SwiftVets.com

Dimsdale

I sent the following email to Factcheck.org:

Jerry M · Ensign Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 57

Try this article by the people at Powerline.com blog that was in today's NY Post:

THE MYSTERIES OF JOHN KERRY'S WAR RECORD

By JOHN HINDERAKER, SCOTT JOHNSON & EDWARD MORRISSEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint

September 20, 2004 -- WHEN John Kerry "reported for duty" at the Democratic Na tional Convention and pres ented himself as qualified to lead by virtue of his service in Vietnam, he opened up for public scrutiny his actions in Vietnam and, later, as an antiwar activist. Kerry's critics, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, promptly responded with a critique of Kerry's record. The charges and counter-charges have left many confused, especially as some issues seem to turn on obscure, if not arcane, facts.

What follows is a primer on the main issues, the evidence and open questions.

Christmas in Cambodia

On March 27, 1986, Kerry took the floor of the U.S. Senate to deliver a dramatic indictment of Reagan administration foreign policy. As is his habit, he drew on his Vietnam experience: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and having the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there."

He continued: "I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible to avoid that kind of conflict."

Kerry has told of this Cambodia trip many times, from a 1979 Boston Herald review of "Apocalypse Now" to a June 1, 2003, Washington Post profile. The Post's Laura Blumenfeld reported that Kerry pulled a mildewed hat out of his briefcase and described it as "my good luck hat, given to me by a CIA man as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."

Yet parts of Kerry's story are incredible on their face — such as saying Richard Nixon was responsible for the illegal mission, when Lyndon Johnson was president in 1968.

And there is no record that Swift boats were ever used for secret missions in Cambodia. (Their size and noisy engines make them ill-suited for the job.) Kerry's authorized biography, "Tour of Duty" by Douglas Brinkley, makes no mention of any such mission during Kerry's service.

Not a single crewman who served with Kerry has supported his claim to have entered Cambodia, and three have expressly denied it. Kerry's commanding officers have denied he was ever sent there. And Kerry's own Vietnam journal (excerpted in the Boston Globe) shows that on Christmas 1968 he was docked at Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia.

In mid-August, these facts promped the Kerry campaign to "correct" the story, saying the mission took place in January 1969 when Kerry "inadvertently or responsibly" crossed the border.

Yet "inadvertently" straying into Cambodia — were that even possible — belies the basic point of Kerry's original story: that he lost his faith in government because the president lied about having sent U.S. troops into Cambodia. It also contradicts his story about ferrying a CIA man.

And the "correction" plainly hasn't sunk in: The Democratic Party chairman, Terry McAuliffe, told us in an interview earlier this month that Kerry had made two missions to Cambodia to drop off CIA men.

Some questions that Kerry himself has yet to answer: When exactly did he enter Cambodia? Accidentally, or intentionally? If by accident, how did that lead him to lose faith in the government? If on a secret mission, what was its purpose? What is the name of the CIA man? Why is there no record of any Cambodia mission, even in Kerry's journals? And why do Kerry's crewmates and fellow officers unanimously deny that any such mission ever occurred?

First Combat . . . Maybe

Kerry won his first Purple Heart for a combat engagement on Dec. 2, 1968, while training on a skimmer, or Boston whaler. On his campaign Web site, Kerry claims that on that day, he "experiences his first intense combat; receives combat-related injury" — for which he would eventually receive a Purple Heart.

But in "Tour of Duty," Brinkley writes:

"They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.' "

According to Kerry's journal, the date on which he "hadn't been shot at yet" was Dec. 9. Which means he hadn't been in combat on Dec. 2.

This fits in with the Swift vets' contention that Kerry's initial request for a Purple Heart had been denied by the chain of command. In fact, he didn't get a Purple Heart commendation for his Dec. 2 injury until months later, after transferring to a different command — which took Kerry at his word on being under enemy fire in the earlier engagement.

Kerry's campaign has now admitted that his first Purple Heart wound may have been unintentionally self-inflicted, sustained when he exploded a hand grenade too close to shore. The Kerry camp has not responded substantively to questions on the discrepancies between his citation and his journal entries as published by his biographer.

False Memories Of Fighting Together

David Alston has accompanied Kerry on campaign appearances, giving powerful testimony about Kerry's leadership under fire (including perhaps the most effective speech on Kerry's behalf at the Democratic Convention).

Alston and Kerry have both spoken of two engagements in which they took fire together on PCF-94, one on Jan. 29, 1969, the other on Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry won his Silver Star.

Problems with these stories arose this April, when Lt. Tedd Peck complained that Kerry had appropriated one of Peck's actions as his own. It turned out that Peck, not Kerry, commanded PCF-94 on Jan. 29.

Both Peck and Alston were seriously wounded in that battle. We know that no other officer was aboard PCF-94, because enlisted man Del Sandusky took command after Peck was disabled. So Kerry's claim to have commanded the boat in that engagement is clearly false.

Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan created a timeline that credited all of PCF-94's January engagements to Kerry. Only after Peck complained publicly did Kerry stop trying to take credit for engagements that occurred before he was assigned to PCF-94. The campaign Website now notes only that he took command of PCF-94 in "late January."

According to records formerly available on the site, Alston was Medevaced to an Army hospital in Binh Thuy after being injured in the Jan. 29 fight, and did not return quickly. Kerry took command of PCF-94, the next day, replacing the injured Lt. Peck. The boat also got at least one and probably two new gunners to replace Alston. Fred Short arrived as the new gunner on Feb. 13.

On Feb. 28, PCF-94 took part in the engagement that won Kerry a Silver Star, and a commendation for every member of his crew. Alston has repeatedly asserted, since at least May 2002, that he participated in that action. In an interview with ABC News on June 24, Alston said: "I know when John Kerry told Del to beach that damn boat, this was a brand-new ball game. We wasn't running. We took it to Charlie."

"We?" All of Kerry's crew received commendations for this action. Absent from the list is the name David Alston. But Short's name is listed, and he was photographed at the award ceremony along with Kerry and his five enlisted men (a full PCF crew). Not in the photo: David Alston.

In an interview with Byron York of National Review, Short said that Alston didn't return to PCF-94 until after March 4, 1969, well after the Feb. 28 engagement. The exact date of Alston's return remains a mystery because (like Kerry) Alston has refused to release his military records. What is clear is that both Alston and Kerry have lied since at least May 2002 about Alston's service under Kerry.

Why did Kerry claim to have been in command of PCF-94 on Jan. 29, 1969? Why did Kerry try to replace Fred Short with David Alston as gunner in the Feb. 28 engagement? Only Kerry and Alston can explain. But since the controversy arose, Alston has disappeared from the campaign trail.

One Medal, Three Citations

In that Feb. 28 engagement, Kerry beached his PCF to frontally assault a Viet Cong ambush. He then leapt off the boat and chased an armed VC from the beach, killing him and capturing his rocket launcher. On that much, everyone agrees. The mystery surrounds the three differing citations Kerry has for the Silver Star he earned that day.

Adm. Elmo Zumwalt personally awarded the medal to Kerry. The citation (No. 1) notes that "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him . . . " The citations says the operation resulted in 10 Viet Cong killed.

For most people, one citation per award is sufficient. However, Kerry has another (No. 2) for this incident, this one signed by Adm. John Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet.

This citation fails to mention the VC that Kerry killed, but has added praise: Kerry now acted "with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets" and has now faced a "numerically superior force."

Citation No. 3 was signed by John Lehman as secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, more than 10 years after the action. It's nearly identical to No. 2, except it adds, "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself."

What really happened on the Dong Cung River that day? Kerry's own crew (most of whom support his candidacy) insisted that Kerry chased the injured VC behind the hootch, out of sight of the crew, before killing him. Kerry denies leaving his crew's sight — which would be a brave but foolish tactical mistake for the commander of a beached boat under fire. And both later citations fail to mention Kerry personally killing the VC.

Last week, The Post's Deborah Orin confirmed from Navy sources that the original teletype of the after-action report had been found in the Naval Archives. It confirms the statements of Kerry's crew: "OinC [Officer in Command] of PCF 94 chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with round in chamber."

The report also makes clear that the three PCFs carried a contingent of 90 Vietnamese RFPF troops, which would have hardly made their patrol numerically inferior to the snipers that ambushed them. And the final calculation of KIA from that mission, according to the immediately-filed after-action report, was 4 KIA, not 10 or a score as the citations state.

Kerry performed well under fire. But his changing stories regarding the action have mysteriously found their way into the extraordinary series of citations that stretch out over a decade for this single action and award.

Lehman, moreover, insists that he never signed the third citation nor wrote the additional language. On Friday, the Navy inspector general concluded, following an investigation prompted by a Judicial Watch request, that the proper procedure had been followed in the processes initially used to approve Kerry's medals and the officers involved had proper authority to approve the awards. But Adm. R. A. Route's probe didn't address any qualitative review of Kerry's awards, and Lehman's disavowal of citation No. 3 has prompted a separate investigation.

Conclusion

Much more could be said about John Kerry and the Vietnam years, but this primer may suggest why Kerry has been keeping his distance from the press these last six weeks. Kerry can put some of these questions to rest — by signing the standard military form to allow his records to be made public. Until those records are released, many questions will remain unanswered.

Minneapolis attorneys John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson are proprietors of the Web log powerlineblog.com. Minneapolis-based freelance writer Edward Morrissey is proprietor of the Web log captainsquartersblog.com.

Home

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2004 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Dimsdale · Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:56 pm Post subject:

EXCELLENT!! Thank you so much!
_________________
Everytime he had a choice, Kerry chose to side with communists rather than the United States.

Rdtf · CNO Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 2209 Location: BUSHville

didn't Factcheck.com say the Bush docs appeared authentic?? I am not sure but I think put their 2 cents worth in. If so, this ruins their credibility completely.

Anker-Klanker · Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:50 pm Post subject:

Dimsdale · Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:00 pm Post subject:

Oddly enough, I realized that this email was sent to, and came back from, Spinsanity.org, but they reference Factcheck.org?
_________________
Everytime he had a choice, Kerry chose to side with communists rather than the United States.

NavyChief · Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:22 pm Post subject:

Can someone please tell these people that the recent SPOT REPORT that was uncovered was not written by John Kerry!

The report was written by LTjg William Rood! His report was sent 55 minutes after Kerry's REAL SPOT REPORT 281130Z FEB 69. Then Rood wrote a PRESS RELEASE for VADM Zumwalt 18 hours later. Both have been uncovered in our search in the Naval Archives.

Kerry's report is still missing! This story cannot be adequately flushed out with facts until we find Kerry's report.

I have an idea of what is contained in it, as VADM Zumwalt refers to KERRY's report in his BRAVO ZULU message.

It seems we keep missing the points here. I don't think Factcheck or any of the other organizations are getting the picture or the facts correct.

- Chief
_________________
Working with Senator Kerry four years in the POW/MIA Office left me thinking -- when did the man ever do any work?

Me#1You#10 · Site Admin Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 6503

"Factcheck.org has been godd (sic) on this"? What a pathetic joke.

For those who might have missed it, here's a fisking by our own "Billman" that "Factchecked" "Factcheck"...and it isn't pretty.

Stevie · Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:25 pm Post subject:

great article by ny post!

Zac's Mom · Ensign Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 53 Location: Texas

of the Bush-bashing book "All the President's Spin : George W. Bush, the Media, and the Truth"!!! (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743262514/ref%3Dnosim/keithapplebysres116-20/103-7508381-5641455

(if I could use html coding on this board the line above would be written in great big blood red letters!! lol)

Keefer co-authored this poison pen book with Ben Fritz and Brendan Nyhan.

He also co-launch and ran Spinsanity.org

Here's some background info that might help you understand why you probably aren't going to get help with folks at Factcheck.org

Declaring it was "dedicated to challenging the manipulative rhetoric that increasingly pervades American politics", Spinsanity was founded in January 2001 by and publicly launched in April 9, 2001.

Their on line Full Disclosure statement read:

"We all have been or are politically active in Democratic and progressive politics and disclose those affiliations below. We believe in participating in our political system, but we also share a commitment to the democratic values that motivate this site, which are more important than our individual policy preferences. Our pledge to our readers is that we will always be non-partisan, fair and civic-minded."

Their site Mission Statement proclaimed:

"...our goal at Spinsanity is to use rigorous, non-partisan analysis to expose the use and intent of the simulated reason and public relations techniques that dominate political discourse, and to document how
they are disseminated through the media. By exposing these tactics and demonstrating their persuasiveness, we hope to create a greater awareness of how spin operates and corrupts, and contribute to a healthy and vibrant political discourse.

and their Content would be:

"We write weekly articles that dissect and analyze some of the most egregious examples of this "new jargon" as they are expressed by pundits, talk radio hosts, politicians and interest groups. Articles are
posted on the site and distributed to our email list. To subscribe to the list, enter your email address on our email subscription page. We also collect links to outside articles that analyze and break down spin."

At some point between January 02 and May 02 the site's entered in to a co-operative agreement with Salon.com the site's page header changed from:

"Spinsanity exposes and analyzes the increasingly pervasive use of manipulative and subrational rhetoric in American politics."

to:

"Spinsanity, the nation's leading watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric, fights back against deception on this website and on Salon.com."
(hyper-linked to the Salon web site)

Spinsanity's contract with Salon ended November 1, 2003 and the site dropped the Salon name and link from it's header.

In Mid-December'03 Spinsanity posted this message to it's viewers:

We're taking the rest of December off and will be back in January with more new content, although we may post occasionally in response to events. Thanks for reading!

As near as I can tell they never really did come back in January of '04 and then on February 14, 2004 the web site contained an announcement of a new affiliation with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The fact that you made your inquiry to Factcheck.org and yet received your unco-operative response from Spinsanity leads me to believe that Factcheck.org (securely wrapped in a cloak of respectability because of it
affiliation with the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania) is actually nothing more then Spinsanity.org dressed up in fancy clothes.

The trio at Spinsanity never really were able to overcome their baises and the site's reputation and credibility were suffering greatly by the end of last year. Creating an entirely new identity was mandatory if the trio ever wanted the "nonpartisan" image to be taken seriously again and what better way to do that then to blanket themselves with a prestigious sound name such as Annenberg?

Established in 1994 the Annenberg Public Policy Center 'conducts an ongoing evaluation of the quality of contemporary political discourse, including political campaigns, advertising, and speeches.'

On it's web site the center states one of it's programs researches the veracity of claims made by presidential candidates.

" Factcheck.org: The Annenberg Political Fact Check publishes regular analysis of what the candidates are saying on television, and in advertisements and speeches."

Fairly impressive in terms of lending credibility to Factcheck.org ~ But, if you look closely at the bottom of Factcheck.org's pages you will discover that:

"Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center".

So much for any credibility by association.
_________________
"If you are going through hell, keep going." Winston Churchill
http://www.goodolddogs.com