Annenberg Public Policy Center - a non-partisan and very objective outfit is weighing the issue. However, QandO is taking them to task on some of their points about John Kerry.
What seems to be happening is that critics like Annenberg, et al, use the DNC talking points as their starting point. By the time we get through this, those of us here are going to know the issues better than any reporter.
Fact Checking FactCheck.org
Posted by McQ
The usually reliable FactCheck.org sent out a release concerning the Kerry medal flap which I can only characterize as incomplete, if I chose to be kind about it. It pertains to the ad the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been playing in battleground states.
FactCheck.org entitles its report "Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record" and feels, “there’s reason to doubt the ad”. Their list of reasons include the following:
1. “For one thing, one of the men who appears in it, George Elliott, told the Boston Globe he had made a "terrible mistake" by accusing Kerry of not deserving one of his awards. Elliott appears in the ad saying "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
2. “Another reason for doubt is that the group's financing is strongly partisan.”
3. “The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses.”
Let’s deal with number 2 first. Where the financing came from isn’t relevant to whether the facts stated in the ad are correct or incorrect. What is germane is whether what is stated in the ad has factual credibility or not. The premise which FactCheck.org puts forth is if this is financed by Republicans, it must be false or at least must be viewed with a jaundiced eye because its purpose is to destroy Kerry’s credibility, not be factually correct.. Surprisingly, FactCheck.org commits the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Instead of zeroing in on the facts as presented, FactCheck.org infers that because a Republican may have financed the ad, the ad’s facts are in question.
I've always been of the opinion that a fact is a fact and its irrelevant who brings them up or doesn't. They stand on their own. They're either accurate or inaccurate. This was my first disappointment with FactCheck.org's release.
Let’s now look at claim 1. As reported yesterday, in the Boston Globe, by writer Michael Kranish, Elliott allegedly withdrew his claims made in an affidavit about Kerry’s service.
Who is Michael Kranish? He’s a Globe writer with connections to the Kerry campaign. He’s also alleged to be the paid author of the Kerry-Edwards campaign book “Our Plan for America: Strong at Home, Respected Abroad”. He denies this and says Amazon has erroneously listed him as the author (how does that happen and why hadn't he protested it before now?). The Boston Globe also claims in a story yesterday that Amazon has acknowleged this and would revise the listing accordingly. As of this morning, the listed author of the book remains Michael Kranish.
I bring this up for a simple reason. If it was so important for FactCheck.org to tie the ad in question to “Republican financing”, why wasn’t it equally as important to note that the Globe reporter who makes the claim that Elliott has recanted might have a conflict of interest at work here? Also absent from the FactCheck.org report is the fact that Elliott has since said he was “misquoted” by Kranish and has denied his alleged recantation. Of course there’s been more than adequate time to issue an update to the original FactCheck.org release, but to this point it hasn’t been done.
Number 3 goes to the heart of the controversy. Did Kerry, in fact, receive some of his Purple Hearts and other awards under circumstance which didn’t warrant the awards? I’ve pointed out the statements that concern this in numerous posts and you can read the account of his 1st Purple Heart in the chapter posted here from “Unfit to Command”.
In this particular case, though, I’m more interested in looking at the “facts” FactCheck.org uses to make its argument. But in order to understand the argument the context of the dispute is important.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."
The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.
Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.
And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.
So we have two “woundings” here. One when the bags of rice were destroyed and one when the alleged attack took place on Kerry’s boat later in the day. The allegations from the Swift Boat Vets is that neither injury were a result of “hostile fire” and thus claim the award wasn’t warranted.
Fine. FactCheck.org then points to the following as an argument for Kerry receiving the Purple Heart whether there was hostile fire or not:
In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.
Well that’s fine as far as it goes, but there are two key things FactCheck.org leaves out of its explanation. First, the entire cite they use to claim "friendly fire" qualifies one as a Purple Heart recipient:
Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.
Note the key phrase, “in the heat of battle”. Now describe to me how blowing up an abandoned rice cache is “in the heat of battle?” Its not. There was no battle at that point. None. And it is this qualifier that removes the “friendly fire” argument from the table. Additionally FactCheck.org never cited the next paragraph in the regulation which states:
Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.
Emphasis mine.
Note again, that the qualifier "as a result of enemy action" appears in the last cite. In the case of both the 1st and 3rd Purple Heart, witnesses claim there was no enemy action associated with the slight wounds suffered by Kerry.
In the case of his first Purple Heart and possibly his third Purple Heart (if the PH is based on the "shrapnel in the buttocks" claim), a strong and credible argument can be made that he was the victim of his own negligence based on testimony and statements of witnesses.
In the case of his first Purple Heart, FactCheck.org makes the following assertions:
Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.
In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.
Letson was the only doctor in the unit. Carreon, according to Letson, was a corpsman who worked for him. He was also told by Letson to fill out the paperwork concerning treating Kerry's wound after Letson completed doing so. There's absolutely no discrepency here at all. Letson treated the wound and had the corpsman who assisted him do the paperwork. That's why doctors have assistants, for heaven sake.
Lastly, Letson isn't referring to his "two crewmates" when he says others told him there was no hostile fire. He's speaking of the people who were there on the Swift boat which was in support of the Skimmer. Kerry likes to tell the story like he was all alone out there, but he wasn't. He was part of a mission which involved a Swift boat and crew. Kerry, for that night, was also a part of that crew and not restricted to the two on the skimmer. In fact after the mission the skimmer was towed by the Swift boat, on which John Kerry rode. It is the crew who remained on the Swift boat, John Kerry's crewmates for the night, who told Letson that there was no enemy fire involved.
This isn't something which hasn't been out there for a while, but FactCheck.org made no attempt to run it down.
FactCheck.org then commits its final disappointment. It includes Sen. McCain’s statement as a “defense” of Kerry and as relevant to the argument. Another logical fallacy, this time known as “irrelevant authority”.
In the past, I’ve found FactCheck.org to produce good and solid arguments which counter much of the spin you’re likely to see on both sides of the political spectrum. I was surprised and disappointed in this particular attempt to analyze the Swift Boat Veteran’s for Truth’s ad.
It appears to be biased, has a very incomplete and inaccurate analysis, commits horrible logical fallacies and frankly was not at all “factual”. If you're going to name yourself "FactCheck.org", you'd better make sure the product you produce lives up to the name.
qando.net |
