SwiftVets.com

[Jeff Carrington]

//note: text of Colbert King's WaPo column appended following, along with an email address. . . . .would be great if you sent him an email//

9/25/04

TO: Colbert I. King, Washington Post

in re: "Kerry's Unlikely Detractors" (op-ed 9/25/04)

Oh really? So Mr. King, now that you have had sufficient conscience. . . a faintly heartening sign. . . to open your eyes and ears a little, let's apply a slightly more demanding test of your intellectual courage.

What say you, Mr. King, about your deeply uninformed and patently biased original characterization ("What Matters About Kerry and Vietnam", 8/28) of 264 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? You never bothered to actually measure the facts. No, you just reacted and got on your convenient Washington Post soap box, and found refuge from fairness in rhetorical comments like "a swan dive into McCarthyism". You never bothered to actually read and test asserted facts and footnotes to see if they might be accurate, because if that happened, it might upset your much-preferred and far more comfortable view of reality, not to say any stubborn political obsessions you might have. That's Rather unprofessional of you.

Now with your latest column you offer us a timid pseudo-correction. CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER PLEASE. . . . . think I see your lips moving but I'm having trouble hearing you distinctly.

Or is it that you can't quite find the voice? We'll see I reckon.

cc: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth www.swiftvets.com discussion forum

Jeff Carrington
West Simsbury, CT

Kerry's Unlikely Detractors

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, September 25, 2004; Page A23

Those who dismiss critics of John Kerry's Vietnam service as just a bunch of right-wing Republicans out to advance George W. Bush's cause don't know what they are talking about -- or they are engaged in wishful thinking. Okay, I may have once thought that about the critics, too. But after poring over the large volume of e-mail I received after my Aug. 28 column, "What Matters About Kerry and Vietnam," I don't any longer.

I had taken to task the authors of the blistering anti-Kerry bestseller "Unfit for Command" for giving readers an unbalanced view of Kerry's service in Vietnam, and for not revealing their own connections with the Bush campaign and the sources of their financial support. The column also criticized "Unfit for Command" for smearing Kerry, a decorated former naval officer, as disloyal because of his antiwar activities. Writing as a former Army officer, I concluded: "Speaking for myself, it is enough that he served."

A number of readers agreed with that conclusion. Many more, however, most of them angry veterans, did not. Most striking was the fact that those who identified themselves seemed to span the political spectrum, with one even describing himself as a Howard Dean Democrat.

Two weeks later, another e-mail arrived on the same topic. It was from a Howard University classmate, a friend of 47 years, former assistant secretary of the Air Force Rodney Coleman. A Democrat, Coleman has local roots, having worked for the D.C. Council and later the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corp.

Bill Clinton appointed Coleman to the Pentagon post, in which he served from 1994 to 1998. Somehow, despite our running into each other over the years at various social occasions, Vietnam was never a serious topic of conversation between us. Until now.

Coleman, who served in Vietnam for 13 months in 1971-72, wrote that he found disheartening the protracted mudslinging between Bush and Kerry and their respective camps about military records. But the favorable conclusion I drew about Kerry's service was, he stated, "with all due respect, not mine!"

"Some of those 58,000 who died [in Vietnam] were at DaNang with me, and some were under my command, in the 366th Air Force engineering squadron," Coleman wrote.

Then he got to the heart of the matter.

"I vividly recall Kerry's antiwar testimony in April 1971. I was a White House fellow at the time, on a leave of absence from active duty, as were five of the 17 fellows selected. Two of them had Vietnam experience with Silver and Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts awarded for their heroism. In early April 1971, I volunteered to go to Vietnam after my year as a White House fellow. I could have very easily taken steps to forgo a tour in 'Nam, but as an Air Force captain committed to the ideals of the oath of office I took, Vietnam was the only game in town."

The oath of office was a serious matter for products of Howard's ROTC programs. I know. I was commissioned in the Army; Coleman joined the Air Force. Unlike some college campuses, Howard's ROTC programs were a source of pride, having produced, according to the school, more African American general officers than any other university in the country.

"When Kerry made those critical statements of the war," Coleman wrote, "my parents, God bless them, went ballistic about their son going in harm's way. My military colleagues in the fellows program who had been there and were shot up were incensed that a so-called military man would engage in such insubordinate actions. At the time Kerry made those unfortunate remarks, America had POWs and MIAs, among them my friend, Colonel Fred Cherry, the longest-held black POW of the Vietnam War. How could a true American fighting man throw away his medals, while thousands he fought alongside of were in the midst of another example of man's inhumanity to man?"

I spoke with Coleman this week about citing his e-mail in a column. He agreed, adding that he was still wrestling with his Election Day decision. His final written words are worth remembering, especially by those in the Kerry high command.

"I served my 13 months in combat. Returned in 1972 with the Bronze Star and the Vietnamese Technical Services Honor Medal to a very anti-Vietnam America. [Harry] "Butch" Robinson, Denny [Dennis] Hightower, and many more that you know did the same. We endured the pain of separation from our loved ones, were frightened when the rockets came in to camp and lives were lost. But we were never unfit for command.

"Kerry still hasn't satisfied me and many others. . . . It's September and I'm still conflicted. Speaking for myself, it is NOT enough that he served!" Those aren't the thoughts of a Republican-funded, right-wing, over-the-top Swift boat veteran. Ignore them, Kerry camp, at your peril.

The Washington Post

kingc@washpost.com

note: Link to article added; e-mail hypertext repaired; smilies disabled in post to eliminate unintended display

[Me#1You#10]

I dunno Jeff...that sure sounded like a major concession and apology to me...quite loud and quite clear. I'm not sure it serves our cause well to further criticize someone who has quite publically issued a "mea culpa...I was wrong" in one of the most dominant MSM publications in this country.

Instead, let's welcome him into the light and congratulate him for confessing to the error of his ways and encourage his peers to follow his example...don't dismiss SBVT out-of-hand...at least apply time-honored journalistic standards of investigation of facts before leaping to political or ideologically motivated spoon-fed conclusions.

Are you listening Mr. O'Reilly?

[jim_nyc]

I agree with Me#1You#10.

The person who wrote the column was lound and clear enough for me as well. Thanks for posting that column. I'm going to write the guy a thank you e-mail.

[ccr]

Jeff, with all due respect, I think you owe Colbert King an apology.

It takes a big man to write a column in a major newspaper taking an opinion that is highly unpopular with his core audience and admit he was wrong in a previous column.

This is a powerful column, Jeff. It helps our side a great deal.

Your email to him was highly insulting and disrespectful. We will prevail by winning over hearts and minds. Not by burning villages down John Kerry style.
_________________
Whose side is John Kerry really on? Take this quiz and decide for yourself.

http://www.learnthat.com/quiz/

[NAV307]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Carrington. The article does give credence to questioning his previous articles but ... all based on comments from a long time friend. The next to the last line still has all the original, unsubstantiated and erroneous rebukes.

Quote: "Those aren't the thoughts of a Republican-funded, right-wing,
over-the-top Swift boat veteran."

That is still an absolute slap in the face.

NAV307
_________________
NRA, SASS, Supporter of 2nd Amendment

[Jeff Carrington]

Folks, I respect your views and I considered that some of you would think I was being harsh before I posted my message. I would ask you to consider something: how extreme did it have to get before CBS got the message (if they have even yet)?

Yes, it's a step in the right direction. But you should not be gulled into thinking that WaPo or Colbert King or Michael Dobbs or any other reporters or editors there have found any significant objectivity concerning SBVT. You would be mistaken in my opinion. It is only vehement reaction that counts. Criticism must be resounding and relentless. They have, after all, much to apologize for. NAV307 is right about the "absolute slap in the face" and I think it is indicative of a residual attitude that can only be impacted if we apply a commensurate degree of force.

Besides I'm a former jarhead and I don't do pattycake very well. But I will honor the wishes of Admin and not link my further "rockets" to SBVT.

[Me#1You#10]

[jim_nyc]

I stand by my original assessment but certainly appreciat the passion and point of view or Mr. Carrington.

Ultimately I believe it is the volume of email that any given media outlet gets that spurs them to persue any topic. I doubt they have the man power to read each email. The subject title is what is important.

If the WaPo gets enough unique emails regarding this topic, either negative or positive, they will continue to cover it in their limited pages.

Keep the pressure on.

[concernedgranny]

Hey guys, trying to do my part in e-mailing and supporting the effort. This is new to me and I ask for your help. Could you critique this e-mail before I send it as I want to make sure it is okay. It is a little long so if you don't post my copy or if it doesn't fit this forum and you delete, I understand. Here goes:

I would like to personally thank you for setting it straight that it is not a Republican funded, right-wing, over the top Swift boat veteran that questions Kerry's military service. I am a mother, grandmother, housewife and Independent voter from Central Ohio. I get so frustrated sitting in my living room, listening to the news and always hearing about Bush's military service and not hearing about Kerry's. I'm sure you probably get e-mails all the time lately about this, but please continue to read and let me explain from where I come from.

Last year, on September 15, 2003, I lost a very special person to me. My brother-in-law (although I should probably drop in-law as he was more like a brother to me) was tragically killed in a trench death. The fine that OHSHA leveled on the company was truly just a slap in the face. Determined to not let another accident happened, I started to surf web sites to gather information. Tragically 2 more trench deaths in our area occurred in less than a year, although not by the same company. I then began to make safety at the workplace my goal for the rest of my life, but more importantly, the "police force" of the workplace, OHSHA responsible for the job they do. In doing so, I started to get involved with organizations that normally favor the Democrats as I had been told that they were the "choice of the working man".

Early on, I paid particular attention to the DNC and the convention. I truly believed that I was going to vote for a Democrat. I had a lot of questions about President Bush myself and so I didn't feel that voting for Kerry would be wrong. I truly even laughed at some of the "Bush Bashing" myself, which I know was in early January and February. But when Kerry stepped forward to accept the nomination and saluted the crowd with "Ready for Duty", something inside me cringed. Then came the ads depicting Bush as a guy who didn't take any chances in Vietnam and didn't even finish his service in the National Guard. More nerves started tingling in me. You see, my brother-in-law was not in Vietnam but he did serve. He guarded the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Was he any less heroic? Not in my books. Then I started remembering that some of my best friends kids, sons and daughters, were in the Guard. They serve with pride now. My own brother chose the Air Force during the Vietnam era because he thought that he had a better chance of not being killed. He did not want to go to Vietnam if he could get out of it, but he did not want to not serve. My other brother-in-law served in the Green Berets and did receive a purple heart among other awards. He was almost killed when his group was ambushed. In fact, I believe he was one of the only ones who survived, and he would not have if it hadn't been for a brave group of American soldiers that came along and ran off the Viet Cong. And then we have Clinton who didn't serve at all but left the country and still served as President for two terms.

I started to questions the ads on TV as well as the news story that ran depicting Kerry as a hero and Bush as a privileged son. Again, I decided to find out for myself, as it did seem that there was more on TV about Bush, but nothing about Kerry. All that was ever said was that he served two tours and that made him better. I had to check out the Swiftvets as they were the controversy and were "shown to be liars". That is where the death of my brother-in-law made me question the "liar" story. You see, in my investigation of fatalities at the workplace, it is almost always blamed on the worker themselves. The people questioning these deaths are "liars, troublemakers, grief-stricken people who don't know what they are saying, people out trying to make a fast buck at the expense of the company", left-winged liberals. Also, I was just a teen when all the protests of Vietnam was going on and didn't really know about it except what I was taught in school (that it was a wrong war, at the wrong place, and at the wrong time) and that those that fought were either strung out on drugs or even worse; baby killers, rapists, and murderers. My green beret brother-in-law would write home to his mom so upset because "someone" in the military started that rumor and he was over there on the ground doing just the opposite as what was being said.

I have found the Swiftvets to be caring, concerned,bunch of patriotic individuals that cross party lines, social lines and gender lines. There are so many concerned parents brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, and children of former and future veterans from across this great country, who are genuinely concerned about the leadership of John Kerry. There are those that say that what happened 30 or more years ago should not have an impact on what is happening now. If that were true, even to the press, then why so much emphasis on Bush's military record? These are people whose families have suffered so much from our country because they were made to feel disgraced for serving in the military during that era. They are told by the press not to bring up "such a terrible time as it does no good" but Kerry can bring it up at almost every press conference he does. Of course, he brings up that he was such a hero. He continually tells us that we are in a "quagmire" like that of Vietnam. He gets to relive his version of that war everyday with the help of the main stream media and not give voice to the other side so as to dispute him. I have not seen yet what has been disproved from the Swiftvets. All I keep hearing is that they have been disproved and that they are liars. Repeat it, repeat it, repeat it and then those who are not as aggressive for the truth as I am will believe it. However, there will be a time when that will not hold up.

There are millions of people like me that were just teens when Vietnam happened and we now have children. Children that serve and will serve. My own son is thinking about joining after he graduates college. We will not allow them to serve and then be betrayed by someone who is anti-war and gives aid and comfort to the enemy. I will not allow the future safety of my grandchildren and children to be entrusted with the United Nations telling me where we, as a country, can go to protect our country. I want someone who is going to be optimistic about where our country is going. I believe I have to vote to make my country safe first, because without a safe country, there is no need to worry about a safe workplace.

Being optimistic is not being blind to facts. It is, however, courageously facing obstacles knowing that in the long run you will prevail. I teach my children that, as I do believe most everybody else does too. You should never give up on anything worthwhile. You don't focus on the problems, instead you focus on the possibilities. I don't believe that John Kerry is a leader in anything except in defeatism. He should sign the form 180. We should question his attendance in a meeting to assassinate 6 pro-war senators during the Vietnam era. We should be able to see all that he was involved in with the Sandanistas.

Again, I thank you for making it known that maybe it isn't a "Republican right-winged" conspiracy to seek answers from Kerry. It is from a concerned mother, grandmother, housewife, and Independent voter seeking the truth so I that I can vote intelligently with all the facts.

[Aristotle The Hun]

[jim_nyc]

It's long. That doesn't mean anything about the content. I'm just saying that these people are busy and don't have time to read long emails. The subject of your email is the most important factor. It should sum up what you want to say in about 3-5 words. No profanity or provactive words...you know like,,,, hate or kill or stupid ....you know? The body of your email should be readable in 15 seconds of less. Strong statements or in my opinion...equally strong questions. These guys love to feel they are solving puzzles or problems.

This is just my opinion.

Ultimately the fact that they are getting large volumes of unique emails is the important thing.

Your efforts are appreciated by me ....for what it's worth.

[Aristotle The Hun]

[PatS]

To Concernedgranny

My vote is for you to send it, and then apply for a position as a journalist in the Wapo!

My condolences on the lose of your 'brother.'

[fr11]

[BB Stacker]

I would say Carringtons' statements are a good first step. But his earlier column did a lot of damage to the perspectives of those that didn't know any better. He should follow up with a stronger article making significant points of reference along the way.