There is a media storm circling John Kerry and his service. Did he deserve his medals, did he serve honorably, and are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (S.B.V.T.) living up to their name? The answer is as murky as the waters in the ‘Nam our Swiftboats (or Patrol Fast-Craft ) patrolled nearly thirty – five years ago. It can only be held as factual as the belief the individual perceives in each dirty whirlpool every one cycles through as their search for the truth leads them. This short essay only attempts to provide a more in-depth view than that which our bloated and careless media chooses to gloss over. The people deserve more than that which is offered to them by the AP, Fox, CBS, etc. That said, let us begin exploring the organization that is S.B.V.T. .
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was officially launched on May 04, 2004 (http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php).
“It's notable that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was formed not by a Swift Boat Veteran but by Merrie Spaeth, a Republican PR hack from Houston whose late husband ran for the office of Lieutenant Governer in Texas with George W. Bush…Suffice it to say that the money behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is the same money behind the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation (http://www.warblogging.com/).”
Their mission has been to call out Kerry on his faux paux’s regarding the Vietnam War and to rattle his purported account(s) on what actually occurred in those rainy days spent fighting the “man in the black pajamas”. They only want to set the record straight, they say, and allow the justice of dead men the glory they deserve, not to disgrace the men in uniform who did their duty. An excerpt of the letter the two – hundred and fifty men sent to Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry:
“It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war. “
From the founding members themselves we hear these quotes;
“We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.
We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."
John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.
Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)
"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less."
Andrew Horne
"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief."
-- Jeffrey Wainscott
The founding members are listed here and on the S.B.V.T. web page as these individuals, all of which have given statements in similar regard:
Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (Ret.) Chairman
Captain Charley Plumly, USN (Ret.)
William E. Franke
Alvin A. Horne
Bill Lannom
John O’ Neill ( the officer who took over John K. Command )
And Wymouth Symmes, Treasurer
Notice a trend in the statements above? Nowhere does any honourable or distinguished veteran actually say that John Kerry did any great legal wrong. Instead they seem disappointed that John K. did not support their position on the war in Vietnam. They all went home tired and wearied, spat upon and disrespected by civilians. They seem embittered by their fellow comrade who spoke out against a war that was unfavorable by the general public, feeling betrayed, most undoubtedly. It seems that sour grapes are the order of the day, no matter how justified their feelings. Kerry went home to organize a group known as the “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” and testified to Congress that unspeakable atrocities occurred during the war such as raping, killing of livestock and civilians. We’ve had many years to disseminate whether or not that is true, and the general public seems to be informed of such things actually occurring. Whether or not those things did occur by the fellow men Kerry served with is questionable, however, and nothing came of his accusations. The Nixon administration did feel threatened, though, and brought out a gentleman named John O’ Neill ( not to be confused with Jhon P. O’ Neill, an FBI man who died in the 9 / 11 attacks ) who debated John Kerry in an episode of the 1971 episode of the Dick Cavett show. A Nixon aid ,Charles Colson, is quoted as saying,
"'Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader,'” (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth)
Also,
"He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." [1]
(http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth)
Doesn’t sound very altruistic. Sounds like dirty politics, but par for the course with that particular administration. It would seem a legacy was being passed down, but what of Mr. O’ Neill, who is he?
His family legacy shows that O'Neill's grandfather taught at the Naval Academy; his father graduated in the early '30s, flew fighters, fought at Iwo Jima, and retired an admiral; O'Neill himself, who grew up in landlocked San Antonio, Texas, was in the Naval Academy Class of 1967 (two brothers also graduated, '57 and '59).”
O’Neill spent some time on Swift Boats before taking over for Kerry, one of them was the Woodpecker. O’Neill states that the average length of duty on a Swift Boat was twelve months, but Kerry spent only four and twelve days, possibly because he requested the tour to be cut short. (http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp)
O’Neill did well in the debate and caught Kerry’s inability to provide evidence or specific accounts of war crimes.
“What O'Neill found particularly unsettling was that here was "a guy who believed everything we did in Vietnam was a crime" but who was now "campaigning on his record and claiming to be a war hero." In short, "the only reason I'm getting involved now is because he's running for commander-in-chief of the United States."
So there it is: a regular American — O'Neill, father of two, likes hiking, playing golf, and taking an active part in his church — not content anymore to allow Kerry and his kind to keep hijacking the Vietnam War.” (http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp)
Watching C-Span at anytime during these election days will garner people the chance to watch the actual debate. Part of the transcript is available at the S.B.V.T. webpage. But has Kerry actually lied? Has he not been deserving of his numerous medals, and has he done anything wrong beside speak out against the actions in Vietnam? Who is lying here or are is there anything besides conjecture, opinion, and politics as usual?
“The August 4 2004 editions of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes and MSNBC's Scarborough Country dedicated coverage and airtime to the SBVT campaign. Misrepresentations and misinformation failed to be addressed. For example, claims that SBVT members served with John Kerry on his boat in Vietnam were supported by the Hannity & Colmes broadcast, which referred to the group as Kerry's "crewmates." Only one of the members of SWVT was actually a crewmate of Kerry. Other served on boats that ran missions with Kerry's boat. (The SBVT ad and official statements by the group correctly claim only that the speakers "served with" Kerry, not that they were on the same boat.) “
(http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth)
There has been quite a bit of dispute over Kerry’s medals and how he earned them, if he did, and to what degree. I’m thoroughly convinced that all of his medals, with the exception of one were awarded as they should be, those not in agreement should consult the following web page where I have acquired the following information regarding his first purple heart.
...The following morning, John Kerry arrived at the office of Coastal Division 14 Commander Grant Hibbard to apply for a Purple Heart. Having already been informed by Schachte that Kerry's injury was self-inflicted rather than the result of hostile fire, Commander Hibbard told him to "forget it." Hibbard recently said of Kerry's minor scratch, "I’ve seen worse injuries from a rose thorn." Nevertheless, John Kerry managed to obtain his coveted Purple Heart for this incident nearly three months later after being transferred to Coastal Division 11.
...
Military regulations state that to qualify for a Purple Heart, an injury must come "from an outside force or agent," and treatment for the wound must "have been made a matter of official record." While John Kerry managed to satisfy the second criterion by insisting that an amused Dr. Letson provide an official Band-Aid, nicking himself with a fragment from his own poorly-aimed grenade fails to meet the first qualification."
FACT
(i) Kerry could NOT have gotten his Purple Heart without his Commander's recommendation. Indeed, regulations do not allow combatants to nominate themselves Purple Hearts or award it to themselves.
(ii) The severity of the injury is irrelevant to the award of a Purple Heart. The injury had to be sustained due to an outside force or in action against an enemy or hostile foreign force - or even from friendly fire. So SBV's claims are outrageous and without merit.”
http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm#1A
The bottom line on Kerry’s first purple heart is that, though his superior officers did believe him to be legitimately worthy of the merit, he probably should have passed in the first place. The rest of his medals are certainly worthy of the valour he expressed, so I will not bother illustrating them here. Furthermore, Doctor Louis Letson, who claims to have treated Kerry stated “I know John Kerry is lying about his first purple heart, because I treated him for that injury,” but “Letson was NOT the doctor who signed Kerry's sick call sheet and was not a Kerry crewmate. There is no proof he ever treated Kerry and he apparently started to recollect his memories of Vietnam just last year!”( http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm#1A)
So, there have been some falsehoods made by the SwiftVets. There have been questions about Kerry. Can we settle this somehow, or are we at an impasse? Sen. John (way too many Johns / Jhons this year! ) Mcain had these statements,
“It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,"
“"dishonest and dishonorable" (in reference to the SwiftVet’s ad.)
"I wish they hadn't done it…I don't know if they knew all the facts… think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."
"It reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal," he said.
"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.”
This is powerful testimony from a Republican and a Veteran Prisoner of War. Be open minded, think about it, consider that the SwiftVets may be operating incorrectly. Kerry has obviously made his mistakes. He and other hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans have made sacrifices to secure our freedoms, but which ones will we choose, the freedom to be as ignorant as possible about the issues, or the freedoms to decide for ourselves what is correct? In some ways, freedom is an oxymoron, it creates more a burden than what it’s definition implies. I’ve barely scratched the surface on this topic, I hope that all of you will continue to dig and enrich yourselves, reveling in the breadth of knowledge at our disposal that no other country can claim.