SwiftVets.com

[Mary]

These questions have been moved by admin for me into a new thread from my previous "Questions" thread because my previous posts were too lengthy and buried the questions.

1. Are the three bullet holes in the NY Times chart's attempt (at this link) to refute Van Odell mistakenly referring to holes in a different boat when they mean Kerry's own boat and holes from the day before? Where does one find this damage report the Times refers to?

2. Are the situations where the other officers in the chart explained themselves situations where they explained in tv programs where they are quoted in transcripts I saw in this website? I don't think I read full explanations from these officers in O'Neill's book although he mentioned that they'd told him they disagreed with their earlier comments but didn't quote them.

I imagine I might have other questions when I have more time to go over my notes from the book and also when I've found the questions presented by any articles that attempt to refute O'Neill.

[Mary]

Ok, this thread is moved here by admin for me to separate out my questions. Thanks.

I found a FAIR (media watchdog group) article at this link just now and it points out again that stuff on Letson. I think the idea of it being SOP for a separate person to sign the report really needs to be authoritatively shown by O'Neill citing an authoritative source -- it's a weakness a lot of people are exploiting and makes it hard for people to believe Letson, when he should supposedly be a strong point.

[stylin19]

You may have better luck getting answers to your questions by searching THIS site.

It's a smaller site with a heck of a lot of documented research being done.
_________________
U.S.M.C. - 1969-1971
RVN- 1970-1971

[Mary]

If people know the answers, they can reply. I'm not doing a research project -- I'm answering friends who point to articles and tell me the book and this site are not credible for them to take as source material because I had simply mentioned I'd read the book and was concerned about some things I read in the first half of it. I have already been looking at this site and the section listing transcripts was one I found helpful, but now I'm reading some criticisms of the book (and the tv advertisements) I've been pointed to and trying to answer my friends and the questions I see raised by articles. Yes, I am going to be doing searches, thanks.

The admin told me to post the questions here in a separated format and that people who know may answer. I'm already aware of the fact I can do a search and I'll try but some may already know the answers, and those who do may reply.

[kate]

[Mary]

Yes, I did read that transcript and previously listened to that radio account, thanks.

The pertinent part of the transcript quoting Letson says:

[kate]

[LewWaters]

[Mary]

To kate, I did read all the discussions you pointed me to before posting a reply, thanks.

To Lew, I tend to believe this is true that the hospital aide was just signing in behalf of the doctor (as has been mentioned a number of places) but I'm just saying that it's a point that an experienced debater like O'Neill could have foreseen would be challenged and handled by citing official sources who explain that this is standard in the Navy or who explained that only the M.D. could have been the one who actually saw a patient like him in that situation, if that is true (although maybe HM1's can see patients). The problem is that the people writing the articles are thinking that the HM1 could have been the one examining him and don't see any reason to think Letson did.

thanks for having replied.

[Mary]

I wrote:

[LewWaters]

Mary, O'Neill is the spokeman for the Swift vets. Several of the replies you are receiving are from Vietnam vets of differing times and differing services. We are united in that, because of what things Kerry did, he is unfit for command.

I see a lot of spin in the media and on several blogs by people who basically, don't know what they are talking about. Not everyone is going to believe them or us, that's just life. Neither you nor I can make people agree with us, obviously. All we can do is inform of them what we see and why we feel the way we do. Still, it won't matter to some and I just end up agreeing to disagree.

For me, I tend to mistrust most anything coming from especially the New York Times anymore. Like Dan Rather, they have been shown to be unreliable too many times now. Many implicitly trust anything they say. Go figure.

One thing to note, since the Swift vet ads started, who has maintained the same story and who has changed theirs several times? Regardless of discrediting articles writen, the SBVT has maintained a steady course. Kerry, on the other hand, has changed his story several times, most notably, Christmas in Cambodia and his first PH. Even his claim of "volunteering" for Vietnam duty falls apart by his own words, as he supplied to the 1986 book, "The Vietnam Experience-A War Remembered," 1986 Boston Publishing.

At the DNC Convgention, he stood and claimed that when his country called, he said, "send me." But, in 1986, he said;

[Mary]

Yes, thanks, I am aware of some of the comments you have brought up about people trying to discredit O'Neill but I have already told friends about the fact that he himself is not a Republican (is an independent who's voted for Perot, Gore, and others of both parties) and that he gave more to Democrats than Republicans. But his lawfirm is shown in the NY Times chart here to have had connections to the Bush campaign, so that was brought up to me recently.

I'm aware of what Kerry's said about Christmas in Cambodia, as O'Neill explained that in detail in the book, and I did notice that this was not evidence of a truthful candidate (though there are problems with Bush's truthfulness about some issues too so I am left wishing, too late, for a different Democrat running). I also understand what Kerry said about not really knowing he was going to be serving in a danger zone when he first went to Vietnam, but that isn't really very important.

Regardless of the idea some have that NY Times is biased, I still wish to address any investigations and claims they and other media such as the Boston Globe, La Times, FAIR and others make head-on. Every source can be accused of having an agenda, but rather than shoot the messenger, I just want to address the statements made by critics of the book and refute them if they are refutable; the truth is what is important, not my opinion of a bias in a publication. I agree that it's not likely I will sway anyone with information I might get refuting a criticism of the book, but since swaying people about how Kerry has presented his military career was O'Neill's goal, we may as well assume it's a worthwhile goal and let those who want to try to tackle criticisms of the book go ahead and defend it. Reviewing what the facts are helps people to understand when they read criticisms. I do think Kerry invited the inquiry when he started saluting the audience at the Democratic convention and other times since like he's a George Washington war hero come to volunteer to serve the country.

[Scott]

Mary,

The NYT chart is just about as relevant as the "Six Degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon" thing.

It's grasping at the thinnest of straws.

[Mary]

Well unfortunately people look at it and show it to me as though it's accurate and so instead of just giving a pat answer like that, I have to provide specific reasons they should think it's not true. The chart link was sent me by a friend who was explaining to me why she finds O'Neill to be part of a Republican smear campaign and who was seeking to convince me that I shouldn't have paid any attention to the book. She doesn't have the book and sees things like that posted different places and assumes the book is mistaken. It doesn't look like it's grasping at thin straws to me though, and I see why it persuaded her to not buy the book.

At any rate, I told her that I don't care about who financed what and only care about whether the facts are accurate and that regardless of who financed the adverts, the important part is the facts.

The chart also tries to say the facts are mistaken and that the officers contradict themselves, and I think it takes someone going point by point and refuting the claims about the officers and posting that somewhere online like evidently some Democrat organizations have done probably posting that chart link where my friend found it, to get people to understand. Average readers like my friend who see the chart are not swayed by me answering with "that's the thinnest of straws." That doesn't refute a claim, and it's not how O'Neill himself would address a challenge on a fact of his.

The fact that Elliott went back and contradicted himself in recent weeks doesn't help things and I'm not clear what Elliott's current stand is now since his August retractions.

[LewWaters]