What really gets me about this WaPo editorial is that they have never run an article in the paper yet on the subject.
WaPo Smears Swift Boat Vets
Liberal Media blog
Today, the Washington Post runs an editorial on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, titled Swift Boat Smears. The editorial is a window into the mindset behind the apparent decision by most of the mainstream media to ignore the Vets' accusations of dishonesty by Kerry.
The editorial begins plausibly enough, by noting that John Kerry has made his brief Vietnam tour "a centerpiece of his presidential campaign." (Some might say the centerpiece.) The editorial continues:
To the extent, then, that there are legitimate questions about Mr. Kerry's behavior -- either in Vietnam or back home as a prominent antiwar activist -- those are fair game.
So far, this stands in stark contrast to the views of Los Angeles Times editors, who have claimed (implausibly) that these exact issues are not "fair game."
Among the issues that the Post editors consider fair game are: Kerry's "unusually short tour"; his use of his three Purple Hearts, for "relatively superficial" wounds, to dramatically shorten his stay in Vietnam; and his antiwar statements, which Kerry has admitted were essentially exaggerated.
So far, so good. But then the editorial changes its tone. All of a sudden, any accusation against Kerry is suspect, while any evidence supporting him becomes unimpeachable. Critical thinking goes out the window. The editorial ignores, or badly misunderstands, many of the principal arguments made by the Vets.
For example, the editorial completely misapprehends the allegations made by Dr. Louis Letson, who says he treated Kerry for a minor shrapnel wound forming the basis for Kerry's first Purple Heart. The editorial pretends that Letson's principal claim is that Kerry's injury was too minor for a Purple Heart:
Dr. Letson isn't listed on Mr. Kerry's medical record at the time. That doesn't disprove his claim to have treated Mr. Kerry, who received a superficial shrapnel injury to his arm. But neither does the account of Dr. Letson or others about the incident indicate that Mr. Kerry was lying. Mr. Kerry's wound doesn't seem to have amounted to much, but he didn't claim it did -- nor does that make him ineligible for a Purple Heart.
This passage completely misses the point of Letson's accusation that Kerry lied. As a look at the Swift Vets' website shows, Letson's claim is that the evidence shows Kerry's wound was self-inflicted, making it ineligible as a basis for a Purple Heart.
The evidence shows that crewmen accompanying Kerry told Letson that Kerry had actually wounded himself, with a grenade launched from an M-79 grenade launcher. Nobody, not even Kerry himself, claimed to have seen enemy fire. The tiny fragment Letson removed from Kerry's arm with a pair of tweezers appeared to be an M-79 fragment, corroborating the account of the crewmen accompanying Kerry.
That is the basis for Letson's claim that Kerry lied.
Have the editors even looked at the Vets' web site?
Similarly, the editorial says that the "weight of the evidence" supports Kerry's version of the incident for which Kerry received a Bronze Star. The editorial cites three eyewitnesses (whose statements, though the editorial doesn't mention it, are corroborated by several other witnesses) who have filed affidavits swearing that Kerry fled during the battle, only to return after the shooting had stopped. How do we know that we should discount these three (or more) percipient witnesses, and that the "weight of the evidence" favors Kerry's version? Because Kerry has three witnesses. Apparently, that's good enough for the Post editors. (Never mind that Kerry's witnesses have a motive to lie, to make their own actions seem more heroic -- and that one of them, the man whose life Kerry saved, can't even seem to keep straight which boat he was on. And never mind that the hull of Kerry's boat did not receive any bullet holes from the allegedly heavy fire.)
The editorial doesn't even mention the "Christmas in Cambodia" lie -- the alleged turning point of John Kerry's life, and a story apparently manufactured from whole cloth. Instead, the editorial focuses on who has been funding the Vets' ad. (Turns out there are some Republicans involved. And here I figured it would be primarily Democrats.) Why this means the veterans themselves are lying, I have no idea.
Do I know whether the Swift Boat Veterans are telling the truth? No -- and neither do the editors at the Washington Post. One thing is certain, however: Kerry could clear most of this up by simply agreeing to release his complete military records. Given that the Post says that there are "legitimate questions" about Kerry's military record, which they admit is a "centerpiece" of Kerry's campaign, you'd think the Post would call for Kerry to release those records. Unfortunately, the Post's editors are content to simply smear the Vets with poorly researched arguments and misleading invective. I can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed.
HERE IS THE EDITORIAL
Swift Boat Smears
Thursday, August 12, 2004; Page A22
DEMOCRATIC nominee John F. Kerry has made his tour of duty in Vietnam -- a stint in which he earned three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star -- a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. To the extent, then, that there are legitimate questions about Mr. Kerry's behavior -- either in Vietnam or back home as a prominent antiwar activist -- those are fair game. Mr. Kerry's four-plus months in Vietnam made for an unusually short tour. He used his third Purple Heart to go home early, and his wounds were relatively superficial. Some veterans remain understandably bitter about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements; indeed, the candidate himself has said he would rephrase some of his more cutting accusations about U.S. troops committing war crimes.
But a new assault on Mr. Kerry -- in an ad by a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and in a new book -- crosses the line in branding Mr. Kerry a coward and a liar. This smear is contradicted by Mr. Kerry's crew mates, undercut by the previous statements of some of those now making the charges and tainted by the chief source of its funding: Republican activists dedicated to defeating Mr. Kerry in November.
"John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam," says George Elliott, Mr. Kerry's former commanding officer. But it was then-Lt. Cmdr. Elliott who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver and Bronze stars, commending him as "calm, professional and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire." In a 1969 evaluation Mr. Elliott had this to say: "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed."
"I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury," says Dr. Louis Letson. Dr. Letson isn't listed on Mr. Kerry's medical record at the time. That doesn't disprove his claim to have treated Mr. Kerry, who received a superficial shrapnel injury to his arm. But neither does the account of Dr. Letson or others about the incident indicate that Mr. Kerry was lying. Mr. Kerry's wound doesn't seem to have amounted to much, but he didn't claim it did -- nor does that make him ineligible for a Purple Heart.
The most potentially damning accusation in the ad concerns the the best-known episode of Mr. Kerry's service, in which he saved the life of Jim Rassmann after the Special Forces officer was blown off Mr. Kerry's Swift boat by a mine explosion. Three people quoted in the ad, all of whom say they were present that day, March 13, 1969, assert that Mr. Kerry ordered his craft to flee the danger and turned around to rescue Mr. Rassmann only after the shooting stopped. "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star . . . I know, I was there, I saw what happened," says Van O'Dell, a retired Navy enlisted man. "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day," says Jack Chenoweth, who commanded a different Swift boat. "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," says Larry Thurlow, another Swift boat commander.
If accurate, this would demolish a central part of the picture of Mr. Kerry as Vietnam hero. But the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Kerry. Mr. Rassmann, having had no contact with Mr. Kerry for the previous 35 years, came forward during the primaries to tell the story of how Mr. Kerry, braving enemy fire and with an injured arm, pulled him back on board. "John came up to the bow, and I thought he was going to get killed because he was so exposed," Mr. Rassmann recalled. Other surviving crew mates corroborate that account. "I was there," crew mate Del Sandusky told CNN. "I saw the bullets skimming across the water. I saw the firefight gun flashes from the jungle. I know the firefight and the ambush we were in." Another crew mate, James Wasser, told ABC: "What boat were you riding on? Because you weren't there -- we were."
It's also relevant to know who's underwriting this advertising campaign. The biggest single donor so far to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth isn't a Swift boat veteran but one of the leading Republican donors in Texas. Houston builder Bob J. Perry gave the group $100,000, accounting for the bulk of the $158,000 in receipts it has reported. It's fair to ask whether truth is at the top of this group's agenda. |
