Considering that we are continually treated to the mud slinging of Vietnam veterans who oppose John Kerry (pictured) and also just happen to be operatives of the GOP, why haven't we heard much about a former member of the smear campaign who has recanted? Richard Einhorn at Tristero tells us about Lieutenant Commander George Elliott, who had second thoughts after doing his duty as a conservative. After refuting attempts to discredit Kerry in 1996, Elliott succumbed to pressure from very conservative Vietnam veterans to aid them in their latest assault. He now regrets having given in and performed according to their script.
. . . a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. . .The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star...Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.
Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star. . .
Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."
Readers will note that I removed as many of the lies as I could from the article in quoting these excerpts. I did so for a reason.The people trying to slime Kerry are doing so not because they have a legitimate point of view but because they hate Kerry for opposing the Vietnam War. They are deliberately spreading falsehoods in order to muddy the discourse, to turn a clearcut case of heroism into a he said/she said "debate."
But it isn't working. The Bush campaign has publicly repudiated them and McCain has reamed both them and the Bush campaign.
More importantly, the facts speak for themselves. Those who were most in a position to know, Kerry's boatmates, stand by Kerry. As do contemporary Army records.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - Evilwhiteguy
That story was written by Michael Kranish, who is on the Kerry payroll. He was comissioned to write a foreword for Kerry and Edwards' campaign book. The cover appeared on publicaffairsbooks.com but was changed shortly after the story broke, but I'm sure I can find you an original version if you want to see it. It said "KERRY AND EDWARDS Their Plans and Promises
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY MICHAEL KRANISH OF THE BOSTON GLOBE”. So he's hardly an impartial source. Not to mention the fact that he's Kerry's biographer.
In fact, Elliot immidiately executed another affadavit affirming his original statement. The Kranish story misquoted and distoted Elliot.
From http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=Releases:
And as for your trying to discredit the the doctor who applied the band-aid, you are correct, he would have seen a medic if he were on the front lines. However, he was in a boat that didn't even see enemy fire, and there was no medic around. He managed to keep the small piece of self-inflicted shrapnel in his arm long enough to get back to his base in Cam Rahn and to go the sick bay, where Dr. Letson treated him. It's on page 36 of Unfit For Command. I'm assuming you haven't read it yet, or you would know that. You said, "He would not have been where he says he was." Where are you saying he says he was? Was he not in sick bay at Cam Rahn, the base Kerry was operating out of? And how do you discount Kerry's CO
Grant Hibbard's concurrence with Dr. Letson? And why, after Kerry asked Hibbard to recommend him for a purple heart for said band-aid and Hibbard refused (p. 38, Unfit), did Kerry get a Purple Heart? His commanding officer to this day doesn't know how he got it. Do you have any insight into that?
And how is it that everything Kerry remembers about what he did in Vietnam is gospel and anything that everyone else remembers is a lie?
Kerry says one thing and 250 other vets say otherwise. They've all signed affadavits and are willing to testify under oath. Kerry won't even fill out the two-page form that would release his military records for all to see regarding the incidents in question. And he's recently retracted his story about being in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968, which the Swiftvets say was a lie.
And why, if moveon.org gets to air anything it wants, is some guy in Texas not allowed to use his money in the political process? Are you trying to deny him his right to free speech?
And it's not a smear campaign. As far as Elliot goes, the only smearing that's going on is from the Kerry camp who has tried to twist his words. But thankfully, Elliot has issued another affadavit re-affirming his original accusations against Kerry, despite the left's attempts to mistcontstrue his comments. And it wasn't too little, too late. It was just a response to the left's attempt to misconstrue and silence him.
2 - Mike Kole
This is a great, detailed exercise in the irrelevant.
John Kerry! Run on your record!
George W. Bush! Run on your record!
3 - Mac Diva
I am pressed for time, but will make a couple of observations:
*To say a reporter who covers a political figure is not a reliable source and that a 'dirty tricks' operative who has been attacking John Kerry since he worked for Richard M. Nixon (one of the author's of the swift boat book) is a reliable source is ludicrous.
*If George Elliott has retracted his retraction that shreds any remaining credibility he had. He is clearly a person who can't resist the pressure from the far Right swift boaters to lie for them. He is also apparently a person incapable of embarrassment.
*George W. Bush cannot run on his military record. That is why bought and paid for GOP operatives are busy trying to tarnish John Kerry's military record.
I may have more to say about this later.
4 - Phillip Winn
MD, President Bush has been Commander-in-Chief on the US Armed Forces for nearly four years now, so I would say he has a quite substantial military record on which to run. In fact, he's betting the election on it, win or lose.
Senator Kerry is betting that four months in Vietnam will help his campaign, and running into a little trouble there. I don't think there is much of anything to either the attacks on his record, or the record itself. It was a long time ago, after all, and people change -- for the better and for the worse.
I remember a huge fuss being made about President Bush's record in the Texas National Guard, a fuss that disappeared when the records were opened up and substantiated Bush's claims. Senator Kerry would be wise to similarly open up his records for examination, something he has so far not done. Perhaps this fuss would disappear without a trace as well.
Then again, outside the blogosphere, there doesn't seem to be much fuss at all, unlike in the earlier case.
5 - Mark Saleski
President Bush has been Commander-in-Chief on the US Armed Forces for nearly four years now
well, that's one way of looking at it.
another is that other people are actually in charge.
saying that the past is irrelevant is just another attempt to frame the debate, something that the republican party has gotten very good at.
and kerry is running into 'trouble' only because the smear team is on their game.
6 - Evilwhiteguy
The reporter is not reliable because he's on Kerry's payroll. The 'dirty tricks' operator you speak of is only one of 250 guys who are all saying the same thing, so he comes off as way more credible than a guy who is paid by Kerry.
Elliot didn't retract his retraction, he was misquoted, that's why he issued another affadavit.
"The Kerry Campaign has continued its effort to prevent our voice from being heard. You were presented with an article from Kerry's hometown newspaper, The Boston Globe, written by Michael Kranish, Kerry's biographer, claiming that Captain Elliott had withdrawn his affidavit and disavowed the ad. This is totally false."
The reporter on Kerry's payroll lied, that's not a retraction on Elliot's part.
And Bush isn't trying to run on his military record, but Kerry is. He mentions it nearly every time he opens his mouth ("John Kerry, reporting for duty"). And as Phillip again pointed out, Kerry won't release his records. If the Swifties are wrong, Kerry's military record should reflect that, but Kerry won't release his records.
7 - Phillip Winn
Mark (#5), I'm not sure why you're reacting to my comments. They're simple statements of fact, fair and balanced,m and not Republican talking points at all.
President Bush is the Commander-in-Chief: FACT.
He has been so since January 20, 2001: FACT.
That's not just "one way of looking at it," it's reality.
Whether he wins or loses the election in November will be based almost entirely on his performance as Commander-in-Chief. Those voting for him and those voting against him seem to overwhelmingly be basing their decision on that part of his record as President (or on party loyalty). Those are statements of opinion, but I believe that the facts support that opinion beyond a reasonable doubt.
As far as the past being irrelevant, this is again a simple statement of fact. People do change, for better or worse, and Senator Kerry demonstrates that on the very issue at hand. He fought in the war, distinguished himself, and then rejected the distinctions and protested the war. Depending on you feel about the way, you can see that as a good thing or as a bad thing (or both, I suppose), but the point is that he has changed since then. Just as President Bush has changed since his stint in the Texas National Guard. I never said that either was "irrelevant," but I think that both are far less relevant than current events: decisions and votes related to the current military actions. Are you saying that events from 30 years ago are more important than events from the last four years? Because all I'm saying is that events from the last four years are more important than events from 30 years ago. That is my opinion, but again, it seems nearly indisputably obvious.
I suspect that the vets that are attacking Senator Kerry would not be doing so if Senator Kerry had not spent the last year or so campaigning heavily based on his experience in Vietnam. When one makes statements about one's past in such a prominent venue -- and with such repetition -- one invites scrutiny.
It is why I will *never* run for office.
Senator Kerry has made a variety of statements about events 30 years old. Now some people are disputing the factual basis of some of the events. I haven't read the book, and don't really care to. As far as I'm concerned, Senator Kerry served just as he has said: bravely and honorably. War sucks, and even individual acts of --whatever-- would not in any way detract from his record. Then again, a 30-year-old record doesn't matter as much as things that have happened in the last three years. That cuts both ways: If someone could prove that Senator Kerry was a sniveling coward 30 years ago (something nobody actually seems to be claiming), that wouldn't bother me either.
People might argue that old events become more relevant when they are talked about currently, but I don't buy that. Even recent statements about Cambodia that apparently aren't true -- couldn't be true -- don't seem important to me. People change, and people forget details. It happens. It happens to me, to you, and to important Senators, too.
Mike Kole had it right: let's skip the grandstanding and keep it simple. Each candidate should tell us what they've done in the last four years, and what they intend to do in the next four years, and let us decide based on that.
8 - Mark Saleski
this would all be fine phillip if it actually happened...but the truth of the matter is that the same people who say the distant past doesn't matter (say, bush's national guard record) are the very same people spewing the swift boat, protested against the war, etc. garbage.
in the current campaign, the (old) war records are relevant because we're dealing with a current war situation which, depending on your point of view, is either going along swimingly or has been badly botched. what kerry did in the past and how he views those actions can actually cast light on how he indends to run things.
i would love it if our presidential campaigns were run on facts as opposed to negative ads, half-truths and marketing photo-ops.
will it ever happen? probably not.
9 - Phillip Winn
Mark, I would suggest again that the current "smearers" would not be highlighting the past if Senator Kerry had not made it a central point of his stump speech, as well as his acceptance speech at the DNC convention. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I think that they're reacting. Which means that I believe that if Senator Kerry had not spent the last year trumpeting his record in Vietnam, we would not now be discussion his record in Vietnam.
Still, I suspect those game only appear to the hard-core partisans. The faithful buy the book, the other faithful attack the book. The faithful cheer the war record, the other faithful mock the war record. And so on. Anybody who didn't know the party for which they were going to vote four years ago probably doesn't care about the games. They want to know whether one or both of the candidates is a liar now, but that's about as far as it goes.
I don't think either candidate is particularly a liar, so I don't care about the brouhaha. I want to know how Kerry voted on things like tax cuts, the "war on terror," prescription drug benefits, "no child left behind," etc.
I hope that many other independent-minded voters feel the same way, but I'm probably kidding myself.
Most people are basing their vote on one issue only: President Bush's handling of of 9/11, including the "war on terror."
The fact that Senator Kerry says he would have taken essentially the same actions that President Bush did doesn't seem to matter to many people, as Senator Kerry seems to be the "other" candidate in this race. If people think President Bush has done a decent job post-9/11, they vote for him. If they think he has done a poor job post-9/11, they vote for Kerry.
I think it's really that simple.
10 - Justene
but the truth of the matter is that the same people who say the distant past doesn't matter (say, bush's national guard record) are the very same people spewing the swift boat, protested against the war, etc. garbage
I don't think that's generally true. You can probably find a few people taking both sides like that but generally people either don't care about either or think that it does matter but Kerry is lying and Bush is telling the truth (or Bush is lying and Kerry is telling the truth).
11 - Mac Diva
Well, another one bites the dust. Newly released military records show that John Thurlow, a particularly mouthy Kerry attacker, is either mistaken or lying. He has contradicted himself in regard to what he claims about Kerry's rescue of an officer under fire and the records prove it. I've blogged the latest here.
12 - RJ
"Considering that we are continually treated to the mud slinging of Vietnam veterans who oppose John Kerry (pictured) and also just happen to be operatives of the GOP"
Prove it, or else this is libel.
13 - RJ
Oh, MAc:
You might wanna fix the ol' "blockquote" error on your post...
14 - RJ
"Those who were most in a position to know, Kerry's boatmates, stand by Kerry."
Of course. They know who signs their paychecks...
15 - RJ
"You might wanna fix the ol' "blockquote" error on your post..."
Nevermind! Sorry!
Just looked at the link... :-/
16 - RJ
"Reasonably related
"Elliott backed down from his earlier position in the Boston Herald."
Er, that's a little bit more than "reasonably related"...
He claims he was misquoted by a Leftist reporter. He signed another sowrn document later backing up his original position.
17 - Suresh Bose
This is comment -that I want to reach to John Kerry or his campaigner Chief.
1. John I had watched the debate - you are just doing right - Let your last word in the next debate be. The country is facing critcisim in Iraq - I & my government will set that RIGHT & help Iraq in bringing back Sovernity, Liberty & Democracy.
2. When Bush - talk on Iraq & Israil - he is trying to create more problem & enemy with Muslims - Put that hard & say that's not what Mr. Bush speak or utter.
Kerry, All the Best - You are the winner. And the day you are taking oath of Office - I world will be very happy & I would love to see that.
Best Regards
Suresh Bose
Currently employed at Armenia