SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (65447)8/30/2004 5:09:21 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793928
 
Excellent summation of the points of contention between the Swift vets and Kerry. Two parts. This should be your reference for discussion.

I am going to put a link in the header.

Precise Truth
Sunday, August 29, 2004

Unfit for Command: SUPPORTING POINTS & AUTHORITIES (Vets 10, Shambo 0)
Following are some of the major charges made against Hanoi John French Kerry by the SwiftVets, alongside supporting points and authorities, from Unfit for Command and other readily available documented sources on the internet and elsewhere:

I. Kerry refuses to release official military and medical records (Unfit for Command pages 180-181)

Kerry's campaign refuses to complete the simple Form 180 which would provide for the official & proper release of Kerry's military records and has sought to hide other records from the public and the press.

1) Washington Post reports on August 22, 2004, "Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages."

2) In 2004 Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe discovered the Kerry campaign removed references to documents for January 26 + January 29, 1969, and up to 20 others, or more, from the official Kerry campaign web site.

3) On May 4, 2004, over 250 swift boat veterans wrote a letter to Kerry asking him to file Form 180

4) On August 18, 2004, August 25, 2004, and on other occasions, in official interviews, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan was asked by various media reporters to complete Form 180 and he repeatedly declined to do so.

5) On August 28, 2004, the Washington Post reported that historian Douglas Brinkley, author of John Kerry's authorized biography, Tour of Duty, now officially disputes Kerry's repeated assertions his document archives are under the sole control of Brinkley and cannot be released. Brinkley said, "I don't mind if John Kerry shows anybody anything" and "If he wants to let anybody in, that's his business. Go bug John Kerry, and leave me alone."

STATUS: Kerry's unwillingness to release his official records in this manner is truly unprecedented for a candidate seeking the office of President of the United States and Commander in Chief.

II. Kerry avoided combat duty and officially joined the US Naval Reserve (like the National Guard) (Unfit for Command Chapter 1: The Reluctant Warrior)

Contrary to the Kerry campaign assertions, Kerry sought deferment, faced draft, joined the Naval Reserves (similar to National Guard) and chose swift boats to avoid combat.

1) Kerry admits in Brinkley's Tour of Duty, pages 370-373 that he decided to enlist after facing the draft and the navy formally refused to grant Kerry's requested deferment to study in Paris, France.

2) US Navy Records confirm John F. Kerry enlisted in the United States Naval Reserves with initial status listed as "inactive" on February 18, 1966.

3) The Department of the Navy released a letter dated May 24, 1986, at Senator Kerry's request, specifying "18 Feb 1966: Enlisted as an OCSA (E-2), USNR (inactive)" - USNR = US Naval Reserves.

4) Kerry campaign document "Enlistment Contract" confirms Kerry enlisted in "USNR-R", the US Naval Reserve

5) Kerry campaign document "Service Record" shows Kerry was inducted and "D.O.R. as Ensign, USNR" (US Naval Reserve)

6) In an interview with New York Times, April 23, 1971, "An Angry War Veteran", Kerry stated "I wanted to go back and see for myself what was going on, but I didn't really want to get involved in the war." So late in 1968 he volunteered for an assignment on "swift boats" - the short, fast aluminum craft that were then used for patrol duty off the coast of Viet Nam."

7) Kerry also admitted the same to the Boston Globe, "Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe. "I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

8) Kery campaign document "Duty Recommendation" confirms Kerry "desires Swift boat billet" and that he was also "Interested in Language School", emphasizing Kerry "Speak(s) French fluently."

9) Kerry spoke with Harvard Crimson In a February 18, 1970 article, John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress , "At Yale, Kerry was chairman of the Political Union and later, as Commencement speaker, urged the United States to withdraw from Vietnam and to scale down foreign military operations. And this was way back in 1966. When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy."

10) The Crimson interview & Kerry's statements were re-confirmed with the original reporter, Samuel Goldhaber, on July, 3 2004 by Charles Laurence of the UK Telegraph who reports "the revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war" and notes "at no point did Kerry contact either me or the Crimson to dispute anything I (Goldhaber) had written." (Revealed: how 'war hero' Kerry tried to put off Vietnam military duty)

11) In a June 15, 2003 article "A privileged youth, a taste for risk", the favored Boston Globe reporters wrote:

...As graduation approached, Kerry knew that he had three choices: be drafted, seek a deferment for graduate school, or join up and position himself to become an officer. ``It was clear to me that I was going to be at risk,'' Kerry recalled. ``My draft board . . . said, `Look, the likelihood is you are probably going to be drafted.' I said, `If I'm going to be drafted, I'd like to have responsibility and be an officer.' ''
At the same time, Kerry was losing interest in academics and was ready for adventure. ``I cut classes,'' Kerry said. ``I didn't do much. I spent a lot of time learning to fly.''
Kerry also had political ambitions -- and was aware of how much military service had served John Kennedy's career. ``John would clearly say, `If I could make my dream come true, it would be running for president of the United States,' '' recalled William Stanberry, Kerry's debate team partner for three years. ``It was not a casual interest. It was a serious, stated interest. His lifetime ambition was to be in political office.''

12) Kerry's naval records state he was discharged "from the United States Naval Reserve as a Lieutenant (O-3)"

13) Kerry campaign documents "Honorable Discharge From Reserve" and "Acceptance of Discharge confirms Kerry was officially discharged from the US Naval Reserve.

STATUS: To date the Kerry campaign has not chosen to dispute his prior statements or any of the official records which have been made available to the public.

III. Kerry's military experience was not as it's being portrayed in presidential campaign (Unfit for Command Chapter 1: The Reluctant Warrior)

Contrary to Kerry campaign's presentations, Kerry spent only a few months in Vietnam, was never "shot", and reenacted scenes now used in presidential campaign advertising including his official convention video directed by Steven Spielberg protégé James Smoll.

1) Kerry's first year's service, from June 1967 to June 1968, was spent on a frigate, the USS Gridley, which spent much of that period patrolling off the coast of California.

2) Kerry's campaign military records show he was (falsely) awarded a Vietnam Service Medal which required at least six months combat duty in Vietnam.

3) Kerry arrived at camp in Vietnam for one month of training at Cam Ranh Bay on November 17, 1968.

4) Navy records on Kerry campaign site & his own personal accounts in Tour of Duty and elsewhere confirm Kerry left Vietnam and arrived home on March 17, 1969.

5) No records yet made public or any official account ever refer to Kerry being shot - any of his purported wounds involved minor accidents with self-inflicted shrapnel.

6) Kerry admitted to buying his Super-8 movie camera at the PX in Cam Ranh Bay and also admitted to faking reenactment of events in the October 6, 1996 article, "THE MAKING OF THE CANDIDATES: JOHN FORBES KERRY OFTEN TAGGED AS A POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST" by reporter Charles Sennott of the Boston Globe. Kerry showed him footage including a reenactment at the area where the Silver Star incident took place and exclaimed, "I'll show you were they shot from. See? That's the hole covered up with reeds.". Also recounted in National Review

7) The Boston Globe further reported, "The Kerry home movies revealed something indelible about the man who shot them. The tall, thin, handsome naval officer seen striding through the reeds in flak jacket and helmet, hold aloft the captured B-40 rocket. The young man so unconscious of risk in the heat of battle, yet so focused on his future ambitions, that he would reenact the moment for film. It is as if he had cast himself in the sequel to the experience of his hero, John F. Kennedy, on the PT-109". Thomas Vallely, one of Kerry's closest political advisers and friends, also told the Globe, "John was thinking Camelot when he shot that film, absolutely."

8) Kerry campaign commercials, videos, photographs and the official biography Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley include, among other various reenactments, "a staged clip of Kerry in 1969 as an infantryman in Vietnam, in bandoliers (and violating Rule Number One of the infantry, by pointing his weapon down)". (Unfit for Command page 181)

9) Other observable factual discrepancies include Kerry's video depictions of himself armed with any number of hand grenades hanging from the flak jacket he's wearing, given Swift Boat policy was to never allow such on the boats because of the potential accidents or ricochet which could result by lobbing one from the deck.

STATUS: To date the Kerry campaign has not chosen to dispute his prior statements or any of the official records which have been made available to the public.

IV. Kerry faked & falsified 1st Purple Heart (Unfit for Command pages 31-41)

Kerry's alleged wound, a small 1-2 cm piece of M-79 grenade shrapnel, was accidentally self-inflicted, not involving enemy combat, resulted in only a minor scratch (described as equivalent of a rose thorn prick), did not meet official regulations and was formally rejected by his superior & commanding officers.

1) Kerry's diary and book Tour of Duty indicates there was no enemy combat involved (Washington Times 8/25/04 Diary refutes Kerry's other claims that it did)

2) Official Criteria for a Purple Heart confirm Kerry's lack of eligibility

3) Attending physician Leo Letson, who has sworn an affidavit and appeared on the first SwiftVet advertisement, confirms alleged wound shrapnel was due to a small M-79 grenade fragment only 1-2 cm in size, unquestionably not worthy, only treated with a band-aid, & personally rejected Kerry's request for a Purple Heart; Kerry campaign suggests only the nurse who signed the standard report for the doctor was the only one who ever saw Kerry.

4) Now retired Rear Admiral and senior JAG officer William Schachte, who was present and in command of the mission as John Kerry's superior officer at the time, has now made a statement also speaks elsewhere to having berated Kerry "for almost putting someone's eye out" and on August 27, 2004, told the NY Post Kerry wasn't wounded by hostile fire, wasn't even under fire by the enemy at the time and that he "nicked" himself with a grenade launcher and "requested a Purple Heart" afterward. and also told Lisa Myers of NBC News on August 27, 2004 that "it was an accident".

5) Kerry's then Commanding Officer Grant Hibbard confirms he refused Kerry's pleas requesting he be awarded a Purple Heart. Hibbard describes the wound he was shown by Kerry as "a scratch", adding "I've seen worse injuries from a rose thorn. ... Kerry wasn't getting any Purple Heart recommendation from me" (Unfit for Command pages 37-38).

6) No official incident reports for the action were - purposely - ever filed by all of Kerry's superior + commanding officers (because of the dubious severity, self-inflicted nature and the fact it did not involve any enemy fire)

7) On April 14, 2004, Kerry refused to be interviewed about this incident with Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish: Kerry faces questions over Purple Heart

8) Kerry campaign now admits to the potential wound was accidental & self-inflicted (Major Garrett / Video)

9) Submissions for Kerry's Purple Heart were first made three months after the incident; and the Kerry campaign has yet to file the Form 180 which would allow for the public release of all these documents and the required supporting materials including affidavits and appropriate recommendations.

10) In prior interview with USA Today in 2004, Kerry admitted he may have personally requested the Purple Heart and recalled "someone raising a question" about it.

11) Kerry campaign now admits Kerry completed the paperwork for himself

STATUS: Given Kerry campaign's stated admissions and refusal to sign 180 for release of additional records, it is increasingly clear this Purple Heart was gamed by Kerry.

V. Sampan Incident (Unfit for Command pages 53-62)

A tragic incident involving John Kerry's reported negligence and incompetence results in the killing of a young boy and his father in a small boat with Kerry submitting false after reports to avoid inevitable disciplinary action.

1) Kerry himself admits to the killing of the child on pages 269-270 of Doug Brinkley's Tour of Duty.

2) Steven Gardner, former crewmate of Kerry's who spent more time on John Kerry's boat than any other crew member and was present on the mission and the gunner at the time, learned of & identifies the discrepancies in his sworn testimony summarized on pages 56-57 of Unfit for Command

3) Original after-action report uncovered by Boston Globe revealing Kerry reported multiple Viet Cong enemy KIA, 5000 lbs. of "contraband" (the equivalent weight of an automobile being carried on the small Sampan) and no mention whatsoever of the child who was killed.

4) Kerry's former Division Commander George Elliot confirmed he received the false report Kerry submitted and was - for years - unaware of the true circumstances of the incident nor that involved the death of a young boy.

5) John Hurley, head of Vietnam Veterans for Kerry and former associate in VVAW, declined to challenge Gardner's account of this incident nor the accompanying records documentation during debate on MSNBC / Scarborough Country 8/20/04.
continued



To: LindyBill who wrote (65447)9/2/2004 1:56:57 AM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793928
 

I agree. I think it will happen under Bush. I know it is the big internal policy battle right now.

I think it would be every bit as likely to happen under Kerry. Either way, success depends on the quality of the intel. The military can do whatever it’s told to do, but they can do nothing if they are sent to the wrong place. It’s a tricky situation, because the Iranians know our options and have had abundant time and opportunity to prepare for them. We have to expect that they have established redundant facilities, or at least deep-cover storage areas where materials and equipment to continue the program can be hidden well away from where the main action is. We have to expect that they will leak fake intel to direct us to the wrong places.

The hard part, for whoever is in office next, will be the decisions on when to trust the intel agencies and when not to trust them, and which of them to trust. Too little trust is fatal, as is too much. It doesn’t help that we have at least two competing factions within the intel community. The CIA and the Pentagon’s intel people are not entirely on the same page, and there’s a whole lot of anger and suspicion over the Iraq problems. Not an ideal situation, and our intel on Iraq is less than superb. We can’t afford to trust any old dissident who shows up claiming to know where all the goodies are.
The stakes are pretty high. If we go in and blow something up and it turns out to be the wrong thing, the PR implications are pretty horrendous.

The admin miscalculated the after battle situation. Live and learn.

It was a little more than miscalculation. The writing was on the wall, in letters of fire, and they chose to ignore it. That’s not miscalculation, it’s willful blindness, which is a very dangerous thing. It’s also not entirely clear that they’ve learned.

We tend to 20/20 these things too much. You were right about the aftermath, and are understandably bitter that they didn't see it.

Good of you to say that. Will you believe me now, when I tell you that the aftermath problems are just beginning, and that much bigger problems are just over the horizon, with little or no prospect for avoiding them?

When I read what really went on during WWII, it makes Iraq look great. These type of things are always messy.

The biggest problem we face today is that so many people have convinced themselves that the WOT is analogous to WW2, and that we are fighting a conventional war against nations, rather than an unconventional war against an ideology. We can’t win the war if we’re fighting the wrong war. We want to fight against nations and armies, because that’s what we’re good at. Our enemies know that, and they will not do us the favor of playing to our strength. The more of their territory that we occupy, the happier they will be. They know that political will and staying power are our weaknesses, and a war of attrition on their turf is something they have practice with and are entirely comfortable with.

I don't think we will make as many of the same mistakes in the future. The Military is really getting good in the "lessons learned" department.

The military isn’t the problem. They’re doing fine. The problem is with the people who give the military their orders.