SwiftVets.com

[1968Recondo]

A Washington Post reporter and washingtonpost.com blogger with a record for cheerleading for Kerry has again weighed into the SBVT issue while demonstrating her bias and gross ignorance. Her latest blog is at bottom (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/08/theyre_baaaack_swift_boat_vete.html)

Weighing in with all the ranting and obscenity-laced comments from the pro-Kerry crowd, I posted the comments immediately below to the blog.

This is the first time Akers has attacked the SBVT, but it's clear she doesn't make any effort to tell the truth.

Keep an eye on her and don't hesitate to comment on her slanted spin on SBVT on her blog or email her at maryann.akers@washingtonpost.com. She invites tips and leads, but most of her blog feeds come from liberal-lefties like herself. Don't get down in the gutter with her fan base; keep it on the facts.

[i]The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth (SVT) was established for the purpose of exposing John Kerry’s highly embellished military record, to reveal the fabrications and exaggerations Kerry used to root around for medals, and expose the fake hero who premised his entire presidential campaign on the claim that he was the lone hero of Vietnam (everyone else who served there “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan…” –John Kerry 1971)

What “Sleuth” Mary Ann Akers doesn’t comprehend is that John O’Neill is not acting now as a representative of SVT. The problem is that she wants to raise the specter of SVT and not just that O’Neill is acting on his own. It doesn’t have the same raw power to drive liberals to distraction.

I would suggest the sleuthy Mary Ann check out the SVT website. On it she’ll find this:

“June 1, 2008 -- Swift Vets and POWs for Truth has formally disbanded and ceased all operations as of May 31, 2008. SwiftVets.com will continue to be maintained for historical purposes only by New American Media Online Services (NAMOS).”

And, just for the sake of accuracy, the following individuals were the Steering Committee of an organization that started out with about 200 members.

Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (Ret.), Chairman
Captain Charley Plumly, USN (Ret.)
William E. Franke
Alvin A. Horne
Bill Lannom
John O'Neill
Weymouth Symmes, Treasurer”

And, Jerome Corsi was not a Swift Boat veteran, but the coauthor with O’Neill of “Unfit for Command.”

“They're Baaaack... Swift Boat Veterans Take Aim At Obama. Just as they sought to destroy John Kerry in 2004, the founders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group are aiming their guns at this season's presumptive Democratic presidential candidate. But unlike four years ago, when the Swifties spent millions to discredit Kerry, their hit on Barack Obama so far hasn't cost them a dime.”

Given the use of “they’re, they, their, and them,” perhaps the very sleuthy Mary Ann can point out any SVT representatives attacking Obama.

And, by the way, not a single charge laid by the SVT has been disproved though Kerry’s operatives continue their effort to employ smoke and mirrors to distract attention from the established facts. And, the only person who has had to revise, correct, or otherwise back off of Kerry’s claims of grand heroics and bold deeds is John Kerry.

Even fawning Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley, who relied almost entirely on Kerry’s fantasized versions of his tour of duty, admitted in late 2004, that Americans “know that John Kerry was not the war hero we thought he was.”

Before the oh so sleuthy Mary Ann continues to flap away on SVT, perhaps she should do a little homework. It’s fair to say that O’Neill, was a member of the disbanded SVT, and has gone on to criticize Obama, but suggesting the SVT, in any form, is attacking Obama is just plain stupid, and it’s false. But, being a WaPo blogger doesn’t mean you have to be accurate…[/i]
****************************


[b]The Sleuth – Mary Ann Akers [/b]… Behind the Scenes in Washington

[b]They're Baaaack... Swift Boat Veterans Take Aim At Obama[/b]

Posted at 9:19 AM ET, 08/ 5/2008

Just as [b]they [/b]sought to destroy John Kerry in 2004, the [b]founders [/b]of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group are aiming their guns at this season's presumptive Democratic presidential candidate. But unlike four years ago, when the Swifties spent millions to discredit Kerry, [b]their [/b]hit on Barack Obama so far hasn't cost [b]them [/b]a dime.

The opening assault came over the weekend in the form of a mass email to would-be sympathizers. "As liberal as Kerry was, America faces an even more liberal threat today: Barack Obama," wrote John O'Neill, a founder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who co-authored the book "Unfit for Command," the attack (or [b]smear[/b]) on Kerry's Vietnam War record.

In the email, O'Neill promoted the new anti-Obama book just released by the conservative National Review Online political reporter David Freddoso, titled "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate." O'Neill exposes Obama as -- gasp! -- a liberal, and urged everyone on his email listserv to buy up the books in bulk.

But not everyone who received O'Neill's email was receptive.

In fact, one [b]Democratic lobbyist [/b]who found the email in his inbox over the weekend was so furious that he hit reply -- [b]cc'ing the Sleuth [/b]-- saying: "I am not your 'friend' so take me off your list you no good [expletive]."

That email probably never reached O'Neill, since it was sent to the email address "no-reply@HumanEventsOnline.com." Human Events, the hard-core conservative publication, is a sister company to Regnery Publishing, which published Freddoso's book as well as [b]O'Neill's hit job on Kerry [/b]in 2004.

Not to be outdone, [b]O'Neill's Swift Boat cohort, Jerome Corsi[/b], has his own new Obama attack book out called "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality." He showed up promoting the book last week in -- what else? -- a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity.

In his email to friends (and at least one foe), O'Neill said he was "privileged" to have played a role in the last presidential election "in helping prevent John Kerry from being elected president." Today, he said, "Democrats and the media are not holding Obama accountable, so conservatives must."

What's the smoking gun O'Neill and Co. have on Obama? He has the "#1 most liberal voting record in the Senate. And a politician whose rhetoric of 'change' does not match the reality of his corrupt, 'Chicago-machine politics' background," O'Neill writes.

Not exactly bombshell stuff, guys, considering those are already pat GOP talking points. We can't help but wonder if the [b]Swifties [/b]have lost a few knots over the past four years?

[1968Recondo]

I meant to say that "this isn't the first time [Akers'] has attacked the SBVT"

[1968Recondo]

A June blog by Washington Post reporter Mary Ann Akers who also blogs on washingtonpost.com as “The Sleuth” once again makes false claims, distorts information, and demonstrates a remarkable disinterest in or inability to grapple with the facts and details of the issue.

Her 6/26/2008 blog (“John Kerry's Showdown at the Swift Boat Corral”) claims, without any effort to examine or corroborate, that T. Boone Pickens “reneged” on his offer to award anyone $1 million if they could prove false any of the claims made in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) 2004 television ads. The Kerry team can claim whatever they want, and Akers can shill for them, put proving their claim is another thing altogether.

She also claims that the SBVT were “funded by Pickens and other wealthy conservatives,” but any modest research effort will reveal that the SBVT was initially funded by tens of thousands of small donations, many from veterans, that continued to flow in after Pickens and others funded the TV ads.

She also claims, “Pickens last year promised to give $1 million to anyone who could disprove any of the allegations leveled by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” but Pickens claims that the challenge applied to SBVT statements made in the TV ads he helped fund and there’s no evidence to dispute that.

She also claims that the Kerry supporters provided “mounds of military records” to support their counterclaims, but clicking on the “mounds of military records” link pulls up a previous blog (“John Kerry's Vietnam Crew Mates Still Fighting Swift Boating” June 20, 2008) and that then requires a subsequent click on the “pages and pages of Vietnam documents” link to discover that Akers has exaggerated what turns out to be only13 pages of previously released citations and one after-action report. The “additional evidence” link brings up a one-page statement by Kerry supporter and Swift Boat captain William Rood. Fourteen pages do not equal “mounds of military records” and to use the term “pages and pages” when an exact number is available is blatantly misleading. (Note: reporter Thomas Lipscomb indicates the Kerry team attached 42 pages to the letter; and though still not “mounds” doesn’t explain why Akers only linked about 14. Perhaps it’s because she really doesn’t know much about military records or maybe she doesn’t know how to count)

Akers apparently doesn’t have the ability or desire to actually investigate what she’s reporting on. I suspect it’s a combination of bias, ignorance, and laziness. She’s little more than another MSM supporter of the Kerry team.

She also doesn’t grasp that John Kerry’s no where to be seen in this “Showdown at the Swift Boat Corral,” as he is not one of the signatories to the letter. He’s hiding out in Washington and letting his proxies get dirty trying to resuscitate his honor. And, he doesn't want to meet the criteria laid out by Pickens and doesn't want to risk Theresa's money.

Mary Ann “The Sleuth” Akers can be reached at maryann.akers@washington post.com. No name-calling or profanity; let the pro-Kerry commenter’s have a monopoly on that.

*****************************
John Kerry's Showdown at the Swift Boat Corral
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/06/john_kerrys_showdown_at_the_sw.html
By Mary Ann Akers
Updated: 06/26/2008

The group of Swift boat veterans who served alongside Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in Vietnam are steaming mad at oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens for reneging on his $1 million offer.

Pickens, who helped fund the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that sought to destroy 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Kerry's Vietnam credentials, says he won't give a dime to Kerry's crewmates. They failed to prove his Swift boat ads wrong, Pickens says.

Pickens last year promised to give $1 million to anyone who could disprove any of the allegations leveled by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a 527 group funded by Pickens and other wealthy conservatives. But this week, responding to a lengthy letter and mounds of military records and other documents that Kerry's crewmates sent Pickens several days ago in an effort to disprove his group's smears and win a million bucks, Pickens said the deal is a no go.

The original offer, Pickens explained in a letter to Vietnam veteran Del Sandusky, who organized the crewmates' challenge to Pickens, was "to pay $1 million for information that would prove any of the ads -- which I helped fund -- inaccurate."

"In reviewing your material," Pickens concluded, "none of the information you provide speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads, and, as a result, does not qualify for the $1 million."
Cue scene of Kerry and crewmates with steam coming out of their ears.

They feel Pickens is playing a game of semantics. Sandusky, who now lives in Florida, told the Sleuth: "I guess now we know the 'T' in T Boone doesn't stand for 'truth.'" (For the record, the "T" in T. Boone stands for Thomas.)

"His response is slicker than an oil spill," Sandusky continued. "I really hoped we could've taken him at his word, but now he's become T. Boone Chicken and he's running away from his own bet. Mark my words: this isn't over. Where we come from, your word is your bond. We're Vietnam veterans all, and like we say, these colors don't run."

And for anyone who actually enjoys this never-ending soap opera, never fear: the show ain't over yet.
"Mr. Pickens hasn't heard the last from us," Sandusky vows. "We won't rest until he admits the truth that he bankrolled a big lie."

[1968Recondo]

Washington Post Reporter and washingtonpostpost.com blogger Mary Ann Akers, in 6/20/2008 blog (“John Kerry's Vietnam Crew Mates Still Fighting Swift Boating”) claims:

“The men who served with Kerry on Patrol Craft Fast 94 sent a 13-page letter to Pickens on Friday picking apart in excruciating detail the SBVT's claims that Kerry wasn't truly worthy of the Silver Star, Bronze Star and two purple hearts he was awarded for his service in Vietnam. The debunking letter includes a thorough defense of the Vietnamese enemy fighter who Kerry killed, an incident the Swift Boaters in 2004 described as a murder of an harmless young Viet Cong.”

Suspecting that Akers is again well outside her depth on this issue and simply cheerleading for the pro-Kerry effort, I took a look at the “13-page letter.”

At first glance, the letter appears to try to counter several statements made in the O’Neill-Corsi book, “Unfit for Command.” Apparently, Akers can’t grapple with Pickens’ claim that his challenge specified the TV ads he helped fund. She wants to reframe the challenge to suit her bias, and so do Kerry’s surrogates.

And now for what Akers claims is “picking apart in excruciating detail… debunking… a thorough defense of the Vietnamese enemy fighter… murder:”

First, to her ridiculous claim that that “the Swift Boaters in 2004 described as a murder of a harmless young Viet Cong” Kerry’s killing of a wounded and fleeing VC, I challenge her to show where the SBVT used the term “murder.” “Unfit for Command” states:

“Whether Kerry’s dispatching of a fleeing, wounded, armed, or unarmed, teenage enemy was in accordance with the customs of war, it is very clear that many Vietnam Veterans and most Swiftees do not consider this action to be the stuff of which medals of any kind are awarded...”

The so-called “debunking” and “picking apart” appears quite superficial to anyone who has read the background material (books and articles). So, I’m assuming Akers has not actually read any of that material. The Kerry team states:

“First falsehood. To begin with, your group chose to characterize the enemy fighter Kerry chased down and killed as “a young Viet Cong in a loincloth” (Unfit for Command, p. 82), a description obviously employed to conjure up images of a person too young or primitive to truly endanger Kerry, us, or our boats. This description is completely false. At least four of us—Medeiros; Reese; Sandusky; and Short – (not to mention Tom Belodeau and John Kerry) got good looks at this man with our own eyes. He was holding a loaded B-40 rocket launcher. He – or one of the other ambushers- had just fired on the 94 boat blowing out all the port side windows and as an armed enemy combatant he was capable of killing us all. We observed him to be a man of normal military age, some of us judging him to be in his late teens, others in his twenties. Additionally, we can assure you this man Kerry killed was absolutely not in a “loincloth” but rather was wearing the pajama type pants normally found on VC fighters. (Just for good measure, we note that PCF-23 skipper Bill Rood and his leading petty officer, Jerry Leads, also concur on this point of the VC fighter’s dress and maturity.)

As it turns out, this VC fighter was 26 or 27, according to a Vietnamese eyewitness who knew him and was located in 2004 by the ABC News program “Nightline.” Yet despite all this evidence, your group chose to perpetuate this myth of a “kid” in loin cloth in interviews and advertising, even after your group had been put on public notice on multiple occasions by eyewitnesses that your belittling description—originally lifted from an erroneous sentence in a 2003 newspaper account—was entirely false and incorrect. While we hope you would not question the truthfulness of four of us, or of Mr. Rood and Mr. Leeds, the fact is photographic evidence also exists and confirms our collective memory. Once the area had been secured and all action was over but prior to departing, the small 8mm camera carried aboard PCF-94 recorded scenes including a look down the trail on which the VC in question had fled and been shot. In this footage, the dead VC is plainly visible wearing black pants, lying on his back with his feet upright. His body lays head toward the hooch, with a wound on the side. Lieutenant Charles Gibson who was assigned to LTJG Kerry’s PCF-94 for indoctrination specifically remembers seeing the exit wound on the side of the VC as well as judging him to be a mature adult guerilla fighter in his late teens or early twenties. Mr. Gibson will confirm this today.

This entire overblown counterpoint revolves around whether the VC was a teenager and whether he was in a loincloth. And it’s based on a statement from the O’Neill book, not the TV ads. Except, the Kerry surrogates themselves describe the VC as being in his “late teens, others in his twenties.” That alone deflates their case. So, now we’re left with the loincloth as a really big issue. Here’s the problem: A 2003 series in the Boston Globe, before Kerry’s team had a chance to coordinate their stories, described it this way:

“Ambush in the Mekong Delta
This exhausting and harrowing week was only the beginning for Kerry. On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's boat received word that a swift boat was being ambushed. As Kerry raced to the scene, his boat became another target, as a Viet Cong B-40 rocket blast shattered a window. Kerry could have ordered his crew to hit the enemy and run. But the skipper had a more aggressive reaction in mind. Beach the boat, Kerry ordered, and the craft's bow was quickly rammed upon the shoreline. Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher.

An enemy was just feet away, holding a weapon with enough firepower to blow up the boat. Kerry's forward gunner, Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg. Then Belodeau's gun jammed, according to other crewmates (Belodeau died in 1997). Medeiros tried to fire at the Viet Cong, but he couldn't get a shot off.

In an interview, Kerry added a chilling detail.

"This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for ... I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had," Kerry recalled. "And Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."

Instead, the guerrilla got up and started running. "We've got to get him, make sure he doesn't get behind the hut, and then we're in trouble," Kerry recalled.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon." -- “Heroism, and growing concern about war” by Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 6/16/2003 (http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml)

The series was published in book form. You can read the John F. Kerry biography by Kranish et al online.

So now it’s apparent that the loin cloth issue originated with Kerry! And, the problem with Kerry is that he has spun so many tales, that he has trouble keeping track of them. O’Neill, if his description is inaccurate, can blame Kerry for the falsehood. But, O’Neill claims he vetted the loincloth with others who were at the scene.

The irony is that Sandusky et al, in attempting to “debunk” O’Neill, have not so cleverly accused reporter Kranish of misrepresentation and opened the door to the apparent fact that the source of the loincloth description was John F. Kerry. That’s quite stupid. But Akers gushes as what she sees as this “picking apart in excruciating detail.” Kranish is no Kerry foe (and mostly seemed sympathetic to Kerry); he bought Kerry’s phony Christmas in Cambodia story hook, line, and sinker (“John F. Kerry” by Kranish et al, pages 83-85)

The so-called “Second Falsehood” involves the question of the incapacitation of the wounded VC who Kerry “dispatched.” Sandusky et al take great offense that anyone would perceive the VC as in any way “significantly wounded” (whatever that means). According to the Kerry surrogates:

“[SBVT] claims one of our PCF-94 crewmen, Tom Belodeau, “shot the Viet Cong with an M-60 machine gun as he fled” (Unfit, p. 83), insinuating that the fleeing VC was already significantly incapacitated when Kerry killed him”

O’Neill actually states, “shot the Viet Cong with an M-60 machine gun IN THE LEG as he fled” and further states that “the VC who had been wounded by Belodeau fled.” And the very fawning Kerry [auto]biography by Douglas Brinkley states (page 291) “…Belodeau was manning the M-60 and managed to hit the fleeing foe in the leg.”

This is a thoroughly silly counterpoint in which the Kerry surrogates conjure up an “insinuation,” deceptively misquote O’Neill’s statement (which is essentially the same description provided by Kerry to Brinkley), and then posture much about the alleged nuance. The simple fact was that the VC was wounded, fleeing, and panicked (according to Brinkley’s [auto]biography of Kerry). And, Kerry killed him behind a hooch, away from everyone’s view.

We could go through the rest of these marginal counterpoints by the Kerry surrogates, but it’s clear that most of this is just obfuscation designed to simply try to get the last word in and get friendly press coverage. They’re only purpose is to put out a false story that Pickens has reneged on his challenge. And, Akers was the amiable (and predictably cooperative) tool for that deception.

And what does she mean by “a thorough defense of the Vietnamese enemy fighter?”

Oh, and by the way, Kerry and his surrogates persistently if ludicrously argued during the campaign and afterwards that the SBVT members (except for one) couldn’t be credible witnesses to Kerry’s actions because they didn’t serve on Kerry’s boat. Interesting that the Kerry team now brings forth a few Swift Vets who didn’t serve on Kerry’s boat as witnesses to his actions. Some would call it hypocrisy.

Mary Ann “The Sleuth” Akers can be reached at maryann.akers@washingtonpost.com. No name-calling or profanity; let the pro-Kerry commenters have a monopoly on that. It’s what they do best given their inability to deal with facts.

**********************
John Kerry's Vietnam Crew Mates Still Fighting Swift Boating
By Mary Ann Akers | June 20, 2008; 6:05 PM ET

Perhaps Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens is haunted by his role in the 2004 "swift boating" smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
The billionaire financier gave $3 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. But this year he has decided he won't finance any so-called 527 groups. In its story Friday about a "nonexistent" GOP third-party effort to tarnish Barack Obama, Politico reported that Pickens is among those who have decided not to open his wallet for any 2008 efforts similar to the '04 Swift Boaters.

"He is not giving anything to 527s involved in the presidential race this cycle, and has communicated that...to Republican strategists and operatives," Pickens spokesman, Jay Rosser, told Politico.

But Pickens could be out serious money if he follows through on his pledge to give a million bucks to anyone who can prove that any of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's assertions were wrong. Pickens made the pledge last November and Kerry personally accepted the challenge. And now, Kerry's crew mates are bellying up to take the Swift Boat challenge.

The men who served with Kerry on Patrol Craft Fast 94 sent a 13-page letter to Pickens on Friday picking apart in excruciating detail the SBVT's claims that Kerry wasn't truly worthy of the Silver Star, Bronze Star and two purple hearts he was awarded for his service in Vietnam. The debunking letter includes a thorough defense of the Vietnamese enemy fighter who Kerry killed, an incident the Swift Boaters in 2004 described as a murder of an harmless young Viet Cong.

"Mr. Pickens: the lies put forward by the SBVT are so plentiful and outrageous, from the significant to the trivial, that we would lose your attention going through all of them," the veterans write. "You've only challenged us to show one thing was false but this is important enough to all of us that we will do that and more so that you fully comprehend the nature of the people you've been dealing with and consequences of your support for them."

The letter was accompanied by pages and pages of Vietnam documents and other evidence to back up their defense, including a 2004 letter from the Naval inspector general asserting Senator Kerry's medals were properly awarded.

They conclude their letter by offering to travel to Texas to meet personally with Pickens and show him a Pentagon certified copy of Kerry's full military record. "We know the truth because we were there on the boat," write Kerry's crew mates. "We believe you will find this truth unavoidable and hope you will feel the right thing has been done in keeping your promise to write a check for one million dollars to anyone who can show anything SBVT said was false. We believe it would be appropriate for this money to go to the veteran's charity of our choice."
It's unclear why Kerry's crew mates are just now sending the letter, especially since there seems to be no danger of a Swift Boat sequel this presidential election year. Relieved as he may be that Pickens won't be participating in the destruction of this year's Democratic presidential nominee, Kerry is still clearly bitter.

"With the McCain campaign coasting on fumes, perhaps T. Boone Pickens has decided there's more money to be made in the oil business than there is to lose in the smears business," says Kerry's deputy chief of staff David Wade.

But stay tuned to see how Pickens responds to Kerry's crew mates' letter