SwiftVets.com

[Mary]

I was recently referred to (a) NY Times link for information about discrepancies in the facts. The person also was trying to explain to me that I was mistaken to think that O'Neill is not connected with the Republican party, although I think that's of less relevance to me than whether O'Neill's facts are correct. Anyway, could someone explain the discrepancies in the records at the bottom of the chart? I thought I remembered them being addressed in the book and in O'Neill's comments on tv, but now that I look at them again, I'm not sure and I can't just write O'Neill and ask him to clarify, so I can only write you guys for info, as far as I know.

Also I notice a number of articles in the NY Times online but I haven't read any of them yet. Therefore it appears there may be other information refuting claims made by swiftboat veterans, but I can't ask about those till I find or pay for the articles to ask you about them. The most important thing to me is understanding the truth. I don't believe either side when they shoot the messenger complaining about who funded what. I only care about the truth. I think O'Neill has done the best job of trying to not use Cold War mentality rhetoric, although he lapsed into it some in the second half of his book. The important thing to those of us who are not conservatives is the fact side and whether Kerry lied or whether he's just being smeared. I'd like to be sure what the truth is about this. And does anyone know what Kerry's campaign's reason is for not releasing this Form 180 that swift vets keep bringing up? I notice that in a faq somewhere, the vets answered the question of the fact they don't release their own Form 180 because they aren't running for president. What is usually the reason someone doesn't want to release this? I am not asking for a hatchet job answer, just the real, usual reason people don't want it released, including your own people.

Admin note: Lengthy URL converted to hypertext

[rb325th]

All those Items at the bottom of the chart have been adressed.
The "Bronze Star" block where they claim the presence of bullet holes is false. Those were from the previous days actions. The fact that Kerry sped upriver away from the scene took him well out of the area where supposed enemey fire was taking place is conveniently left out. As well as the fact that by the time he returned no one was shooting as they were involved in the rescue efforts and one boat was on its way to grab Rassman when Kerry finnaly returned.
Dr. Letson did not sign Kerrys Medical Report for the splinter as from what I understand that was not his SOP for minor injuries. (I can go back through my Medical File and find very few treatment records signed off by Officers, even though they provided the care, usually they signed off on Refferals or Duty Restrictions). The fact he was turned down initially for the Purple Heart is also conveniently left out, as well as the fact (supported by Kerrys writings and Campaign) that it was not the result of enemey fire (a key point in authorising the Purple Heart)
Mr. Elliot relied heacily on After Avtion Reports from his Officers in evaluating their Performance. John Kerry filed those AARs himself, it wasn't until later when Mr. Elliot realised the scope and extent of JFnKs exxagerations and lies.
_________________
U.S. Army 1983-1995, 11C1P/11H2P NBTDT

[Mary]

Thanks for the reply!

The bullet holes mentioned in the chart are not referring to Kerry's boat. You're talking about something from Kerry's own boat.

I do recall the bit about Letson and standard operating procedure, although the Times seems to try to make that explanation questionable. It might be helpful if an official Navy source had been cited by O'Neill on that point -- citing was essential to his book's being believed, and it was very good that he did as much citing as he did do, I must say. Still there are points he didn't source or cite that do need it.

As for the statements of Elliott and Lonsdale in 1996 and especially Hoffman in 2003, I think there should be statements by these officers explaining their previous favorable pro-Kerry statements somewhere and showing why they no longer think what they thought then. I suppose the fact they're in the advertisements does imply they disagree with Kerry now. I think O'Neill perhaps has explained all three statements somewhere. I suppose that leaves just the three bullet holes in the other boat as the main thing not explained -- unless the "three bullet holes" are erroneously referring to a different boat when they mean damage done to Kerry's own boat the day before?

If I find the full articles from the NY Times I've found titles of online and see more questions, I'll ask them later. I want to understand the truth on this matter; I can't cite O'Neill's points to anyone if I can't answer references people make to things like that chart. The first thing people do is start saying the veterans quoted have no credibility because they have an agenda as Republican attack dogs and point to the fact that Kerry's own crew supports him, particularly Rassman, so it's really hard for me to even mention to people that some of the info in the first part of that book is of concern to me since they don't believe the info credible. Part of the reason people don't take some of the info seriously is Cold War hysteria conservative rhetoric about Kerry being "unAmerican" that people see first when they go to some of these websites; that tends to undermine the credibility of any facts given. I tend to think O'Neill most of the time avoids that although he too indulged in some of that sort of bashing of antiwar activists in the second part of his book instead of focusing strictly on the lying he believes Kerry has done. The second half of the book is persuasive to me only in the bits pointing out that he felt Kerry made up claims of "war crimes," though he didn't go enough into the crimes or bad leadership he said Kerry occasionally accused specific officers of at times, which would have been interesting to see addressed in more detail and shown to be false if it was.

[rb325th]

I have to say, if you are looking to the New York Times for reliable and accurate information you are looking in the wrong place. Of al the blatantly biased papers out there, they reign supreme in their bias.
All the things you have asked have been discussed in great detail here and in "Unfit For Command", something I highly doubt the Times Reporters have bothered to read.
As a matter of fact I doubt they have looked into Kerrys own accountings of his time in Vietnam as they are full of contradictions.
The people who have changed their stand on Kerry have explained fully their reasons, again the Times does not report that. Why? The answer to that question is the answer to why their reporting conflicts so heavily with the SBVTs accounting of events.
Look through the Research Forum here, use the search function and you will find numerousanswers to the questions you have posed.
_________________
U.S. Army 1983-1995, 11C1P/11H2P NBTDT

[Mary]

I have read Unfit for Command and that book is what I've been discussing with friends who are not interested in reading it because they see articles like I've mentioned and the sorts of shrill rhetoric on some of the Swift Vet websites that doesn't come across as talking about credible journalism, and that undercuts the ability of O'Neill's book to be bought by some folks and taken seriously, and more just causes it to be preaching to the choir of conservatives who already dislike Kerry anyway.

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask for someone to cite the answer. That's what the message board is for -- to hopefully answer questions that those making up their minds ask, rather than tell them to go conduct a study of their own as a way to convince them. If you personally don't have time to answer a question, you don't need to do so, but telling me to hunt around for the answer in the message board is not answering the question. Someone who knows the answer or which thread it's in or who wants to link me to a post or whatever, could answer me if they like sometime -- some people are probably huge fans of this site and know where details may be found.

I'm aware that some of this rings a bell but I don't recall any officer fully explaining in the book their reasons for disagreeing with Kerry -- O'Neill sometimes just referred to having heard them tell him this without giving a quote. Did do this full explaining in tv interviews? For instance, when I was looking in that research thread with all the full transcripts, is that where some of the officers I'm referring to from the chart (Elliott, Hoffman, and Lonsdale) fully explained their reasons? I do believe you're right that perhaps they did do this somewhere and I just wanted to answer someone who is unconvinced the book is worth reading.

As for saying the Times is biased, it's certainly not as biased as some other sources I've looked at. O'Neill didn't help his case by using a noted rightwing publisher instead of a publisher without political affliations, and most of the media support he gets is from extremely right wing publications (like brookesnews.com) and folks like Rush Limbaugh. That doesn't stop me from listening to O'Neill and being interested in what he's said, but I think both sides are trying to shoot the messenger -- you are decrying the "bias" of the NY Times and they decry the bias of O'Neill's law firm, etc. (Same type of name-calling rationale was used in a shrill defense I read at http://www.brookesnews.com/johnkerry-veterans.html instead of just refuting any mistakes with facts and logic). All I care about is the facts, not someone's perceptions of who is "biased." O'Neill does not strike me as someone afraid to defend his points or who would indulge in name-calling about the NY Times as a way to defend himself. All that I'm trying to do is get information to refute their statements, rather than read trashings (a la brookesnews.com) as a response to a question because that isn't going to help me answer the people I've been conversing with.

The important thing to all this is being able to defend the information provided and where O'Neill didn't cite a source, there is a legitimate question at times, although I believe he probably could plug any holes and get the appropriate citation source if asked because he's a very good researcher and debater and has been his whole life.

Thanks for having addressed my question though.

[rb325th]

Mary, I am a simple moderator her, volunteering my time to assist in keeping the Forums running smoothly. I am not a research assistant, nor are any of the other Moderators or Admins here. (I have a life to maintain also)
If you truely want to know the answers you will try and do a little work on your on.
I am not trying to be rude here, just pointing out the facts of life here on this board.
_________________
U.S. Army 1983-1995, 11C1P/11H2P NBTDT

[Mary]

You don't need to personally answer all the questions yourself, but even if you don't have time to, there may be someone around here who has the answers and doesn't mind answering me, so please don't mind my questions. The moderators aren't the only people I'm addressing. I've done some work myself by reading the book. The fans of the book and this message board may know some of the answers to my questions and may occasionally be able to point me to answers. I appreciate it that you answered what you knew off the top of your head and that you don't have time to hunt for other info; your answering at all was of course helpful.

[Me#1You#10]

Mary...

As you appear to be genuinely interested in your pursuit of these issues, a suggestion, if I might.

Long posts, while sometimes appropriate, can occasionally make productive dialogue difficult. Each of your posts raises several questions and, thus, invites several answers in response. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if you would limit your posts to a single specific question as it will enhance this forums ability to tailor specific responses.

Thanks

[Mary]

If someone wants to answer in several replies, that's up to them. I am writing the way I write. If you don't like my writing style, I'm sorry, but I am simply asking questions, not seeking a grade on a term paper.

If you want me to write a separate message for each question or to number each question, that can be done but I'd rather people just reply with answers using whatever writing style they like and not worry about my writing style either.

[Me#1You#10]

[Mary]

I will try in future messages to separate the points better so that it's easier to answer questions and I'll try to learn how to make an html link one that's shortened using your URL code or whatever way is the right way.

Ok, the moderator has begun a new "Bo Hap Questions?" thread for me separating out my two questions, so I'll address this there in the new thread in the future.