Redstate

....that ABC would issue a caveat that Vietnam remains an authoritarian -- and in many of its regions, totalitarian -- state, and that none of the people it interviews are free to speak as they will.

For which they have to thank, in small part, one John Kerry.

  Well, I don't think you can deny that the Swift Boaters and their allegations have already gotten a fair amount of media play, even if you'd prefer to have seen more of them.  It's not like John O'Neill is making his media debut on Nightline.  The new angle here is speaking with the Vietnamese.

  Personally, I don't think ABC is doing Kerry any favors by going to Vietnam, no matter what the villagers say about him.  As a Democrat, I'd rather they let the issue drop-- not because I think Kerry has anything to hide about his Vietnam conduct, but because I don't see how bringing the issue back into the public eye can do anything to help him.

...they basically interview two Vietnamese villagers who tacitly back up Kerry's AAR.

Although I have not seen the piece, I'd tend to discount their 'recollection' for the same reason that I doubt the recollection of the 3rd grade teacher with vivid memories of the serial killer 40 years later.

The people they interviewed remember a single American officer involved in a single engagement out of what are probably dozens or hundreds of battles and firefights in the area over a period of 10 years that occured over 30 years ago.

Not that it can't happen, but my natural scepticism tells me ...

Check out this major Dowdism, committed by ABC. I think this needs a lot of publicity.

more than enough of O'Neill. He has ties to a past that Republicans are better off leaving IN the past. This story is old, and no one cares.

Yehudit,if they were trying to imply that Arnold was calling Kerry straightforward, I doubt they would have chosen a headline that said: "SCHWARZENEGGER SAYS BOTH BUSH AND KERRY EVASIVE IN DEBATES."

I really think it's just sloppy quoting.

Nothing like the 35 year old rememberances of the inhabitants of a totalitarian nation whose leaders have reason to remember Kerry fondly to add credibility to those trying to shoot holes in the Swifties' story.  Almost as credible as, say, a paean on the subject of honesty and loyalty penned by David Brock.

He's giving Koppel, the Walter Duranty of his time, hell. O'Neill is a man of courage and dedication, standing up to propagandists. Man, he's pushed Koppel to the edge. Koppel's lost his cool.

I do wish O'Neill would call him "Mr. Koppel" rather than "Ted." That unnecessary familiarity is the stuff of smarmy politicians.

I will assume you meant he's "old news," but what you said was that O'Neill is a duffer, essentially. Would you blow off the latest Swiftboat Veterans ad because "they're old?"

That's their strength. They remind us of the WWII veterans, they remind of heroes. Which they were -- and are.

Just watched Koppel's conclusion. What a sanctimonious schwanz. I've been depressed about the prospect of the media stealing this election, but after watching Nightline, I'm starting to believe they've overplayed their hand.

It was Kerry that brought up the matter of

Vietnam. It was the center piece of his convention, Now he can deal with the consequences.

He said the story is old, not the man. (Though it's clear that "no one cares" in quite inaccurate.)

I think that the Swift Boat veterans served their purpose (showing people that Kerry's service record is fradulent). Any more hammer and tongs is too far. Look at the sympathy backlash in favor of Clinton because of the impeachment.

I steer clear of praising any Vietnam veteran who criticizes Kerry. Men like Ted Sampley, who gerrated John McCain in 2000. I am not a cheerleader for Sen. McCain, but the words used against him, a 6-year POW, were profane.

We should keep in mind that some of these anti-Kerry veterans have their own agenda, and are using our party for their own purposes. They have served their purpose and I feel that window has closed. Bush is going to win this election based on the record and the issues. Not on Vietnam.

What I meant to say was that I steer clear of praising any random veteran just because he criticizes Kerry. Many of them have valid complaints, but men like Sampley I draw a line at.

in big part the poeple that mismanaged the war from our side and lied to Americans about what was happening?

Or President Nixon for surrendering?

Or maybe they need to thank, small or big, those other 'brave' warriors that supported the war but somehow managed to never go and fight in it?

What does O'Neil know that he's not saying, about the John Kerry 'bad paper' (discharge) rumors?

Nightline, in it's opening, suggested they had difficulty getting into Vietnam. I know this to be true, first hand. The government there requires that you tell them exactly why you want to enter the country, and in most cases, you must have a Vietnamese 'sponsor' to 'oversee' your trip there. For example, when a contingency of American Vets and Vietnam era writers from the US made a trip to S. Vietnam last year from our college, the Vietnamese arts council had to sponsor the trip, and the trip's finances, itinerary and mission had to all be spelled out in documents to the Vietnamese government before permission was granted. You simply cannot ask to come into the country and buy a plane ticket. Therefore, the government (who enshrines John Kerry in its war museum) had to know exactly why the ABC crew was going in country, and no doubt had to have a gov rep with them at all times. As Ted states in his piece, once they got the permission (he conveniently forgets to mention that they had to provide documentation about WHY they were going), they gave them complete maps of the village area, etc. Duh. Can you say 'spoon-fed story'? Nightline is either purposefully not vetting (pun intended) the Vietnamese witnesses, or just plain so stupid it doesn't follow Journalism 101 rules in questioning the motives of any witness testimony. Instead, they put the onus on O'Neil to acertain the validity of these 'wintnesses'-- even though he was not party to the interviews-- something that was Nightlines job to do.

As to the 'mystery' men who visited the village, they certainly wouldn't have been a mystery to the Vietnamese government. They never would have made it in country without permission....

ABC, the same organization who tried to slander Bush with the forged documents.  If I was the president I would sue and expose ABC for the litte satanic wierdos the are perverting the truth.  However, with their credibility in the sewer, let them try to talk to those who killed, mamed, and tortued our men.  After all, Kerry is a war hero to the viet cong.  Of course they will say anything ABC wants to hear.  Of course they will lie to promote Johnny boy.  He and Jane Fonda are heros to them.  What a perfect way for the veit cong to pay Kerry back for his helpful service in defeating america at home and hurting our vets and destroying their lives at home and abroad without cause.  Just imagine these fools at ABC talking to america's enemies to get the truth.  This is a contidictio of terms.  How blind and naive can ABC be?  I guess what ever these 3 members of the veit cong say will be treated as divine orders from God in ABC's satanic eyes since they are so despearate to justify kerry's lies.  3 members of the vietcong over 280 of our veterans who lived, drinked, rubbed should with, and slept alongside Kerry is not believable.  Go figure!!  Clearly ABC will be further deems as "Useful Idiots"  and traitors in the eyes of the american public.  Get a clue!!  Killers of our soldiers are not to be trusted to tell the truth.  They claimed we committed ware atrocities.  HELLO!!!  They and Kerry accused us of atrocities that never happened.  I look forward to seeing the movie, "Stolen Honor".  By the way linking kerry with the viet cong at this point in the presidential race will be lethal to the kerry campaign.  They are doing Kerry no favors.  People don't like the presidental nominee being link to america's former and future (France and Germany and the oil for food program scandal) enemies.  I hope the send Dan Rather to Honai where Kerry's picture is among their heros.  It will passed the Global Test.  ABC let me offer you some advise.  Please ask the following questions of members of the vietcong:  Was Kerry in Cambodia at Christmas time?  What was the name of the kid kerry shoot in the back?  Can his family members sue kerry for wrongful death?  What was discussed about america's terms of surrender in France when you meant with kerry?  How many south vietnam people did you butcher with the help of kerry after we left south veitnam?  Of course, ABC is too dumb and stupid to ask these hard questions of these three killers of our troops.  This will be Kerry's October surprise and I hope his waterloo.  He has got innocent blood on his hands of the people of south vietnam.  Can they sue kerry?  Thank you ABC.  You are truly useful idiots for those who have and now wish to kill us.  Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.  I guess useful idiots will go to veitnm to promote a kerry lie.  Be the way, why has kerry ran away from his own comrades?  Why is he scared of a group of old men?  If he cannot stand up to Howard Dean or these swiftvets, how can he stand up to terrorist?  He can't.  At least Bush has guts to stand up to those who oppose him and our country.  He has a four year record as president.  If kerry is telling the truth, he alone must confront them.  If he has been lying he will avoid them and let his willing accomplices in the elite news media go to vietnam to aid and abetting his hiding of the truth.  Let them destroy Kerry's credibility by going to vietnam.  I Suggest the interview the 280 men who were their in vietnam also in order to be fair and balance AAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!  Only foxnews, talk radio, and the alternative media can be that and bring out the truth.  I guess the is way they have trashed ABC in the ratings.  They need to call themselves unfair and unbalanced.  Please send Dan Rather to Hanoi.  Please ABC.  Ha, Ha, Ha,.  ABC news motto, unfair and unbalanced. Where the truth is suppressed in unrighteousness.

I read on Freerepublic.com that the grave marker had the date of death for the peasant was 12-1-69. I believe that Kerry was no longer in country at that time.

Although I have not seen the piece, I'd tend to discount their 'recollection' for the same reason that I doubt the recollection of the 3rd grade teacher with vivid memories of the serial killer 40 years later.

The same rule applies to John O'Neill and the rest of the Swiftvets.  Memories fade, whomever you are.

I'm amazed by how myopic certain parts of the Republican party are on the SwiftVet issue.  The SwiftVet core doesn't have the best interests of the country at heart -- indeed, they can't distinguish the best interests of the country from their own partisan instincts.  

It's shameful and a bit sad to see words like "honor," "outrage," and "traitor" tossed around like punchlines, as if the traits are so common they appear every day.  We're all diminished by it.  But that's what the country has become, I suppose.  (History teaches that some past elections have been worse, so I suppose I shouldn't wholly despair.)

Kerry's '71 testimony is a legitimate area of debate.  That should have been the focus from the start.  But that's not what the SwiftVets chose to focus on when they had the media's eye, and now it'll never get the chance.

A smear job on someone's military record that is contradicted by the known written facts* and the recollections of every non-smearer, however, ain't good strategy or tactics.  Indeed, it somehow manages to combine immorality with idiocy.  So, I suppose, kudos to O'Neill for that.

von

*The "Kerry didn't go to Cambodia, at least not when he said he did" point is the sole exception that I'm aware of.  

I might tend to agree with you if it were one or two SwiftVets, but 200+?

And it's awfully hard to see what they gain from opening their wounds again given the more than predictable reaction from the Kerry supporters and the press. Most of them surely had to know that the s**t would be heaped on them and the hatred and vitriole they endured coming home 30 years ago would simply start all over again, only this time in the national press.

You may not be fully aware of the breadth of charges brought on Kerry by the SwiftVets, and I don't fault you for that. The one or two incidents that have seen time on network TV do have certain "written" facts surrounding them which can be construed as supporting Kerry. But a note of caution should be stated in that such written Navy reports are often compilations and/or regurgitations of officer reports. We didn't have independent Navy observers all over the Mekong Delta taking notes. Navy records depend on the honesty and accuracy of the officers involved in writing up reports of events. Gunners don't write reports nor other crew members. So there is an element of speciousness to referring back to Navy reports as conclusive evidence that Kerry must be the one telling the truth.

On the other hand, there are many places where official Navy record and John Kerry's story were in conflict. There was the Sampan incident in January 1969 where Kerry wrote in his diary (as quoted in Brinkley's book) that his boat killed a boy in a Sampan and captured a mother and her child as well. Interesting that the Navy report listed the living mother and the child, but the dead child was morphed into an "enemy KIA" and four other fleeing occupants who went to shore. Now which is true? Kerry's diary or the Navy report? Keep in mind the explanation for the different account is that Kerry filed the action report one way (for obvious reasons) and his diary the other.

Another incident that Navy reports don't support is Kerry's first Purple Heart. He claims there was hostile fire when he got wounded. Yet there is absolutely no action report in Navy records which would be required if hostile fire was received. The officer in command of the operation, Schachte (who was in a position to know because he was in the same skimmer as Kerry, at the time), reported to Grant Hibbard at the time of the incident that no hostile fire was received and on that basis Kerry's application for his first Purple Heart was denied. Yet at a later date, he somehow managed to get the award through a second application and no one knows how (until Kerry signs his form 80). But the essence of the point here is that Navy records absolutely don't support Kerry's version of the incident. Yet the media continues to tout the line that Navy records unequivocally support Kerry's version of [all] events [except where they don't].

On the circumstances surrounding the last Purple Heart, Rassmann has been quoted saying certain things that he and Kerry did that actually support O'Neill's story.

Of course all the things that actually lend credibility to O'Neill's accounts are never aired on TV. Only the one or two events where the fog of war was prevalent and people have conflicting memories of events (and maybe honestly so) have been talked about. And if Cameron hadn't asked Kerry's team about Cambodia (he was the ONLY person to ask), even that little tidbit of dishonesty would never have come to light either.

I have heard most of those arguments, as well as the responses to them, and, on balance, I don't find the SwiftVets credible.  But, for the sake of argument, assume that the Navy awarded these medals improperly.  Why is it good for the nation to make the argument so vociferously?  (And it is the Navy that chose to award these medals, not Kerry.)  So that we can distrust every medal awarded in combat?  So to tell veterans nd future soldiers that we're entitled to attack your honorable service for political reasons?  

At the end of the day, Kerry still served in Vietnam, he was still shot at, and he still risked death.  He still performed, at a minimum, adequately as a soldier.  If he wants to grandstand on that service, that's his business; we'll all decide what it means.  But no one should demean that service, as the SwiftVets have done.  It is not compatible with the good of the Republic.  It is not good for the nation.

This really is important, and it really is wrong.  It saddens me to no end that folks whom I respect continue to prop up the SwiftVets just to win an election.  Some things are more important than an election.  Really; it's true.

The point was that you made a blanket assertion about what the Navy records say. I am clarifying that your assertion is not true and you cannot make that claim credibly, whether or not you have chosen to believe the SwiftVets yourself.

As for how it benefits the nation? Well it looks like we won't come to any agreement on this so I don't know why I am bothering, but I'll offer a few explanations.

So to tell veterans nd future soldiers that we're entitled to attack your honorable service for political reasons?

That depends on your point of view. If you rack up medals deliberately and wrongfully and deceitfully, all for future political gain, then it stands to reason that the validity of those medals when used for political gain can be questioned in the political context. As a politician, I am not entitled to present my own record without anyone calling it into question. Hey, I'm God, but you can't question it for political reasons. That argument seems to me to be absurd. I don't think any vet fears the military taking away their medals because of the Kerry situation.

But no one should demean that service, as the SwiftVets have done.  It is not compatible with the good of the Republic.  It is not good for the nation.

If the service in question contained many lies, I'd hope that our nation would desire truth above some sort of political corectness gone wrong. I don't see how our nation is best served by subverting truth because it is inconvenient or because the context is sensitive. Kerry could have avoided the whole thing by not playing war hero in the first place. If you run on that and it isn't truthful, why shouldn't it be questioned?

Some things are more important than an election.  Really; it's true.

Some things are, yes. Truth is one of those things, IMO. And in this same context, with the importance of the election, many rightfully feel like a fraud and an opportunist would be wrong to have as a commander in chief. In fairness to your point of view, you dismiss the charges as untrue, so of course you see it as a detraction from the election, not important to it.

"ABC, the same organization who tried to slander Bush with the forged documents."

No, that was CBS, but there isn't that much difference between the two. ABC was the one which published the memo instructing reporters to be harder on Bush than on Kerry.

First, after action reports were written by those who where there. When incoming rounds are close what someone sees may be very different than someone else just a few feet away. The fact that things do not add up for everyone is not the issue. Kerry was there, did get shot at, did perform, and did come early. Those are facts.

What you are forgetting, and imply in this statement is why the Swifties are mad.

But no one should demean that service, as the SwiftVets have done.  It is not compatible with the good of the Republic.  It is not good for the nation.

Look at Kerry's testimony before Congress, he demeaned the service of all Vietnam vets. They have a deep hate for his comments and his actions. To think that these men, who were demeaned, are going to just be quiet, is not a rational thought. The Swifties are not republican or democrat, they are vets who are angry.

Do you really believe that someone who is being tortured, and resisting the torture, is going to have anything other than disgust, for an individual who says the same things in front of Congress. 30 years is not going to remove the pain that Kerry caused these brave men.

If you apply the same rules for Kerry and the Swifties, they have a much better case. Each and every POW says that Kerry's comments in Congress made their time in prison worse. Kerry's actions may or may not have merited the awards, that doesn't matter, his testimony and actions after coming home is where the anger comes from.

Will somebody please explain John Kerry's rationale for his anti-war activism in the 70's. It seems that the Viet Cong gleefully rejoiced in his back-stabbing tirades. Why would he protest the war in the manner he did if not to give an advantage to the VC? Isn't it possible that understanding his motives then could shed light on what he would do as Prez now?

I'm pretty sure he was against the war to some degree when he was over there. I'm very sure he was against it when he came back. I don't think he did it simply to help the VC so much as he did it to help himself (meaning all the publicity he got). I think at worst he is an opportunist (who is still guilty of some crimes in the process, not necessarily treason), and at best a hero for his protests. I personally don't think it is the latter, but I understand that some think so.