Forums dot lukpac.org

More here:

http://www.swiftvets.com/

Anti-Kerry veterans group releases critical ad
Bush campaign distances itself from commercial


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A veterans group that has been sharply critical of Sen. John Kerry launched an ad Thursday that accuses the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his Vietnam war record.

"John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," former Lt. Shelton White, one of the veterans, says in the ad.

Kerry's campaign quickly pointed out that not one of the men featured in the commercial served in the two patrol boats Kerry commanded in Vietnam and that some of them had previously been quoted as praising Kerry.

Kerry's campaign also released material noting that the group has gotten some financial backing from Bob Perry, a homebuilder in Houston, Texas, who is a contributor to the Republican Party. (Texan, GOP donor helps finance anti-Kerry veterans group)

President Bush's re-election campaign distanced itself from the ad. Campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the president's re-election effort "has never and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam. The election will be about the future."

And, in an interview with The Associated Press, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- a former prisoner of war in Vietnam -- denounced the ad as "dishonest and dishonorable."(McCain condemns anti-Kerry ad)

McCain told the AP the ad was "the same kind of deal they pulled on me" during his 2000 presidential race, when the Arizona lawmaker ran against Bush in the Republican presidential primaries.

At the time, McCain's backers accused Bush allies of using telephone surveys to spread rumors about McCain. The Bush campaign said it knew nothing about the tactics and couldn't do anything about them.

In response to McCain's criticism, the veterans group released a statement saying it had "the right to be heard" and asserting the veterans knew Kerry better than McCain.

The ad comes from a group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It comprises more than 220 veterans from the naval units in which Kerry served in 1968-69.

Kerry led a pair of high-speed, 50-foot crafts, known as swift boats, that patrolled the Mekong Delta to disrupt Viet Cong supply lines.

In the commercial, former sailors accuse Kerry of lying to receive two of his combat decorations, a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star, and criticize his anti-war activism after he returned home from Vietnam.

Kerry also received a Silver Star for valor in combat and two other Purple Hearts during his service on the swift boats in Vietnam.

Larry Thurlow, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who appears in the ad, told CNN that Kerry's boat fled from a mine blast that damaged another vessel in a March 1969 incident for which Kerry won the Bronze Star.

"Our boats immediately put automatic weapons fire onto the left bank in case there was an ambush in conjunction with the mine," said Thurlow, a Navy officer in a nearby boat at the time. "It soon became apparent there was no ambush."

But Jim Rassman, the man whose rescue from the water in that incident resulted in Kerry being decorated, said Thurlow "has a very unusual recollection of events."

"I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air," said Rassman, who has campaigned for Kerry since January.

The Navy's own letter awarding Kerry the Bronze Star also appears to be at odds with what the anti-Kerry group asserts.

The letter states Kerry exhibited "great personal courage under fire" in rescuing Rassman, an Army Green Beret officer who recommended Kerry for the decoration.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is registered as an independent "527" committee, named for the section of the federal tax code under which similar groups are organized. Its contributors include several major Republican donors.

Kerry, now a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, has made his Vietnam record a major theme of his presidential campaign.

At a Washington conference of minority journalists Thursday, he said the country needs a president "who understands the test before you send young people to war."

When Kerry accepted the Democrats' presidential nomination last week, 14 of his former crewmates appeared on stage with him, and Rassman spoke of how Kerry had saved his life in Vietnam.

In Columbus, Ohio, where the president was traveling Thursday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan cast the commercial as a product of "unregulated soft money activity."

"We will not and have not questioned Sen. Kerry's service record in Vietnam," he said. "This is another example of the problem of unregulated soft money."

The president, he said, "thought he got rid of all of this when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill [regulating campaign financing] into law," adding, "This should all be stopped. It does nothing to elevate the discourse."

The Bush press secretary said he "hopes the Kerry campaign will join us in calling for an end to all unregulated ads."

Asked whether the campaign will demand the ad be pulled from the air, he said, "We are calling for a cessation of all unregulated ads and hope the Kerry campaign will join us."

CNN's Jill Dougherty contributed to this report.

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report.

The book seeks to undermine one of the central claims of Kerry's campaign -- that his Vietnam War heroism would make him a good commander in chief.

While the Regnery Publishing yesterday declined to release an advance copy of the book, Drudge's website quotes it as saying, ''Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."

Meanwhile, a television advertising campaign began yesterday featuring many of the anti-Kerry veterans who are quoted in the book, including Elliott. In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book.

It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement.

Kerry won the Silver Star for his action on Feb. 28, 1969, in which he shot a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher and running toward a hut. All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star.

In an interview for a seven-part biographical series that appeared in the Globe last year, Kerry said: ''I don't have a second's question" about killing the Viet Cong. ''He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it."

Asked whether that meant that he had shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, ''No, absolutely not," adding that the enemy had been running to a hut for cover, where he could have destroyed Kerry's boat and killed the crew.

The forthcoming book is coauthored by Jerome R. Corsi and John O'Neill, a former Vietnam naval officer who in 1971 debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, challenging Kerry's assertion that US atrocities had been widespread in Vietnam. O'Neill met with then-President Richard M. Nixon for an hour before debating Kerry, and his efforts were encouraged by Nixon's aides.

O'Neill could not be reached for comment yesterday. President Bush's campaign denied working with O'Neill on the book or with the producers of the television advertisement.

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, urged Bush yesterday to disassociate himself from what he called a ''dishonest and dishonorable" attack. In response, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, ''We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Houston home-builder Bob J. Perry, a major Republican donor, gave at least $100,000 to the organization sponsoring the ad, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The Kerry campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, said none of those in the ad had served on a boat with Kerry. ''Some of these men defended John Kerry's honor on his military record in 1996 and so they were either lying then or lying now," Meehan said. ''Either way, it is gutter politics."

The book also raises questions about the action of March 13, 1969, for which Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart, according to an advance chapter of the book.

The anti-Kerry group provided three affidavits from veterans on nearby boats questioning aspects of the award.

On that day, Kerry rescued James Rassmann, who went overboard as a result of an explosion. Rassmann appeared by Kerry's side during the Iowa caucus campaign and at last week's Democratic National Convention, telling the story of how Kerry pulled him out of the water while his boat was under fire.

As in the case of the Silver Star, it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Bronze Star. According to the recommendation signed by Elliott, a mine exploded under a boat accompanying Kerry's craft.

''Almost simultaneously, another mine detonated close aboard [Kerry's] PCF-94, knocking First Lieutenant Rassman [sic] into the water and wounding Lt. JG Kerry in the right arm."

Elliott then described how Kerry ''managed to pull Lt. Rassman aboard despite the painful wound in his right arm." Elliott concluded that Kerry had been ''calm, professional, and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire."

Elliott, in the interview yesterday, said that based on the affidavits of the veterans on other boats, he now thinks his assessment about the Bronze Star and third Purple Heart may have been based on poor information.

In one affidavit, for example, Van O'Dell, who said he had been in a boat near Kerry on that day, declared that Kerry had ''lied" about what happened on that day and said that Rassmann was not under enemy fire when Kerry pulled him aboard.

Elliott, asked about the contradiction between his recommendation and his new questioning of Kerry's third Purple Heart, responded, ''It makes me look kind of silly, to be perfectly honest."

But he said: ''I simply have no reason for these guys to be lying, and if they are lying in concert, it is one hell of a conspiracy. So, on the basis of all of the information that has come out, I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand."

Naval documents said that Kerry ''received shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm when a mine detonated close to PCF 94 while engaged in operations on river. Condition and prognosis excellent. Result of hostile action."

Rassmann, reached by telephone yesterday, said he has never had any question that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart. He said there were two separate events: One was earlier in the day, when he and Kerry blew up a rice cache, and the explosion caused some of the rice to hit Kerry, and perhaps some weapon fragments as well. The second involved a mine explosion as Kerry and Rassmann were on patrol. The explosion, Rassmann said, knocked him overboard and threw Kerry against the pilot house, injuring his arm.

Rassmann said that he has always believed that Kerry got the third Purple Heart solely for the injury to his arm as a result of the explosion in the water.

''If he got fragments in the buttocks due to the mine, that is new information to me," Rassmann said.

''I would say there is confusion. Maybe they did lump it together. It was my understanding he got it for the wound being thrown across the pilot house."

Either way, Rassmann said, Kerry deserved the third Purple Heart because such awards are given for injuries incurred in combat, and Kerry's arm injury qualified. He also stood by his recollection that he was under fire when rescued by Kerry.

Those questioning Kerry's medals, Rassmann said, are ''angry about John speaking out against the [Vietnam] war."

And:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050007

Ryan

I just came across this little op-ed piece. There are plenty of valid points, but of course there are plenty of complaints about Bush that don't pop up at all. And the whole bit about "Democrats are wrong since it's been shown that Bush didn't 'lie'" is a joke.

Of course, I think for a big chunk of people it comes down to "he seems like a good guy."

Why Kerry Will Lose The Election
VIEW FROM THE RIGHT
- Adam Sparks, Special to SF Gate
Monday, August 9, 2004

John Kerry will lose this election, and he will do so decisively. The defeat will go down as perhaps the only thing this candidate has ever done decisively.

We've just seen a four-day infomercial called the Democratic National Convention, where everyone put on his or her smiley face; Democrats were having a love fest. It was a sea change from their previous campaigning: For starters, they wouldn't even directly criticize the president -- all that vile Bush bashing of the last few months turned into gentle speeches with nary a mention of him. Secondly, the vehemently pacifist and rabidly anti-war party did a 180 degree turn around and created the most militaristic show since Eisenhower landed in Europe.

Kerry, saying he's "reporting for duty," greeted Americans in the most macho, Republican kind of way with a crisp salute. Then Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans, who, like him, served on the U.S. Navy's "swift boat" patrol craft, swarmed the podium. Finally, Kerry's war-hero service was retold to make sure Americans know he's really fit for service as commander in chief.

Yet the casual observer could see through the cracks in the veneer. That tired old huckster, the Rev. Al Sharpton, of Tawana Brawley hoax fame, was given a prime-time speaking spot in which to share his insight. He was a tough act to follow, but radical propagandist filmmaker and all-around hate monger Michael Moore, seated beside former President Jimmy Carter, was given the place of honor.

Not Much Bounce

Let's be serious; the convention was a grand flop. Following the event, polls were all over the place: Some showed no postconvention increase for Kerry at all, and others had a bounce so small it was within the margin of error. But the most seriously devastating of all them all was the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. In that survey of likely voters, President Bush led Kerry 50 percent to 46 percent. Ouch -- that's gotta hurt. A Newsweek survey did show some good news for Kerry, who picked up a few points in that vote. The bad news? It was the most dreadful showing of any postconvention bounce in the decades since the newsmagazine began measuring such shifts.

The Associated Press reported that its analysts say Bush is leading in electoral votes today. The weeks following the convention should be the high point of any candidate's campaign, so that's another sad marker.

Liberal New York Times syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd said it best: Kerry's nautical theme made the convention look like a goofy scene from "Gilligan's Island." You know you've got problems when you can't shore up the Left.

A Convoluted Message

This was Kerry's moment in the sun to introduce himself to Americans and talk about issues. Yet it was quite difficult among all his rhetoric to figure out what he was for or against, or what he would do differently. If he has not defined himself by now to the American people, any new self-definitions revealed as Election Day nears will be a day late and a dollar short.

During the primary campaign, Kerry joined running mate John Edwards in opposing Iraq liberation. They were both influenced by the Deaniacs, or, more accurately, former presidential contender Howard Dean's formidable fund raising and momentum, which he earned primarily by declaring how much he just hated the liberation of Iraq. The fact that both of the "me-too"s, Edwards and Kerry, voted for military intervention in Iraq was a minor detail to be papered over: They were misled. But do we really want folks in the White House who are so easily duped?

Kerry has clearly indicated he was always against the war, but that was after his vote in favor of the war, but not for war funding, which should not be understood as support, and in any case he would have done it much differently. His concern is now a lack of any real coalition and U.N. support, but when the United States had the backing of the United Nations and a real international presence in Desert Storm after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Kerry voted against that intervention. That information should clear it up for all those undecided voters who really wanted to know.

On abortion, he's about the same: He's voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, but he has recently declared his belief that life begins at conception. That pronouncement should get everyone on both sides of the issue to vote for him. At least we all know he's a man of his convictions, and not just poll driven, like those other big-haired, arrogant-looking politicians. Bush once characterized Kerry's popularity by saying, in effect, of course he's popular, adding, "He's been on every side of every issue." Kerry has no cohesive message.

A Confusing Vietnam Record

Kerry has been using his "hero" status as one of his finest achievements. But, as with much of what he does, he sends mixed messages. He proudly brings out his handful of Vietnam veterans and recalls his heroics, but, earlier, he testified before Congress and wrote in his book, "Tour of Duty," that he committed war crimes, and so did most of his comrades.

On swift-boat missions in Vietnam, Kerry wrote, "we established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets.

"We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those swift boats that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams," he added. "He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

Pity the poor guy who has to reach back 35 years to show America just how great he is. And he does so very selectively: There's no mention of all his medal ribbons tossed with contempt over the White House fence for the same war he now fondly remembers. He brought a cast of sailors out with him on the convention podium and keeps a contingent with him at all times while campaigning, either to show Americans just how patriotic he is or to remind us incessantly that he served a grueling four months in Vietnam. For whatever reason, it's pathetic. The peaceniks know all about his antiwar theatrics; he needn't highlight those attributes. He's now going after the swing voter who respects America military strength and may have or have had family members in the service. In Kerry's world, you really can be all things to all people.

Forget the showboating -- no pun intended -- let's look at the record. Kerry received three Purple Hearts, and, after four months of duty, he requested permission to get the heck out of there. However, retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who ran the swift-boat campaign in Vietnam and now leads a group of fellow officers calling themselves the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, countered Kerry, saying, "I do not believe that John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command.

"Only one of his 23 fellow officers in charge from Coastal Division 11 supports John Kerry," he added. "Overall, more than 250 swift-boat veterans are on the record questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as commander in chief. That list includes his entire chain of command -- every single officer Kerry served under in Vietnam. The Kerry game plan is to ignore all this and pretend that the 13 veterans his campaign jets around the country and puts up in five-star hotels really represent the truth about his short, controversial combat tour."

You needn't go back 35 years to Vietnam to see what Kerry's all about. Just check out his voting record in the Senate, where he's been for the past 19 years. Can you name one piece of legislation he carried? Don't worry; neither can anyone else.

As Bush said following the convention, "After 19 years in the United States Senate, my opponent has had thousands of votes, but very few signature achievements." That's not leadership. Where's his big health-care initiatives, or his education or environmental improvement? Talk is cheap. What has he done that's so memorable, besides marry two extremely rich women?

Making Health Care Safe for Trial Lawyers

A centerpiece of Kerry's campaign is to make access to drugs and medicine affordable, but, when you hear the word affordable, hold on to your wallets. It means a health-care system that will rely on billions of dollars of tax increases to prop up. But, taking a page from John Edwards' "two Americas," as far as Kerry's concerned, only the rich should pay the taxes. But don't relax yet; "the rich" includes anyone with a job. Increasing taxes for just the wealthiest 1 percent, or even the richest 10 percent, will not pay for a singe-payer health-care system, which would cost several trillion dollars annually and would federalize one-fifth of the economy.

Edwards has a lot of experience in the health-care industry. He became one of the nation's richest trial lawyers by winning record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that botched treatment of women in labor caused infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor-function impairment and lifelong disability. In these trials, Edward would often rely on junk science before North Carolina juries, claiming that a doctor's momentary hesitation in deciding whether to perform a cesarean section on a mother caused the brain damage. Edwards sometimes channeled a child's thoughts in the courtroom, saying, in the case of a fetus about to be born, "I'm having problems. I need out." This would be touching showmanship for the Psychic Friends Network, but not for the White House.

The real damage was not to babies such as that one, but to taxpayers, who now have to foot the bill in higher medical costs due to increased premiums or who find that, because of prohibitively expensive malpractice insurance, there are now far fewer practicing obstetricians. To add insult to injury, we have to suffer through Edwards, one of the richest senators, lecturing us on how there are two Americas, and "ain't that a darn shame?" Just what America needs -- a trial lawyer just a heartbeat away from the White House.

History on Bush's Side

No war president has ever lost an election in the United States, and it's unlikely this will be the case now. Until recently, the Democrats uttered a great deal of rhetorical propaganda about their contention that Bush "lied" about the war of liberation in Iraq: He lied about intelligence; he lied about WMDs. He lied, lied, lied. Everyone from the head of the Democratic Party to Michael Moore has delivered this mantra for the last three years.

Now that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has come out with its final report, which vindicated the president, you don't hear that much about lies anymore. The report says there were no lies. Bad intelligence, yes; lies, no. Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done, as Bush's "lies" have now become an urban legend, ingrained in the minds of many.

The 9/11 Commission's report, which involved the investigation and review of tens of thousands of pages of secret documents and interviews of hundreds of key witnesses, found not a single lie.

Now that Kerry can't rely on Bush as liar, he will need to come up with a novel new game plan. It'll be hard, but maybe he could have Edwards channel the baby Jesus telling people whom to vote for. Short of that, nothing will work.

Adam Sparks is a Bay Area writer. He can be reached at adamstyle@aol.com.

Kerry has clearly indicated he was always against the war, but that was after his vote in favor of the war, but not for war funding, which should not be understood as support, and in any case he would have done it much differently...On abortion, he's about the same: He's voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, but he has recently declared his belief that life begins at conception. That pronouncement should get everyone on both sides of the issue to vote for him...Bush once characterized Kerry's popularity by saying, in effect, of course he's popular, adding, "He's been on every side of every issue."
- Adam Sparks

Sounds like Kerry is a masterful politician to me...and Bush sounds jealous. Explain to me again why Kerry "will lose this election, and he will do so decisively"?

I started believing that Kerry was going to win when he got the endorsement of the UAW (without losing the endorsement of the environmentalists). That amazed me, considering that only 3 years ago the UAW despised him for the CAFE bill he co-sponsored. This guy has the ability to tell people anything they want to hear and have them believe it.

If "decisively" means by a large margin, then saying Bush will win decisively is just plain foolish. Whoever wins, it is going to be by a fairly small margin of the popular vote, probably 3-5 %. The polls seem to be consistently showing that both Bush and Kerry have a pretty firm 47% or so of the voters locked up, and these people are not going to change their minds. The electorate is more polarized than it's been in quite some time. The election will be decided by the remaining 6 or so percent that is still undecided. And at this point, anyone who is still undecided is probably not very politically-minded, and is probably going to make their decision based largely on arbitrary or superficial things, like charisma or whatever TV commercials they see shortly before the election. I predict the debates will have a large impact. At any rate, I wonder how this writer will explain away the fact that Bush will also have a very small-to-nonexistent post-convention bounce in the polls?

Republicans' Dishonorable Charge
Now even John McCain has condemned the Swift Boat Veterans' outrageous attack on John Kerry's Vietnam record.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

Aug. 6, 2004 | "Dishonest and dishonorable" is how John McCain described the attack ad now appearing on television in several swing states, courtesy of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Dishonest because the men who appear in the ad make false claims about John Kerry's wartime conduct and decorations. Dishonorable because these men have waited three decades to publicize their slurs, with partisan motives, during a presidential campaign.

With his passionate denunciation of the swift boat commercial and its sponsors, McCain again displayed the dignity and self-respect that once elevated him above other politicians. Calling on President Bush to repudiate the ugly anti-Kerry ad, McCain took a step back from his awkward embrace of the Republican ticket last month. "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt," he told reporters, while acknowledging that he didn't know whether Bush strategists were involved.

The response of the Bush spokesmen was bland but telling. They saw no reason to disavow or endorse the swift boat ads. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that the president has never questioned Sen. Kerry's military service (as if he is in any position to do so). Although he suggested that all the "unregulated soft money" advertising should cease, he pointedly refused to condemn the swift boat ad. "The Bush-Cheney campaign has never and will never question John Kerry's service during Vietnam," echoed campaign press secretary Steve Schmidt.

When the White House and the Bush-Cheney campaign declined to follow his lead, the Arizona senator could hardly have been surprised. Nobody who understands American politics as well as McCain has any illusions about the game that the Republicans are playing here. It is a strategy that dates back to the racially inflammatory Willie Horton ad aired by an "independent" group in 1988, and that was used against McCain himself in 2000 when another "independent" group aired ads against him during the Republican primaries.

The Republican orientation of the Swift Boat Veterans organization is transparently obvious, despite the inclination of some journalists to pretend otherwise. From stern to bow, they're strictly GOP.

As previously noted in this space, the group was organized last spring with the assistance of Merrie Spaeth, a Republican public relations executive from Houston whose late husband, Tex Lezar, ran for Texas lieutenant governor on George W. Bush's ticket in 1994.

Its guiding spirit is John E. O'Neill, a partner in Lezar's law firm and an early protégé of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson. (O'Neill's latest contribution to the cause is a book titled "Unfit for Command," selling fast thanks to promotion by the Drudge Report.) Its Web site was put up courtesy of William Franke, a St. Louis businessman with longstanding ties to Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Missouri Republican Party. Its chief financiers, according to the group's last quarterly IRS filing, are Houston builder Bob J. Perry and the Crow family, both major Republican donors from Texas.

Last November, the Dallas Morning News profiled the mysterious Perry. During the past four years, he has given more than $5 million to candidates and causes, nearly all of them Republican and extremely conservative. The article didn't say whether Perry himself ever served in the military. The Crow family, a clan of megadevelopers based in Dallas, are close Bush friends as well as generous backers. Harlan Crow is also a trustee of the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation.

In short, the financial supporters of the Swift Boat Vets are not exactly strangers to George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Among the other leaders featured on the Swift Boat Vets' site are Alvin A. "Andy" Horne; Weymouth D. Symmes, also listed as the group's contact on its IRS filings; and Bill Lannom. Horne is a former Houston prosecutor who was once short-listed by former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, for an appointment as U.S. attorney. Symmes is a retired banker from Missoula, Mont., who along with his wife has donated more than $5,000 to Republican candidates and committees since 2000 (including $1,000 to Bush-Cheney 2004).

Lannom works for Iowa athletic-wear company owned by his staunchly Republican family. As his mother once explained to a local historian, "We've all been active, all my sons have been active in politics." She charmingly recalled that the Lannoms' antagonism toward Democrats dates all the way back to FDR.

The hired help employed by the Swift Vets committee is thoroughly partisan, too. Aside from Spaeth and Thomas Rupprath, the private detective she recommended to provide research services, the group's IRS filing names several experienced Washington political operatives. The June 30 filing shows payments to Robert A. Hahn, a right-wing Internet activist and Web designer who also runs something called the Free Republic Network (apparently an affiliate of the extremist Free Republic Web site); and to Tom Wyld, a Navy veteran and former director of public relations for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association.

The White House has deniability, to be sure, if charged with complicity in this campaign. The question is whether its deniability is plausible -- or risible.

As for the accuracy of the Republican veterans' accusations, they can be tested against the testimony of the men who served under Kerry's command -- all of whom but one have repeatedly endorsed his courage, his decency, and his candidacy. Denigration of Kerry's record should also be measured against the sterling evaluations that he received during the actual time of his service, including by Adm. Roy Hoffman, who now chairs the Swift Boat Veterans group.

No doubt the Republicans hope that attacking Kerry will distract from important issues they would prefer not to discuss or debate. But their campaign is backfiring, as drawing fresh attention to Vietnam does not flatter the candidate who avoided service there.

Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry
Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 19, 2004; Page A01

Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.

In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.

Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans.

The Post filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans' records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center yesterday.

Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events.

For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.

Thurlow, an oil industry worker and former teacher in Kansas, said he was angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return to the United States and particularly Kerry's claim before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

" 'Upset' is too mild a word," said Thurlow, a registered Republican, of his reaction to Kerry then. "He did it strictly for his own personal political gain, and it directly affected every single one of us as we were trying to put our lives together."

Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later.

The incident featured prominently in an anti-Kerry television ad produced by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth earlier this month. "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star," says Van Odell, a gunner on PCF-23, one of the boats that came to the rescue of the stricken boat. "I know. I was there."

The Bronze Star controversy is also a major focus of an anti-Kerry book by John E. O'Neill, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," which will hit No. 2 on The Post's bestseller list this weekend. The book accuses Kerry of "fleeing the scene" and lying repeatedly about his role.

Members of Kerry's crew have come to his defense, as has Rassmann, the Special Forces officer whom he fished from the river. Rassmann says he has vivid memories of being fired at from both banks after he fell into the river and as Kerry came to his rescue. The two had an emotional reunion on the eve of the Iowa Democratic caucuses in January, an event that some political analysts believe helped swing votes to Kerry at a crucial time.

The Bronze Star recommendations for both Kerry and Thurlow were signed by Lt. Cmdr. George M. Elliott, who received reports on the incident from his base in the Gulf of Thailand. Elliott is a supporter of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and has questioned Kerry's actions in Vietnam. But he has refused repeated requests for an interview after issuing conflicting statements to the Boston Globe about whether Kerry deserved a Silver Star. He was unreachable last night.

Money has poured into Swift Boat Veterans for Truth since the group launched its television advertisement attacking Kerry earlier this month. According to O'Neill, the group has received more than $450,000 over the past two weeks, mainly in small contributions. The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that the organization has also received two $100,000 checks from Houston home builder Bob Perry, who backed George W. Bush's campaigns for Texas governor and for president.

Bush campaign officials have said they have no connection to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is not permitted to coordinate its activities with a presidential campaign under federal election law.

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting"

In other words, Thurlow's "personal feeling" is that he deserves his Bronze Star, but Kerry doesn't deserve his.

Why didn't Thurlow speak up back then about the lack of gunfire if he figured he'd get the Bronze Star anyway? My guess - he wanted to make sure he'd get it. And I don't really care to read his revisionist book to find out.

Why would anyone believe this guy's mendacious, self-aggrandizing statements? And that goes for all the other swift boat vets who have suddenly become stricken with the urge to "set the record straight" now that the cameras are rolling.

"Sickening and disgusting" is right.

Click on the Robert Novak link:

http://dailyshow.com/tv_shows/thedailys ... deos.jhtml

I should watch "The Daily Show" more often!

I was just thinking the same thing.

Fighting a Phony War
Is the real aim of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to divert attention from Iraq?
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Updated: 1:36 p.m. ET Aug. 20, 2004

Aug. 20 - The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth stopped by NEWSWEEK’s Washington bureau this week to explain their version of what happened in Vietnam 35 years ago and why John Kerry doesn’t deserve three Purple Hearts. None were on the Swift Boat Kerry commanded, but they had charts to illustrate their contention that Kerry’s boat did not come under fire and that two of his wounds were self-inflicted, one when he hurled a grenade at a rice bin too close to his position.

A generation of reporters far removed from any war experience listened respectfully to their story. Between the fog of war and the passage of time, telling the truth has more to do with politics than memory. These men fought; they didn’t come home to a hero’s welcome, and they’ll never forgive Kerry for protesting the war and branding them as war criminals.

One member of the group recalled how each of them had been issued a 90-pound sea bag, and Kerry sacrificed 10 pounds of socks and clean underwear to pack a typewriter. At the end of a long day of patrols, Kerry would sit hunched over his typewriter plugging away at who-knows-what, the fellow said, so secretive it seemed subversive. They never understood this aloof figure, and the day that he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—April 22, 1971—is as powerful a date to these veterans as the Kennedy assassination. They can tell you exactly where they were when they heard Kerry say he had witnessed war crimes sanctioned by commanders in Vietnam.

The fact that Kerry attributed the breakdown in military discipline to the policymakers in Washington is lost on these men, who take Kerry’s words personally. This is not about Kerry’s performance in Vietnam; it’s what he said when he came home. Kerry has never made extravagant claims about his heroism in Vietnam. He never said his wounds were serious, and he never said he didn’t want to get out of Vietnam. After three wounds, under military rules, he was entitled to ship out, which he did after a combat tour of four months and 12 days. Nothing these so-called Veterans for Truth have come up with contradicts what Kerry has said, but that’s not the point.

The Swift Boat veterans have become the Campaign 2004 version of the Scott Peterson trial, trading charges and regularly appearing on the cable-news networks. The book that lays out the charges against Kerry, “Unfit for Command,” has been No. 1 on Amazon.com for over a week. Never mind that almost daily there’s a retraction or a new story to discredit what these veterans are saying. On Thursday, The Washington Post revealed that the military records of Larry Thurlow, who commanded a boat alongside Kerry, contain several references to enemy fire directed at all five boats in the flotilla, sharply contradicting what Thurlow is saying as a leading member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group. The Post got the affidavit through the Freedom of Information Act.

The Kerry campaign was curiously passive as the veterans gathered force in the media—as though responding would dignify the scurrilous charges. Kerry finally broke his silence this week, perhaps mindful that a lie unanswered becomes a lie that is believed. Flanked by firefighters in Boston, Kerry stripped the mask of patriotic valor from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by pointing out the source of their funding: a Texas Republican who wrote two checks for $100,000 to the group. Its sudden emergence is reminiscent of the “Republicans for Clean Air,” which emerged during the 2000 campaign with a television spot attacking John McCain’s environmental record. Long after the ad did its damage to McCain in the New York primary, it was revealed that the Wylie brothers in Texas, who backed Bush, had paid for the advertising. The group itself was a sham, and the Wylie brothers no environmentalists.

If the November election is a plebiscite on who better and more courageously served their country in a time of war, Kerry would win. “Kerry gets a bye on this anyway—he was there and Bush wasn’t,” says John Zogby, an independent pollster who is not aligned with either campaign. He sees the battle over who’s telling whose truth in Vietnam as another symptom of the great divide in the country. “We are two warring nations and neither nation is listening to the other,” he says. “This is essentially a net zero politically. It’s great kindling wood for the Republicans. It’s the kind of stuff they need to hear just as Dems need to hear from Michael Moore.”

Questioning Kerry’s heroism fires up the GOP base, but it leaves “solid undecideds” cold. They’re not paying attention. Zogby says among this very narrow 5 percent of the electorate, 16 percent say Bush deserves to be re-elected; 39 percent say it’s time for somebody new. “You can’t help but look at those numbers and conclude they’ve made up their mind about one side,” says Zogby. But Kerry hasn’t been able to close the deal. Zogby has him stuck at 47 percent, which isn’t good. But Bush is stuck at 43 percent, which is worse. “It’s still the phony war period,” says Zogby. For an incumbent president in as much trouble as Bush, fighting a war that’s been over for nearly 30 years takes voters’ minds off Iraq.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.