Second Kerry attacker discredited
Published August 20, 2004
Another of the Vietnam veterans who has attempted to smear presidential candidate John Kerry has been revealed to be circulating false information. With Election Day approaching, a group of conservative veterans, some who have been attacking Kerry since he was an opponent of the war during the Nixon administration, has revved up its offensive. Television ads describing Kerry as a coward instead of a hero are airing in some media markets. A book which says he does not deserve the medals for heroism he earned in Vietnam will soon be released.
However, the credibility of the attackers is coming under increased scrutiny. Military records and the accounts of the far Right swift boat veterans seldom match. The Washington Post reports.
WASHINGTON — Newly obtained military records of one of John Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that his boat came under fire March 13, 1969, in Viet Cong-controlled territory. Kerry won a Bronze Star that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow also won a Bronze Star, and the citation praises him for providing aid to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He also is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The public-advocacy group of Vietnam veterans, dismayed by Kerry's subsequent anti-war activities, has aired a controversial advertisement attacking his war record.
On March 13, 1969, Kerry pulled an officer who had been thrown from a boat out of the water, possibly saving his life. Thurlow has denied that Kerry's boat was under fire when the rescue occurred. He has claimed Kerry's account is "totally fabricated" and that the presidential candidate does not deserve the Bronze Star he received as a result of the incident. Military records say that all of the boats were under fire, including Kerry's. Thurlow himself says the boats were taking fire in the records. In addition to the claim that Kerry's boat was not under attack, Thurlow and other members of the group claim that Kerry fled the scene that day. (Odd, considering that there would have been nothing for him to flee in the absence of combat.) There is no official corroboration of their claims. The group consists of conservative Vietnam veterans who believe the war was justified and winnable. Despite his record of heroism, Kerry came to oppose the war. Veterans who served with Kerry, including the crew of his swift boat, support his accounts of how he came to be a decorated veteran.
Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies.
- Second Kerry attacker discredited
- Published: August 20, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Mac Diva
- Mac Diva's BC Writer page
- Mac Diva's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Why didn't the swift boat vets come out back then rather than now with their version of the truth?
They had better things to do (like fighting a war) than get into a pissing contest over an exaggerated report.
So do we.
No, RedTard, Kerry didn't write it.
I saw/heard Thurlow interviewed by Chris Matthews last night on "Hardball."
Thurlow essentially had nothing but opinions about some master "plan" that John Kerry had to Become a War Hero and Enter Politics by risking his life under fire.
As to the action report, the Washington Post reporter (Dobbs) who wrote the first story said that it included details about things that happened on other boats so it was not likely that Thurlow's citation was based on Kerry's write-up.
You can find the transcript here, including this:
MATTHEWS: Is it a fair assumption on the part of Mr. Thurlow that it was John Kerry�s words because he was the only one that issued a report, or submitted one, that they would have had to get that information about being under constant enemy fire, automatic weapons fire, et cetera, from the person who filed a report, if no one else did?
DOBBS: I think probably the after-action report could have been the work of several different people, each reporting on what their own boat did. I don't think that all the language in Mr. Thurlow's citation could have come from that after-action report, either. And there were many things that Mr. Thurlow was doing that are mentioned in his citation that John Kerry was not in a position to observe.
The "master plan" you refer to is not that far fetched of an idea as is may seem. Even Kerry's supporters that knew him throughout his life say as much. I'm not sure how to do the quote thing but here is a snippet from an article in the San-Diego trubune with a quote from Harvey Bundy who went to school with Kerry:
"John is a leader. John is someone who wanted to lead, who wanted to serve - he's kind of orchestrated his life that way. We didn't know he would run for president, but we certainly weren't surprised because . . . we sat around the room talking about what our Cabinet positions would be."
If you do even a minimal search you will find many anecdotes relating that Kerry believed from his youth that it was almost his destiny, and certainly a life goal, to be president.
With that in mind it's not much of a stretch that he would use his military service as a stepping stone towards that goal.
I can only assume that Thurlow's now going to renounce and return his own Bronze Star, since he claims the heroics it describes are based on Kerry fabrications.
I will also charitably assume that until yesterday, Thurlow HAD NO IDEA what his very own Bronze Star citation said, nor any idea that it corroborated what Kerry and everyone else who was there (save one) say about the incident.
As far fetched as a conspiracy between 250 Swiftboat vets in his unit and his military doctor. I highly doubt it but you can continue to contort the evidence to fit your preconcieved notion if you would like.
If 250 ANG vets signed sworn affidavits to the effect that they knew or were reasonably sure that Bush did not show up for duty you and the media would be jumping all over it like it was gospel. They wouldn't need rich democratic sponsors to buy them airtime because it would be given for free.
I am sure that 250 (or 2,500, or 25,000) Right Wingers could be easily found to tell any lie about any prominent Democrat any former Nixon dirty trickster told them to, as has happened to John Kerry. All that is required is recruit followers who are hostages to an ideology.
The revealing aspects of this episode are:
*The zealots recruited may have served on swift boats during the same period, but they were not part of Kerry's crew. Many probably never had any proximity to him at all.
*The leaders of the smear campaign are longterm political operatives of the Right, who are driven by ideology, not facts.
*Attacking Kerry has become their raison d'etre. They can't go back and win the Vietnam War, their ideal. So, winning their 'war' against Kerry has become a stand-in.
I believe that the Right Wing swift boaters will ultimately die screaming "The liberals cost us Vietnam!" on their death beds. They will have no closure because they are incapable of accepting the reality that the war is over and they lost it. In that respect, they are like the neo-Confederate movement. (Which, based on where some of them are from, they may also be members of.) They are doomed to be foolish for the rest of their lives.
Mac,
If it helps you to maintain your fantasy to demonize everyone that does not agree with you as a neo-Confederate and a foolish liar then that is your problem, not mine.
Instead of dealing with their argument you resort to personal attacks and make sweeping generalizations about people on the right.
When you have a rational explanation that doesn't involve 19th century history as to why the Swift Vets might risk public scrutiny, lawsuits, and media heckling to get out their side of the story then get back with me.
Kerry had much motive to exaggerate his bravery to pad his record for his destiny as president, the vets have little to gain directly from this as far as I can tell.
If you do even a minimal search you will find many anecdotes relating that Kerry believed from his youth that it was almost his destiny, and certainly a life goal, to be president.
With that in mind it's not much of a stretch that he would use his military service as a stepping stone towards that goal.
Damn, a guy with that kind of foresight ought to be able to plan for an occupation strategy for after we invade another country.
We sure could have benefited from that last year.
Redtard says of John Kerry:
his destiny as president. . . .
Destiny as president. . . .?
Kerry could have been killed in Vietnam. Decided to become a Buddhist monk. Turned out to be gay. To think that he could have realistically known he would be running for president in 2004 is ludicrous. Lots of people want to be president. To actually get the opportunity to run even is incredibly rare.
Update on the lies:
Several Vietnam veterans are calling for an assistant district attorney to resign after questions were raised about his statement in a recent ad criticizing Democrat John Kerry's military service.
Alfred French of the Clackamas County district attorney's office appears in the ad sponsored by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the spot, French says: "I served with John Kerry. ... He is lying about his record."
A group of Vietnam veterans who protested outside the county courthouse Monday said French implied he had firsthand knowledge of Kerry's war actions when in fact he had heard about what Kerry did from friends.
In an interview with The Oregonian newspaper last week, French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry and did not personally witness the events. French did not return two messages left at his office Monday.
Add one more to the list of liars on the right. The problem with smears is that the mud sticks, even after it is clearly shown that they are lies.
You can ask John Kerry about that. In his primary, Bush people used "push-polling," planting an idea without making an outright statement, to defeat McCain with lies:
Voters in South Carolina report being asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" an allegation that had no substance but planted the idea of undisclosed allegations in the minds of thousands of primary voters.They're still as slimy as they ever were.
Thank you for posting this, Hal. It was in my home town paper, but I did not get around to blogging it. French is a typical member of the swift boaters in that his participation in the smear campaign is based on hearsay. Friends contacted him, told him what to say, and he agreed to read a script for the ad. It doesn't even seem to cross his mind that 'because my friends say so' is not exactly solid evidence. Suffice it to say that a prosecutor who does not recognize hearsay as unreliable is likely to be an inept, even dangerous person within the criminal justice system.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/18872)
Congratulations, two smears down a couple hundred to go. There is a very good explanation why that language would be in Thurlow's and everyone else's record. John Kerry wrote the report on the incident. Whatever Kerry wrote became the "official version" whether is was true of not.
Why didn't the swift boat vets come out back then rather than now with their version of the truth?
They had better things to do (like fighting a war) than get into a pissing contest over an exaggerated report.