SwiftVets.com

[SharpTalons]

Could someone explain the Silver Star fiasco?? Elliott defended Kerry during the 1996 Senate race, thus refuting allegations from a political rival that he shot an unarmed Vietnamese youth in the back? Am I on the right path? I have been reading so much "misinformation" that I am confused.

Also, hasn't John O'Neill taken the high road in terms of condemning Kerry for his act of self-defense??? Among the vets there is no real contention about him being awarded the Silver Star??? Aren't the self-appointed purple hearts, the real crux??
Any answers would be much appreciated.
THX.

[Beldar]

My obviously second-hand understanding is that Captain Elliott agreed to speak out at the request of Kerry's campaign in his 1996 senate re-election race in order to help refute allegations that Kerry was a war criminal. I don't believe that Captain Elliott issued a broad endorsement of Kerry's qualifications to be a senator, but rather spoke out only to defend Kerry against charges that Captain Elliott thought were unfair.

It was ironic, of course, for Captain Elliott to show the loyalty that Kerry himself had abandoned during his antiwar protests. The irony multiplies many times over, however, when you look at the national smear campaign the Kerry partisans have launched against Captain Elliott for his participation in the SwiftVets' efforts. No good deed goes unpunished, it appears.

There's nothing logically inconsistent with (a) denying that John Kerry was a war criminal and (b) thinking him unfit to be Commander in Chief.

I've very carefully studied Captain Elliott's two affidavits and the two Boston Globe stories relating to the so-called "retraction," and made what I think are fairly sound inferences (based on my 24 years of experience as a courtroom lawyer in dealing with affidavits and the cross-examination possibilities they present) about how Globe reporter Michael Kranish likely obtained his great scoop. The short version is that I think Kranish likely used some inartfully drafted language from Captain Elliott's first affidavit to rattle him into thinking (incorrectly) that he'd comitted perjury in appearing to claim personal knowledge of the combat events on which the Silver Star was based, then twisted violently out of context some of Captain Elliott's panicky responses to get the sensational "quotes" in the first Globe story. The long version of my inferences and the basis for them, with links to the affidavits and stories, appears in three posts I've written on my blog, here, here, and here.

I believe that the SwiftVets' arguments regarding Kerry's Silver Star don't depend at all on the angle from which Kerry shot the VC soldier, and Captain Elliott states in his second affidavit that whether the shot was in the back or not makes no difference to his opinions. I doubt that whether the VC soldier's rocket launcher was loaded and armed or not is particularly material either.

Rather, as I understand it, Captain Elliott is saying that when he recommended approval of Kerry's nomination for his Silver Star, he was basing that decision on a set of facts (obviously reported second-hand to him by others, since Captain Elliott wasn't present during the combat) which made Kerry appear to have placed himself at a considerably greater risk than the set of facts that have later been revealed (among other places, in that same Michael Kranish's 2004 book about Kerry, based on Kerry's retelling of the episode).

Note that on the subject of what information was available to him when he made his original recommendation (even if that information itself was necessarily second-hand), Captain Elliott is an entirely competent witness. He can't speak from first-hand experience as to what happened in the field, but he can speak, and has spoken (consistently, I believe) about what happened during the nomination and award process, as part of which he made a judgment call.

His present opinion -- that he would not have recommended Kerry at the time, had he known then what he now knows from sources like Kranish's book -- can be attacked as being somewhat speculative, like any "what would you have done differently if you'd known" statement of opinion. Nevertheless, he's in a better position to give an opinion on that subject than anyone else (i.e., in a better position to second-guess what might have gone on differently inside his own decision-making process).

I do not understand Captain Elliott or anyone connected with the SwiftVets to be claiming that Kerry's actions, even in the light of the additional information and details they're now focusing on, constituted a war crime or cowardice. Presumably, Captain Elliott would still defend Kerry against any such charges, as he did in 1996. The point, rather, is that in the context of the fuller set of circumstances of which he's now aware, Captain Elliott would evaluate what Kerry did as simply doing his duty.

To put in as succinctly as I can, Captain Elliott now understands (but did not understand until recently) that the crux of Kerry's conduct was to pursue and dispatch a single, wounded, fleeing VC soldier -- an act that was altogether appropriate, but not at all extraordinary, and certainly not such an extraordinary display of courage and valor as to merit a Silver Star.

Final disclaimer: I don't speak for Captain Elliott or the SwiftVets, and have zero military experience myself. I'm just relating my own second-hand understanding from having followed this controversy as closely as I can from the outside.

[ASPB]

I've been studying this for six months and that's as good a written rebuttal on the topic as I've seen. BZ!
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB