size=3>
qando.net |
