Bill Dyer looks at it from a Lawyer's viewpoint.
WaPo reports on Thurlow's Bronze Star citation
In terms of the blogospheric news cycle, I'm late in commenting on the Washington Post's front-page, above-the-fold story today by staff reporter Michael Dobbs entitled "Records Counter a Critic of Kerry: Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire."
Not that that's ever stopped me before. (More timely pundits' reactions include posts by NRO's Jim Geraghty, Outside the Beltway's James Joyner, PrestoPundit Greg Ransom, InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds, Roger L. Simon, and I'm sure many others.)
Some folks' reaction to the entire Swiftvets vs. Kerry controversy is, "If the Navy said Kerry was brave and deserved the medals he got, that's good enough for me, and I'm not interested in second-guessing any of this stuff." Of course, if that's your viewpoint, then WaPo's story about Larry Thurlow should also be a non-event. All this story has "revealed" is that whoever wrote up the citation for Thurlow's Bronze Star was under the impression that there was enemy fire from the shores, in addition to the obvious dangers of the sort posed by the mine that had already exploded, during the action on the Bay Hap River that resulted in Bronze Stars for both Thurlow and Kerry. We already knew, from Kerry's citation, that whoever wrote that one up was also under the same impression.
What the WaPo story has been spun to suggest — but which, read carefully, it certainly does not say — is that somehow Thurlow has contradicted himself. He hasn't.
In evidentiary terms that lawyers would use in a courtroom, the citation for Thurlow's Bronze Star couldn't be used to impeach Thurlow's testimony because it's not a prior inconsistent statement by him. It's a prior inconsistent statement by someone else — and we don't know who that someone else is, much less whether that someone else was the same person who wrote up Kerry's citation, or whether that someone may have been relying on a common source who did have first-hand knowledge of the incident. If I were to try to use this kind of evidence in court, the judge would say, "You can't impeach Mr. Thurlow's credibility with someone else's statement. And you can't use someone else's statement to prove a different version of events than Mr. Thurlow has testified to unless you can show us — at a minimum — who made that statement, and what basis he had for making it. Objection sustained!"
The reason we don't know any of those things is because, in the first instance, Sen. Kerry hasn't authorized the release of all the backup that went into his medal awards. Neither has Mr. Thurlow, yet — although he, of course, is not running for President on the basis of his war record, and all he stands to gain from this whole controversy is the joy of being attacked by Kerry's proxies.
To his credit, WaPo reporter Dobbs apparently confronted Thurlow with the language from his citation to get his reaction before running the story, and to his further credit, he included Thurlow's reaction in the story:
"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."
Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.
Note that well: Thurlow's initial reaction wasn't to defend himself or his medal. Rather, it was quick agreement that if his own Bronze Star was indeed premised on the notion that he'd been under enemy small arms fire, then he didn't deserve the medal, because that didn't happen.
Thurlow's lengthier and more detailed reaction, posted today on the SwiftVets website, is entirely consistent with what he's quoted by Dobbs as having said when this "apparent conflict" was first sprung on him:
I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.
To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates — there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.
I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.
It was not until I had left the Navy — approximately three months after I left the service — that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day.
I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.
After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water, John Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on Kerry's boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water. Kerry's boat returned several minutes later — under no hail of enemy gunfire — to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before another boat was going to pick him up.
Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this incident — the latest one being that Kerry's boat did leave but only briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr. Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The only damage on that day was done to boat three — a result of the underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from enemy gunfire.
And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally acknowledging that while Kerry's boat left the scene, none of the other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a direct contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention.
These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left behind?
But the reaction from Kerry's defenders — as if the WaPo article is some incredible "Gotcha, you bastards!" — is badly overblown. For example, former-CalPundit, now-Washington Monthly-pundit Kevin Drum added this update to a post on the SwiftVets last night after the WaPo story went online:
Finally, some documentary evidence! Unfortunately for the Swifties, it's evidence that one of them is lying.
I'm frankly disappointed in Mr. Drum, because that's not what the WaPo story shows. Evidence that someone else — we know not whom, and we know not with what basis, first-hand or otherwise — has a different version of events does not show that Thurlow is lying. And given that we know nothing that would help us evaluate the credibility of the citation-writer or the manner in which he came to believe what's in the citation, at this point the citation isn't even very strong evidence that Thurlow's wrong. In fact, it's absolutely no stronger than what's in Kerry's own citation; it adds essentially nothing to the mix, except more questions.
Mr. Drum's post was also, I thought, extremely uninformed (and I'll give him that benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming he was being disingenuous) when he asserted that this whole affair is just a swearing match. Yes, it's in part a swearing match. But gee, Kevin, the Thurlow citation was hardly the first piece of "documentary evidence" to show up here. The SwiftVets' charges are in large part based on documentary evidence like the after-action reports that don't show any bullet holes in any of the five Swift Boats that Sen. Kerry and his supporters claim were under heavy small arms fire from both banks. Maybe those after-action reports are trustworthy, or maybe they include some mistakes — just because they're written doesn't mean they're gospel. But one thing they aren't is partisan. And another thing they aren't, at this point, is complete — because Sen. Kerry insists on keeping it that way, at least for now.
WaPo's late to the party too — later than I am, and later than both hemispheres of the blogosphere and the radio and TV talk shows. I'm tempted to kvetch about just how late they are, and how unfair and biased it is that their first substantive treatment or effort at investigative reporting is spun to benefit the Kerry camp. But, eh ... who's surprised by that? What will genuinely disappoint me will be if WaPo and the mainstream media stop here — with what's likely a second-hand (or worse) account by an unidentified citation writer for a medal winner other than Sen. Kerry. That would be like limiting their Watergate coverage to a summary of the police report from the break-in. And America deserves better of its mainstream media than that, or than what WaPo has served up in its first foray into this controversy.
beldar.blogs.com |
