Keeping the Home Fires Burning
Jeffrey Davis
"Most of what the Vets said in their ads has never been disputed, let
alone discredited." -- John Hindraker
Tom Enright
You have not chosen wisely:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017385.php
Boehlert quoted only the third sentence above, so if his readers were
foolish enough to rely on him without actually reading what I wrote,
there is some chance they wouldn't realize how dishonest he was.
So, how did Boehlert try to rebut the point I made? He cited a number
of factual disputes that have been raised in connection with points
made by the Swift Boat Vets. But every single one of the factual
controversies noted by Boehlert relates, exactly as I wrote, to the
subject of Kerry's medals. He never questions the accuracy of any of
the Vets' seven other ads. Thus, Boehlert's post, far from rebutting
my point, actually reinforces it. Unbelievable.
We could stop there, of course. But let's not. Instead, let's take a
walk down memory lane, and remind ourselves of what the Swift Boat
Vets said about John Kerry, apart from the relatively minor matter of
his Purple Hearts. This was the ad that probably finished Kerry as a
Presidential candidate; it simply shows John Kerry as he appeared in
1971, and quotes his own words:
So: what I wrote, in connection with the nomination of Sam Fox, was
precisely correct. The only ad that engendered significant factual
dispute was the first one, relating to Kerry's medals. Otherwise,
there is little or no disagreement about the facts. As I wrote: "Most
of what the Vets said in their ads has never been disputed, let alone
discredited."
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017386.php
==============================================
The fact remains, as Hindraker points-out, Boehlert takes only *ONE*
of the numerous charges made against Kerry by the SBV, fails to
disprove it and than declares victory. What about the other seven
ads? Boehlert doesn't address them.
Did Kerry lie about being in Cambodia?
Did Kerry say that he heard that President Nixon denied we had troops
in Cambodia despite the fact that Nixon wasn't even president at the
time?
Did Kerry accuse Vietnam vets as being war criminals?
Did the wives of some POWs accuse Kerry of selling-out their husbands?
The answer to all these questions is yes. So, I ask you, how have the
SBV's charges been proven false?
-Tom Enright
Jeffrey Davis
The substantive SBV charges against Kerry have been shown to be false.
You make a big deal about Kerry's confusion regarding Cambodia. Big
deal. I've misrembered things to. Everyone has.
Some Vietnam Vets were war criminals.
What someone else may or may not have done is irrelevant.
Tom Enright
violence when he wrote:
No, none of the the substansive SBV charges against Kerry have been
shown to be false. One, as pointed out, the issue regarding his
Purple Heart, is disputed.
> You make a big deal about Kerry's confusion regarding Cambodia. Big
> deal. I've misrembered things to. Everyone has.
He wasn't in Cambodia, depsite saying the memory was "seared" in his
mind. He remembers that while in Cambodia President Nixon said that
there were no troops in Vietnam. This is important. He was accusing
a president of lying, during a war, we are currently at war. However,
it's good to know that Kerry is allowed to be "confused" but other
SBVs don't seem to get the same slack.
> Some Vietnam Vets were war criminals.
>
> What someone else may or may not have done is irrelevant.
Absolutely, that is why the statement that the SBV have been shown to
be false is even more bizarre.
The SBVs claimed that Kerry was unfit to lead and provided several
reasons why they felt this was true. The Purple Heart, one among
several issues, is a source of contention but has not been proven by
any stretch as "false." The other allegations are not even disputed
by the pro-Kerry side because they are clearly true.
-Tom Enright
Jeffrey Davis
Nonsense. All of a sudden what we just read, about the SBVs lying,
contradicting themselves, that suddenly doesn't exist?
Go away, little man.
>
>> You make a big deal about Kerry's confusion regarding Cambodia. Big
>> deal. I've misrembered things to. Everyone has.
>
> He wasn't in Cambodia, depsite saying the memory was "seared" in his
> mind. He remembers that while in Cambodia President Nixon said that
> there were no troops in Vietnam. This is important. He was accusing
> a president of lying, during a war, we are currently at war. However,
> it's good to know that Kerry is allowed to be "confused" but other
> SBVs don't seem to get the same slack.
They're making charges. Many of them contradicting their previous
assertions.
>
>> Some Vietnam Vets were war criminals.
>>
>> What someone else may or may not have done is irrelevant.
>
> Absolutely, that is why the statement that the SBV have been shown to
> be false is even more bizarre.
Are you trying to get committed? Is this a desperate cry for help?
>
> The SBVs claimed that Kerry was unfit to lead and provided several
> reasons why they felt this was true. The Purple Heart, one among
> several issues, is a source of contention but has not been proven by
> any stretch as "false." The other allegations are not even disputed
> by the pro-Kerry side because they are clearly true.
See above.
>
> -Tom Enright
>
>
Tom Enright
More commentary from Hindracker:
Once again, the SBV's charges have not been proven false. Some are
disputed, but none are false
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017395.php
Michael Barone takes note of John Hinderaker's post "Ineffective, even
for a liberal" responding to Eric Boehlert. In his response John
recaps the contribution of the Swift Boat Vets to the 2004 campaign.
Barone comments:
John Hinderaker at Powerline skewers the claim, often made in
mainstream media and the left blogosphere, that the charges made by
the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry have been
"discredited." To the contrary. There can be disagreement about their
characterization of Kerry's service, and some factual dispute about
the way in which he earned at least one of his decorations, but
nothing has been proved false. On the contrary, it was Kerry who had
to abandon the claim, "seared, seared in my memory" as he said on the
Senate floor, that he was in Cambodia at Christmastime 1968.
Barone is the peerless commentator on the American political scene. It
doesn't get much better than that.
The indefatigable leader of the Swift Boat Vets was John O'Neill. In
February 2004, O'Neill was lying in a hospital bed after contributing
a kidney for transplantion to his wife. He answered the call of his
former commanding officer Roy Hoffman to serve our country one more
time by leading the veterans' effort opposing John Kerry. It was the
most dramatic story of the 2004 election campaign, now smothered in a
welter of lies foisted on the public by the likes of Eric Boehlert.
Bruce Kesler is a Vietnam vet who himself commented on John's post at
Democracy Project. John O'Neill wrote Bruce "RE: Your blog and the
Powerline blog's summary: Thanks--always be grateful for both of you."
Paul Galanti is the highly decorated naval aviator who served in
Vietnam and was captured by the North Vietnamese in 1967. He was held
and tortured for six years until his release was secured by President
Nixon in 1973. In the most powerful of the Swift Boat Vet ads, Galanti
testified to having had John Kerry's standard charges of American war
crimes played to him by his Communist captors. In the ad "Sellout,"
Galanti commented: "John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and my
comrades in the prison camps in North Vietnam took torture to avoid
saying." Galanti also discussed his POW experience on Hannity and
Colmes in August 2004. Bruce Kesler forwarded Galanti's message about
Kesler's post on the Swift Boat Vets:
Bruce: Your article about Kerry and the Swiftees was outstanding. Your
blog, amplifying comments and whoever compiled all those SwiftVet ads
concisely nailed the reason Kerry lost the 2004 election. All of us
involved felt immensely satisfied that his phony bravado and
traitorous acts were exposed despite the "below the fold" treatment
they were accorded in most media quarters.
Of at least equal importance, though, was John O'Neill's Unfit for
Command and the internet blogsters - YOU - who spread the word far and
wide. So thanks for the reminder and thanks for helping spread the
word - big time - during the 2004 campaign.
Take care,
Paul
Paul E. Galanti
Commander, USN (Ret)
Richmond, VA
http://www.nampows.org/pgbio.html
Val McMurdie also served in Vietnam and wrote to comment:
I've read your blog post and realize your arguments are cogent for the
general public to read. I was the Operations Officer and Division
Operations Officer for Operation Market Time and directed Swift Boat
operations, intercepts, etc. in South Vietnam beginning in November
1969.
For those veterans who served in South Vietnam, numbering
approximately 1.5 million, and for at least the nine million veterans
who are eligible to vote, Kerry had two instantaneous problems after
the Swift Boat Veterans ad came out: 1) all of use knew it is
virtually impossible to be awarded three Purple Hearts without ever
spending a day in the hospital; 2) his accusations that war crimes
were commonly committed by service men, or sailors, which none of us
had ever heard of, let alone seen. The phony Purple Hearts killed
Kerry as an honest or honorable man to probably 90 percent of
veterans. Phony Purple Hearts put him among the most unethical people
in the county.
As an officer, and medical officer for the North coast, since the
Swift Boats had no MD, I can tell you that it would have been easy for
me to ask the "Doc" corpsman to write me up for a Purple Heart for
every scratch I received on any one of dozens of operations. I could
have had five Purple Hearts had I wished to dishonor myself and
wounded and dead sailors. I have none. I rate John Kerry among
criminals, and despicable, on this point alone.
It is difficult for civilians to understand the responsibility and
authority of junior naval officers serving in Operation Market Time.
Any junior officer, Ensign or jg could have obtained several Purple
Hearts had he wished to by simply asking the corpsman to write up any
scratch in his medical record. It would have been that easy.
Without having been there, you may not realize these real world
realities.
Thanks to all for their comments.
-Tom Enright
Jeffrey Davis
> On Apr 19, 2:07 pm, Jeffrey Davis <jd_h...@alltel.net> wrote:
>> Tom Enright wrote:
>>> On Apr 19, 1:47 pm, Jeffrey Davis <jd_h...@alltel.net> committed quiet
>>> violence when he wrote:
>
>>> The SBVs claimed that Kerry was unfit to lead and provided several
>>> reasons why they felt this was true. The Purple Heart, one among
>>> several issues, is a source of contention but has not been proven by
>>> any stretch as "false." The other allegations are not even disputed
>>> by the pro-Kerry side because they are clearly true.
>> See above.
>
> More commentary from Hindracker:
>
> Once again, the SBV's charges have not been proven false. Some are
> disputed, but none are false
You're an ijut.
The Swift Boats threw a lot of "charges" together. Most of them were on
the order of "I don't think much of John Kerry" so from a numerical
point of view, yes, you can't prove things like that false. If that were
all that the Swift Boat Vets did, well, nobody would have cared.
As for proving charges false, I'm not trying to get you to say so,
that's for sure. If one Swiftie said that they didn't take fire and
there were bullet holes in their boat and there are mentions of taking
fire in the Swifty's Bronze Star commendation, well, I'm not going to
get mathematical about proof here. If a Swiftie praised Kerry up until
months before the ads took life and then reversed course, I'm not going
to get mathematical about proof. If a Swift Boat vet said that he
treated Kerry and that his wound was slight and yet the papers show he
wasn't the Doctor of record, I'm not going to get mathematical about proof.
You just keep plugging along, now, y'a here?
[...]
Doug Reese
> Tom Enright wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 2:07 pm, Jeffrey Davis <jd_h...@alltel.net> wrote:
> >> Tom Enright wrote:
> >>> On Apr 19, 1:47 pm, Jeffrey Davis <jd_h...@alltel.net> committed quiet
> >>> violence when he wrote:
>
> >>> The SBVs claimed that Kerry was unfit to lead and provided several
> >>> reasons why they felt this was true. The Purple Heart, one among
> >>> several issues, is a source of contention but has not been proven by
> >>> any stretch as "false." The other allegations are not even disputed
> >>> by the pro-Kerry side because they are clearly true.
> >> See above.
>
> > More commentary from Hindracker:
>
> > Once again, the SBV's charges have not been proven false. Some are
> > disputed, but none are false
>
> You're an ijut.
>
> The Swift Boats threw a lot of "charges" together. Most of them were on
> the order of "I don't think much of John Kerry" so from a numerical
> point of view, yes, you can't prove things like that false. If that were
>
> As for proving charges false, I'm not trying to get you to say so,
> that's for sure. If one Swiftie said that they didn't take fire and
> there were bullet holes in their boat and there are mentions of taking
> fire in the Swifty's Bronze Star commendation, well, I'm not going to
> get mathematical about proof here. If a Swiftie praised Kerry up until
> months before the ads took life and then reversed course, I'm not going
> treated Kerry and that his wound was slight and yet the papers show he
> wasn't the Doctor of record, I'm not going to get mathematical about proof.
>
> You just keep plugging along, now, y'a here?
Yes, Mr. Davis, you hit the nail on the head.
Once again, we see comment after comment, and all those making them
have something in common -- not a one of the laid eyes on Kerry in
Vietnam.
And they would know what was true and what wasn't about Kerry,
wouldn't they? Yeah, sure they would.
Doug Reese
> [...]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
alic...@yahoo.com
Only a small portion what the SVBs alleged about Kerry was about
Kerry's medals. The rest is about his trip to Cambodia and, most
importantly, his actions after he left Vietnam. However, the pro-
Kerry side, as you are doing here, are only interested in his Purple
Hearts because that is the only allegation against Kerry that is
debatable, the rest has been proven. Every time this issue comes-up
the Dems go nuts about the Purple Hearts. Fine. Drop that part that
is controversial. What about the rest?
Everything that the SBV said about Kerry has been proven true apart
from Kerry's Purple Hearts. The PH allegations have not been proven
false or true.
-Tom Enright
> Doug Reese
Jeffrey Davis
They were the only ones that mattered. All the rest were expressions of
disapproval.
Doug Reese
Bullshit. The list of what has not been proven is long. In fact, it
just about encompasses all of their allegations.
Let's start with something minor, although it's something that John
O'Neill liked to shoot his big mouth off about every chance he had.
"Shot that kid in the back" Remember that? And he went on to say it
was in the records.
Well, he's lying, and he damn well knows it. But what the hell, it
made Kerry look bad, and since he's known to be an "end justifies the
means" kinda guy, he said it -- again and again and again. As often as
five times on a single talk show.
No matter that Kerry said he didn't shoot him in the back. . . . or
that at least one of his crew said the same . . or that another Swift
Boat officer on the scene said the same.
>apart
> from Kerry's Purple Hearts. The PH allegations have not been proven
> false or true.
Yes they have. You are under the impression, mistaken as it were, that
Kerry needs to prove anything to you, the Swift Boat Veterans for
"truth", or anyone else for that matter, regarding his medals earned
in Vietnam, 35 years after-the-fact.
The Navy, who is the only institution that matters, says everything is
OK with Kerry's medals, and that includes the PHs.
Doug Reese
> -Tom Enright
>
>
>
> >Doug Reese- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tom Enright
No, I don't remember this. Kerry has publically stated that he is a
war criminal, perhaps he isn't guilty of this, but as an admitted war
criminal it's difficult to take his word on this.
> > apart from Kerry's Purple Hearts. The PH allegations have not been proven
> > false or true.
> Yes they have. You are under the impression, mistaken as it were, that
> Kerry needs to prove anything to you, the Swift Boat Veterans for
> "truth", or anyone else for that matter, regarding his medals earned
> in Vietnam, 35 years after-the-fact.
I know Kerry doesn't have to prove anything to me, especially since I
don't care.
> The Navy, who is the only institution that matters, says everything is
> OK with Kerry's medals, and that includes the PHs.
Of course the Navy said this, why would they say anything different?
I doubt very much if the military rescinds medals unless there is
some absolutely rock solid evidence to the contrary (if at all) which
clearly doesn't exist in this case.
I ignored the SBV during the 2004 election, IIRC I didn't engage in
much debate in this NG on the issue. But, as a vet, is it unusual for
a guy to get three PHs without spending a day in a hospital?
-Tom Enright
> Doug Reese
Doug Reese
Unusual? Yes. Did it ever happen? Sure. Furthermore, in no way is
staying in a hospital a requirement for a PH.
Many Swift Boat guys (and at least one of his detractors) received PHs
for wounds that were treated, and had them returning to duty
immediately.
Kerry was off duty for a couple of days for PH #2, and still carries
the shrapnel in his leg.
Jeffrey Davis
> I know Kerry doesn't have to prove anything to me, especially since I
> don't care.
>
[sound of laugh like 1,000,000 burst bags and 1 brazillian braying horses]