Redstate

But given the smear job private groups from Michael Moore to MoveOn.org are doing based on conspiracy theories at least these ads come from the people who were involved and are reporting first hand.  I still don't like them, but they are credible.

I am not a fan of the Today Show-Good Morning America-CBS This Morning-book tours for every book-writing-ax-grinding opponent of a person running for office.  That said, this ad and this book, when it comes out, deserve attention for two reasons:

1. The Kerry Campaign has placed his service in Vietnam front and center in this campaign.  If it is as important about him his camp has made it out to be, i.e. the ads, all of the Swift Boat Veterans on stage with him at campaign stops, his nomination speach...then it deserves scrutiny
   
2. Basic fairness.  Each diatribe against the President (Michael Moore, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Paul O'Neil, Annonymous (Imperial Hubris) ect...) gets prime (morning and night) time/front page coverage.

That said, this is the most effective political ad I have ever seen.  If it holds up to the scrutiny that is coming - it is devastating.

I would like to read more detailed background on the veterans featured in the ad, and their full stories.  I couldn't quickly find a link.  Anyone here know where to look?

First time I'm seeing the ad.  Very effective.  Deserves wide dissemination.

You don't have to sit through the ad.

click here

Certainly, most of us would prefer campaigns in which there were no negative ads.

However, the level of Democratic candidate and surrogate attacks on President Bush, with the slurs on his own service record, combined with Kerry's making such a big point of his war record, make this ad less a 'negative' ad than a factual rebuttal of false advertising.  An example of true speech being the remedy for false speech in the marketplace of ideas.

If these veterans hold up to scrutiny, and this ad gets seen by wide numbers of voters, especially vets and any uncommitted voters, Kerry is heading for a Dukakakis, McGovern or Goldwater type rout:

I remember the 1964 election and saw the effect of LBJ's infamous 'Little Girl Picking Daisies' ad that implied Goldwater would start a nuclear war; this ad IMHO is more devastating than that 1964 ad .

volunteered to campaign with him.

I think that speaks louder than anything else.

Clearly military combat has all the same personality conflicts and petty bickering you'll find in any other arena. I'd be shocked if you couldn't find people who didn't like Kerry, just like I'd be shocked if you couldn't find people who didn't like George Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, or Powell.

I did notice the ad is long on calling him a "liar" but short on evidence.

It's a 60-second ad.  Not gonna have a long exposition there.  Fortunately, the men making the charges have publicly identified themselves, set up a website, and are willing to engage in public discourse on the subject.  Credible enough for reasonable people, I'd think.

As for the man Kerry saved, a story comes to mind.  A knew a guy -- same OBC class as me -- who saved the life of a colonel at West Point, apparently by performing CPR on that colonel.  Thereafter, that colonel became his guardian angel, devoted to this lieutenant and fiercely protective.  This lieutenant was, for lack of a better term, a dirtbag.  Total lack of military bearing, total disregard for orders, total lack of personal judgment, total lack of personal hygiene -- not, in short, officer material.  But the grateful O-6 protected him from expulsion from USMA, and he and I ended up in the same battalion following OBC.  He swiftly became known as the rock-bottom worst lieutenant in the battalion.  (In fairness, I ought to note that I was almost certainly second-worst.)  All in all, someone who will almost certainly be remembered with distaste by his Army peers, but for the man whose life he saved.

Which is to say, bravo for that act, and I don't hold it against the fellow for repaying the deed with public gratitude.  I also don't delude myself into thinking that's the whole story, nor even the bottom line.

... but I don't know whether it speaks for accuracy/truth or a percieved debt of gratitude.

Agreed on the rest, but I'll remind you that many of the comments here are preceded with "If these guys check out.."

That said, even if these guys don't check out (or only partly check out), Kerry may still take a lot of flak over this. Hence the comments that it may have been a mistake to harp so much on his war record and not much on his senate record.

John

"I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The Kerry campaign pointed out yesterday, as it had previously, that another doctor, J. C. Carreon, signed Mr. Kerry's treatment record.

link

Credible enough for reasonable people, I'd think.

Your anecdote is duly noted. I would suggest however, that being a bad officer doesn't in and of itself make someone a bad person.

Like in any arena, success can inspire admiration, jealousy, and hatred, and those can color one's opinions (both directions).

So Kerry found a band of brothers who believe in him enough to stand before the nation and endorse him. He also has detractors.

None of this is devastating, unless you're hungry to believe the worst of the man.

I linked and quoted directly from the LATimes piece, not the NYTimes piece.  Hadn't seen the one you link to.

And my recollection is that Dr. Carreon was the superior to Dr. Letson, so he signed all the records.  That doesn't mean what Letson says is incorrect.

I didn't watch the ad, but I did read the script. Assuming this checks out, and I don't know why it wouldn't, this is pretty effective stuff.

Somebody else had a diary entry here where they asked how much one should make of Kerry's Vietnam record. I said it should matter to us to the extent it matters to his campaign. The problem for Kerry is that it obviously matters to his campaign a great deal -- much of it seems based on those four months in Vietnam. And you can't have it both ways. You can't use "Vietnam" as shorthand for "strength and decisiveness" and then be flustered when the record is shown to be, ah, "complicated".

Well, of course you can try to have it both ways, but I don't know how that will work. Kerry's not John McCain. He was always a bad choice, symbolically, for "war hero". Even in terms of political iconography, the jig was up the moment people started really looking at this. I've heard these kind of rumors about Kerry for awhile now --there's a guy on Roger Simon's site, John Moore, who's brought it up.

It's Kerry's own fault. Better to have early-on done an interview where he explained his side of the story straight up, medals over the gate and testimony and everything. This would have still come out, but it's impact would have been much lessened.

The signature doesn't mean anything other than the fact that the particular doctor signed the medical chart.

A lot, I would hazard to say virtually all, military paper work requires the signature of the commander or supervisor. Their signature doesn't mean they did the task, merely that they confirmed that the task had been completed.

If the only case the Kerry camp can make on this is a signature on a form then they don't have a case to make.

Looks like McCain isn't playing ball on this one.  He's denounced the ad in the strongest possible terms.

From a sheer practical standpoint, it looks like the public will be forced to choose between McCain and a guy who swears Kerry saved his life on one hand, and a bunch of guys with conspiracy theories about Kerry's medals on the other.

If I'm Bush, I take McCain's advice and repudiate this.  At the very least, I don't think a conversation about what the candidates were doing during the war would help him a great deal.  Although, questioning a decorated war hero worked so well for him in 2000 ....

Sounds like you're plenty hungry to believe the worst about the other side.

If anything, I've defended Kerry repeatedly on his military service.  Yes, I think he's exaggerated things, but that doesn't change the fact that he made the right decision about going to Vietnam while so many others (including the President) found ways, both dishonorable and honorable, to avoid the service.  In all honesty, this is the first time I've seen any vets so passionately opposed to Kerry's version of the truth, or felt like this issue was more than just a question of too much chest-pounding over the War Hero label.

Example #1: Ulysses S. Grant

The only real reason I think of it as devastating is that Kerry oversold his 'Nam service. If he had nothing but glowing reviews from his fellow soldiers, it might have been a good tactic. Now he's wasted a lot of speech time on an issue that's become, at best, lukewarm for him.

At least, that's the way I'm perceiving it.

John

You've passed out enough loony-left rhetoric for me to wonder on that count.  Anyway....

So Kerry found a band of brothers who believe in him....

Good God.  Can we stop with the nauseating "band of brothers" junk?  Even I could probably scrape up a small group of officers to attest to my essential goodness.

None of this is devastating, unless you're hungry to believe the worst of the man.

More accurate to say: none of this is devastating, unless you've based a great whopping deal of your campaign upon your supposed intrepedity at war and your beloved status amongst veterans of that war.

Sounds like you're plenty hungry to believe the worst about the other side.

Like I said, I'd be shocked if Kerry had been universally admired in the military. From what I understand (not having served, but all brothers, father, most uncles, etc have), there's as many personality conflicts and such in the military as any other large organization. I'm sure there were nuns who couldn't stand Mother Teresa.

Then there is the matter of McCain asking for this:

But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.

I stay out of the fray, let Kerry use up as much ammunition as he wants against a group that I have nothing to do with.

In other words, he pulled out the rope himself.

John

You've passed out enough loony-left rhetoric for me to wonder on that count.  

Good bye Tacitus.

He received a Silver Star, too.

A concept endorsed by, well, John McCain.  And Democrats who have nothing in common with McCain on any level but find him a handy club with which to bash the President.

By the way: a direct observation isn't a "conspiracy theory."  Just saying.

....where Reagan slaughters millions of gays, where Halliburton conquers Iraq, and where Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace, Edward.

Well, you're already in Manhattan, I guess.

But yes, happy to ban.

It's not his fight. A bunch of boat officers from CoastDiv 11 think that Kerry was showboating and medal hunting, which he may have been, given what has been written thus far.

But should Bush condemn it? Why? When did Kerry come out and state that his fellow lefties should stop smearing the President's service record?

Never. Bush owes the Kerry campaign nothing. Kerry, otoh, may need to unf*#k himself after having oversold his 4 1/2 months in Vietnam as a campaign issue.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

President Bush should simply steer clear of the whole controversy.  He should simply say that the only people who know the truth are Sen. Kerry and the others who were there, and apparently they don't agree on the facts.  Everyone should hear both sides and make up their own minds.

Then he should stress that the election is about America's future and the candidates should be judged on their national security records in public office, their vision for the future, and the ideas of those whom they hire.

What does "staying above the fray" really mean?  When a group is directly working for his benefit, his silence makes him complicit with that group.

Or maybe you want to argue that SBVT are Nader supporters?

OK, so this random doctor claims that he treated Kerry, and that Kerry lied, but there's no evidence to support that claim... and you say Kerry doesn't have a case to make?

9 months. Two tours of duty.

The main reason McCain cites for wanting the ads to end is that opening the old wounds is bad.

But don't some of these soldiers think that Kerry's overplaying his record is reopening their wounds? I agree that Bush shouldn't start something like this, and he shouldn't continue it.

But what does George W. Bush owe John Kerry?

Kerry's people at the DNC tried to smear Bush's service record so that John could pump up his own. Poor John needs to unf*%k himself, methinks.

Kerry got himself into this situation, he can damn well get himself out of it.

I can say with a great deal of certainty you don't know what you're talking about.

Routinely, I say again routinely, paperwork is signed by the unit commander or a shift supervisor.

I say again, the signature does not verify who completed a task it just verifies a task was completed.

Out of curiosity, when and where did you serve?

A tour of duty that inclueded 4 1/2 months in boats and the rest of the time off the coast doing destroyer escort duty, iirc. Not putting him down, 'cause he went there. The "two tours" nonsense has been debunked elsewhere. Just letting you know that he wasn't in Indochina for a couple of years, like most folks who did two tours.

A tour of duty for, say, an Air Cavalry trooper was 12 months. Same for a marine or regular infantry.

the post is sort of moot.

We could probably quibble over what an individual means when they talk about a good man, from my perspective, having recently retired as an Army infantry officer I would offer the following:

There are a lot of good men who are terrible officers. There is a smaller number of successful officers who are not very good men. I have never encountered a good officer who was not a good man.

I have long found Kerry's band of brothers to be a curious group. Were I running for office and someone told me to assemble my "band of brothers" I would turn first and foremost to the men who commanded sister rifle companies. Maybe reaching as far down as my platoon leaders. I would certainly not include riflemen. Because if you are a good officer you do not make the kind of intimate personal bonds with subordinates that would cause you to call them brothers. In Kerry's particular case, of the 24 commissioned officers who served with him in Coastal Division 11, his contemporaries, only one has endorsed him. Another had endorsed him and now has withdrawn the endorsement. Twenty-two have said they oppose him. 23 of 24 of the men who knew him socially and professionally oppose him. That should give everyone food for thought if anyone really thinks what he did on a Swift boat thirty years ago means anything.

....your overall point is quite right.

Small quibble, though: I've met more than a few people who were good officers but not, in my eyes, good men.  A subjective value-judgment, of course -- but I don't think the qualities of one are wholly synonymous with the qualities of the other.

on the looney tune charges about Bush's USAFNG service.

Seems to me that rumor and innuendo was fine then. How's this different?

Could Kerry's medals be revoked somehow? Could the military decided that it erred in awarding them to him and "revoke" them? I'd be surprised if they could.

And since they cannot, this sort of posturing reminds me of the "Bush was AWOL" screed. Nothing that comes out can take those medals away. It's essentially their word over the word of Kerry's command, who decided to award him those medals.

If I were part of the swift boats group, I'd spend less time attacking the ribbons/medals and more time on Kerry's behavior in and after Vietnam, which strikes me as perfectly fine & fair game. But to try to revisit history and say he didn't deserve these medals seems to me to be pointless.

So you're saying then that Kerry/Edwards should denounce the NYT, LAT, WAPO, ABC, NBC, CNBC, CBS, PBS, NPR?

Interesting.

What does "staying above the fray" really mean?  When a group is directly working for his benefit, his silence makes him complicit with that group.

Or maybe you want to argue that SBVT are Nader supporters?

they're anti-Kerry, not necessarily pro-Bush.

Actually the military could revoke any medal, award or commendation if it's found to be based on fraud.

In this case it's unlikely because the military, dependent as it is on bi-partisan support in Congress for funding, is very reluctant to get involved.

As an example it's well documented that LBJ's silver star was based on fraud but it hasn't been revoked.

I think we can safely say that "anti-Kerry" and "pro-Bush" are the same thing, for all practical purposes.

Actually on their website they explicitly state that they are not pro-Bush and that they otherwise don't want to get involved in the Presidential campaign.  Now you can ascribe whatever motives you want to that.  Whether it's naive of them to think that this will be accepted on face value by anyone is debateable as they must know that any such actions will result in their getting entangled in the campaigns.

On the other hand their willingness to address that issue speaks of their sincerity.  At least to me.  Frankly I think that, had Kerry not been selected, they wouldn't have ever surfaced at all.  They were willing to let things go for 20 years while Kerry was in the Senate.  Evidently they believe that the idea of Kerry as President was enough to rouse them from their passivity.

This requires addressing a preeminent issue IMHO.  That the Democratic Primary was staged far too much.  The purpose of a Primary is for potential candidates to undergo a process whereby every flaw is revealed and the extent of such flaws is wrung out completely.  Kerry was allowed to bypass this process, in the name of not giving the Republicans ammunition for the actual campaign, and the result has very much been a greatly weaker candidate.

Issues that should have been fully explored in the spring has now come to the fore.  As always in these situations various quotations from Shakespeares "Hamlet" come to mind.

Interesting.

So the reverse would also be true then?  Someone who is pro-Kerry is automatically anti-Bush?

You better hope that people forget this quote.  I'm sure something like this could end up biting you in a future debate.

He recently passed away. But before he did, he was dedicated to getting fraudulent medals revoked. Now HIS is a real MOH story. Wow.

For extraordinary heroism and conspicuous gallantry in action above and beyond the call of duty while serving with a company of marines in combat against enemy Japanese forces in the Solomon Islands on 26 October 1942. When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machinegun section with fearless determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering fire against the advancing hordes until reinforcements finally arrived. Then, forming a new line, he dauntlessly and aggressively led a bayonet charge, driving the enemy back and preventing a breakthrough in our lines. His great personal valor and unyielding devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

You know, we don't use the phrase "advancing hordes" nearly enough.

None of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.

Not hardly. Irrelevant, probably, but those charges were, and are, grounded in actual evidence that has yet to be explained.

So that's one way in which this is different.

You do know that none of the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' served on Kerry's boat right?  You do know that of the 6 men who served on his boat 5 publicly support his candidacy and the sixth is deceased, right?

before you post.

O'Neill has been after Kerry for over 30 years.

This stuff is not new - it has never gained real traction before, and it likely won't now.

This one with cut and paste skills.

The critique of Kerry's Vietnam service is long over due and he's getting a free ride.

The allegations about Bush have been knocked down so many time that one cannot count them.

isn't the look/feel and coding for this entire site cut and pasted from DKos?

It may be true that his subordinates who were on the boat with him support him, but his peers, that is to say fellow officers who served with and above him, almost universally revile him.  

While this is not unknown, it does suggest something odd is buried underneath the Kerry Vietnam story.  It could be as little as he identified with his men rather than his fellow officers (which would be the most common reason for such a result, but which seems unlikely given all we know about Kerry's character and unpopularity with peers in school) or it could be they were all involved in something bad and have agreed to stick together to protect themselves.  

I don't know the facts, nor does anyone else who wasn't there.  I do know Kerry's short tour in Vietnam, his being bounced from one swift boat group to another, the speed with which his SS was awarded, and the haste with which he left, all don't feel right to this veteran.

Every Scoop site is, in fact, a copy of dKos.  You got it.

Tacitus, Redstate, InstaPundit, Lileks, National Review's The Corner, Andrew Sullivan (though he's off for standard August break), DrudgeReport, Eschaton (where I did this cut-and-paste from), DKos, The Washington Monthly, Talking Points Memo, Kausfiles, Brad DeLong, NY Times and WaPo.  They are all in my favorites list.

Anyway, I took the shortest path to respond to the excitement here around this new ad.  I think there are ample reasons to question its crediblity.

The people on the Swift boat know him least. Some guy who he hauled out of the river would know him hardly at all. The boats didn't do prolonged patrols, like some Army and Marine units. Their patrols were usually less than one-day.

The people who knew Kerry were his fellow officers, not the enlisted guys who crewed his boat. That's just the way it is. As an officer you don't pal around with your men and they don't want you to and they don't respect you if you try to. The watch word is "friendly but not familiar."

I wonder why it took so much time, then?

Maybe Hillary killed him, too.  

Any takers?

...once John Kerry repudiates Michael Moore.

Talking about how terrible the GOP is for advancing pointed arguments is hardly a smart move for a group that is in bed with the far left crowd of Michael Moore and MoveOn.org...

You have my apologies for sullying this site with a cut-and-paste post.

No apologies -- it's not a posting rules violation by any stretch.  Just calling you on it, is all.

Is it undistorted, unvarnished truth?  Probably not.  Is it about the same calibur of F9/11?  Absolutely.  If this makes you mad, what if some conservative made a full length movie about the descrepencies of Kerry's war record, only interviewed soldiers that didn't like Kerry, and focused on his controversial stand against his fellow soldiers post-Vietnam?  I mean, if you can't take 60 seconds worth... sheesh.

This is just ultra-partisianship come home to roost.  I think this ad campaign is ill-advised and ultimately ineffective.  I hate it, but I do believe its going to get worse before it gets better.

The Officers were probably "successful" - but not "good".

I knew too many that were highly successful officers, but weren't good officers.

George Soros and MoveOn.org

nuff said

...my interpretation.

My gut is that when I have a group of 24 officer and I am given the choice of believing 22 of them are frauds or one of them is, I believe that one is a fraud.

biggest undiscussed issue here is will the MSM cover this like they cover all of the anti-Bush tell-alls.  A group of men who unquestionably served in the same command as Kerry at the same time he was in Vietnam have come forward to challenge the record that he has put front and center in his campaign.  That got Richard Clarke his own 60 Minutes slot and a whirlwind media tour of every show I can think of.  Michael Moore? Joe Wilson?  Their charges were and are covered everywhere.

If these guys are frauds, they are no more or less fraudulent then the parade of Bush-Bashers that get A-List treatment each time they have something to say.  Think they will get the same coverage?  I won't hold my breath.

I've always thought something stunk about Kerry's "3 hour tour".  The smell has gotten bad enough for others to notice now too.

I've never seen Moore's movie and I have no interest in it.  I've never called it 'credible'.  I don't believe there is a Halliburton conspiracy or that we went to war with Iraq over oil.  Can I take 60 sec's worth of the ad?  uh, yeah.  But no one here had yet brought up the other side.  I chose to.  I dispute your assertion that the ad is 'credible'.

I do intend to vote for Kerry for president, but I was a Bush supporter, previously.  I'm not partisan.  I won't be voting for Democrats in other races.  I just think Bush has performed incompetently in many areas.  Pre-war, Post-war and from a budget standpoint (the whole Republican party has embarassed itself on the budget issues).  The actual, major combat in Iraq was extremely well-executed.  But that one example of good work on Bush's part is not enough to sustain my support.

Tacitus has at various times expressed a high level of dissatisfaction with this administration and with the Republican party's drift from it's stated conservative values.  His response is to try and change the party from within.  Me... I vote for gridlock.  Republican congress, Democrat president.  That's the government I want.  I could just as easily go the other way with Democrat congress and Republican president, but that is virtually impossible under the present circumstances.

You want to imply that I put a moral connotation there? I didn't.

It was only a strategic consideration. But if you want to rail on about "complicity", is Kerry not actively "complicit" with a different group of veterans who have the goal of getting him elected? So is it then morally detestable to allow freedom of speech uttered by this group of veterans who disagree?

Are you going to simultaneously argue that Kerry should condemn various other groups like MoveOn.org who use dirty ads against Bush?

No, the RIGHT thing for Bush to do is let the public decide whether Kerry's a good alternative for president. That doesn't mean condemning one group of vets (who think Kerry's a bad candidate) over another group of vets (who think Kerry's a good candidate).

For his own sake, team Bush shouldn't push this either direction. The SVBT arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Kerry gets burned by this or comes out stronger (or comes out just the same). This is not Bush's fight, and I think he knows it.

John

I like your tagline.  First time a tagline made me laugh out loud.

I thought it clear that I don't support the new ad.   But to complain about its credibility during this year seems absurd.  We've gone way, way past honest and credible attacks.  I mean, who really cares about Kerry's service beyond the fact that he did?  Kerry supporters, and Kerry detractors, that's who.  Since those folks have already made up their mind, this ad is worthless, and probably a net gain for the supporters.  I maintain the same view of F9/11.  

I mean, what, a vietnam vet is going to forget the fact that he was mad at Kerry for betraying him and remember it because he saw this?  A soccor mom is going to think "Gee, that man that went to that war... uh, I guess embellished his war record, according to these guys, but not according to these other guys over here.  That angers me!"  Not going to happen.  

I think an ad focusing on vets' sense of betrayal from Kerry's post-Vietnam politicing ('I too committed atrocities...') would be a fairer and more effective campaign.  It would still be vulnerable to the charge of bringing up ancient history, but then that's exactly what Kerry's war record is, so...

My money is that they cover it a good bit - probably not as much as F911, but a lot. And every time they mention it they also mention McCain's advice and the fact that Bush isn't condemning it.

John.

The ad was well done, but if you really want to get to the bottom of things, read the source documents. If you ever wrote military evals, especially back in the old days, you will see immediately what is there to see. In my professional opinion, the Analysis of John Kerry's Fitness Reports is exactly correct. Fitness report language was and is an arcane specialty. How to tell someone they did good while conveying to the knowledgeable that that person was substandard.* Read the analysis first, then peruse the original fitness reports. Bear in mind that these are, based on the accompanying analysis, the ones released by Kerry and do not completely account for his service time.

An interesting fact gleaned from these documents is that there are two fitness reports written by LTCDR George Elliott. The first covers the period of time from 6 Dec 1968 to 13 Dec 1968. That's one week. The write-up is superb. During this one-week period LTJG Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. The second report, also written by LTCDR Elliott, covers the period from 14 Dec 1968 to 26 Mar 1969. The difference between the first report and second report is quite remarkable, especially considering that they were penned by the same person. In the "Personal Characteristics" section, 8 of 16 areas were evaluated at the "Above the majority" level, which I would equate at the C+ level. That is a killer to anyone who reads these things knowledgeably. The comments are even more bizarre. The precise use of language in these reports is important. Note as you read, the type and quantity of modifiers. Herein lies the rater's art. A good report will be filled (but not over-filled) with modifiers, like "outstanding", "superlative", "constantly", "among the best I have ever seen", etc. This report says that Kerry "frequently exhibited .... judgment". Reading that from a military supervisor's perspective, I hear the clanging of the alarm bell that says to me, "loose cannon".

All of the leadership accolades came in the first report, which covered 7 days. The second report speaks of involvement, but not much about leadership. Something happened between these dates.

* In this type of report, especially for officer grades, it is entirely possible to say that someone walked on water, but to indicate that the expectation was for hovering above water.

I think an ad focusing on vets' sense of betrayal from Kerry's post-Vietnam politicing ('I too committed atrocities...') would be a fairer and more effective campaign.  It would still be vulnerable to the charge of bringing up ancient history, but then that's exactly what Kerry's war record is, so...

I agree it could be done in a way that's powerful and fair.  I'm unsure whether it would have the intended effect of helping Bush beat Kerry.  Some people would be outraged by Kerry not 'supporting' the troops.  Others would feel that Kerry had earned his right to speak out by serving, and rightly or wrongly, many Americans view Vietnam as a war we shouldn't have fought.  So, it could go either way.

is that legal in Redstate Land?

Aren't you being a little insincere here?  I thought you wrote a post on your own site saying that the DKos was the inspiration for RedState.  I thought you were trying to replicate the community and activism that DKos has, but instead focused on the Republican party.  Am I remembering that incorrectly?

My point is that to dismiss similarities between RedState and DKos as a function of Scoop technology may be technically accurate, but still misleading.

Let's look at two possible situations.

a) Doctor X treated Kerry, and the unit commander signed off on it.

b) Doctor X did not treat Kerry.

From the evidence put forth, how can you possibly decide that (a) is more likely than (b)? I'm not saying (a) is impossible. I'm saying that when you accuse someone of something like this, you'd better have more evidence than your word on it.

Right now it comes down to one man's word against another -- and you're saying Kerry has something to prove? That's a ridiculous standard.

but I could live with that, unlike the Joe Wilson affair which the media just burried when his credibility was rebuked.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant - if these veterans aren't credible, so be it.  But if they are credible and articulate they will be able handle the rebuttals thrown their way.  I just want the debate to be covered.

It's my inspiration for RS, sure.  I think it's an amazing site in terms of its accomplishments in online community-building and participation.  Even if I do think it's run by -- and overrun by -- mean, small-minded individuals, I don't mind complimenting it up-front for those achievements.  But I wouldn't say it's the inspiration of the other two co-founders.  Nor of the other 25 editors.

In any case, I can guarantee you that not a single one of the design or organization decisions has proceeded from the question, "What does Daily Kos do about this?"  Scoop, et al., were chosen on their merits.

Look at it this way -- there's vastly more discussion of Red State at dKos than there is discussion of dKos at Red State.  So which community is watching the other the more?  It's not us.

you mean a bunch of guys who faithfully served their country in Nam, right.

And how does McCain know the facts and he was residing up north at the time.

not a good idea bringing up LBJ's medal in the same context as Kerry, unless you are a proud member of the GOP.

when is Kerry goint to release all of his records.

As a former Naval officer, I disagree quite strongly with your comment.  I believe that the men who served under me knew me quite well, better than the other officers on my ship, except for the ones who were my close friends.

I read the fitness reports and agree with your comments.  I was Army, not Navy, and there are differences in the forms and the way reports are written.  Most telling, however, are the lack are the tell-tales of a truly superior officer, such as "I'd go out of my way to have Cpt. X command a battery in my battalion" or "Lt X took the worst boat in the division and turned it into the best, one of the best junior officers I have seen in my career." or "Lt. X led the company for three months in combat after Cpt. Y's death.below the zone, get him through the OAC and give him another combat command now!"

The original post states:

 The Kerry campaign pointed out yesterday, as it had previously, that another doctor, J. C. Carreon, signed Mr. Kerry's treatment record.  

In a context that leads one to believe that this is supposed to be conclusive of something.

And I agree, when you accuse the doctor in the ad of lying you should have something substantial to back it up. The Kerry campaign hasn't denied the doctor treated him, only that he didn't sign the record.

And yes I am saying Kerry has something to prove. I am demanding that the same standard be used with Kerry as has been used with Bush on his National Guard service.

I think there is an immense amount of similarities between the two awards.

on what makes a good officer and leave it at that.

we could resolve this issue.

REPORT FROM THE FRONT FINAL THOUGHTS - the Vietnam Veterans against Kerry demonstration at the DNC.

It's now been a week since the Vietnam Vets serenaded John Kerry at the Fleet Center and in front of his house. The thing that amazes me the most is the degree to which the mainstream media has totally ignored our legitimate expressions of anger at the con job the Democrat National Committee was trying to foist on America so they could grab more power over us.

My wife, the fabulous Cindy, reminded me of PT Barnum's favorite saying "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." The latter is what Kerry and his minions are trying to do to America this election season. Apparently they think us Vietnam Era Vets are senile by now and don't remember his treachery that caused us to lose that war and denied us the honor we so richly earned.

I have this warning to the veterans of latter generations:

IF JOHN KERRY IS ELECTED, I PROMISE YOU HE WILL STEAL YOUR HONOR AS HE STOLE OURS."

Back to our demonstration and march. The media was there outside the Fleet Center by the hundreds and I had hundreds of cameras in my face as we advanced our banner into their consciousness. I personally was interviewed perhaps twenty times and I saw numerous other comrades interviewed also. WHERE ARE THOSE TAPES? ARE THEY BEING HIDDEN ON PURPOSE?

I will say that Channel Five ABC in Boston did show brief snippets of our efforts Wednesday and Thursday on their eleven o'clock news and another guy handed my daughter a cell phone and a voice told her:

"You're on the radio, how old are you?" To which she answered "Nine."

He then asked "Why don't you like John Kerry?" and she answered "Because he's a liar and I don't like his chin."

But that was all I know of. Kerry can never win if we can get the word out that two thirds of all Vietnam Veterans dislike him intensely, but how are we going to do that if the media will ignore us?

The following links describe my experience those nights and a few pictures I took of the situation:

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/07/report_from_the.html

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/07/report_from_the_1.htm
l

http://pep.typepad.com/photos/viet_vets_at_the_dnc/index.html

he war record the center piece of his election campaign, most likely because there were a lot of questions about that medal.

Kerry has decided to showcase his swiftboat experience, to the point of almost self-parody ... Live by the tale, die by the tale.

But I feel sorry for the swiftboat veterans because "main stream media" and Kerry supporters will be after them in the most vicious way possible.

if this is true, I think we need to get word out ASAP.

It's very disturbing.

I'm an Army guy so it was interesting to get an inside view of a sister service's fitness report system. Surprisingly, or perhaps not surprisingly, it is very similar to the Army.

Had Kerry been an Army officer I would say that on his 3 September 1968 report from the USS Gridley (p 10-11 of the .pdf file) Kerry was smoked like a cheap cigar.

The non-school reports would not rise to the level of mediocre.

It's surprising that the campaign released these reports unless Kerry was such a doof that he thought they were good.

Hmmm.

Could the first fitrep be based primarily on the fact that Kerry was awarded so heavily in that week?

Could the subsequent fitrep be based on personal testimony, by the people involved, that would discount the basis for those awards?

shrug no idea really.  I was an enlisted in the USMC so I don't have any real experience with fitness reports.

All of these veterans are mere puppets of O'Neill.

Seriously.  So what if O'Neill has been after Kerry?  Does that somehow invalidate their testimony?  Does that invalidate their credibility?

In that case, to apply the same standard fairly, then those veterans that have supported Kerry for 30 years should also be suspect.

Either or, your choice.

It would seem to me that authentication (or not) of this letter should be pretty easy to do. Maybe one of you DC honchos could do that?

I agree that attempting to stifle free speech is pretty rough. If it is libel, then it should not be aired, but if it is true and the DNC tries to stifle dissent by economic and legal threats, then they need to be censured firmly and publicly.

Hmmm.

"Kerry, Democrats Try to Scare Stations Out of Airing Vietnam Vets Anti-Kerry Ad"

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html

Looks like they're threatening to sue any station that airs this ad.  That's very curious.  Especially since the basis for this threat is that Kerry & DNC are claiming that the veterans in the ad are claiming to have served on the same boat.

What's interesting is that the script of the ad doesn't actually say that at all.  Instead the veteran's state that they "served" with Kerry.  Not that they were on the same boat.

http://www.swiftvets.com/script.html

hehe.  This is going to really get interesting.  There is something strange about the dog-days of summer.  The heat.  The humidity.  The excess of fried foods and caffeinated sugary soda.

It's all almost like absinthe.  The substance that makes men mad.  lol.

The fascimile actually has the legal firms phone numbers and the names to contact.

Now that's interesting!  :):)

A swift boat is very small, with a small crew.

It does not usually operate alone; it operates with other swift boats, forming a group of boats.

Think of the Apocalypse Now, the Flight of the Valkyries scene with helicopters swarmin' the little village --'cept with, er, boats.

So, every week or so the Officers (probably young Lieutenants) of each swift boat would meet, get orders and instructions from Division and carry out their tasks on the river.

So, to get all huffy and limit Kerry's praise or criticsm to the few members of his crew, while ignoring his fellow Officers in his Division, is, frankly, kinda myopic.

Myself, I served on a big boat, called an Aircraft Carrier (CV-41) -- so small little boats don't impress me much:)

I don't know whether it's even reasonable, but if the Vets want to fight this in court, can we set up a link to donate to cover their legal costs or something?

Well, let's see what Adm. Hoffman said about Kerry before he was dragged in from retirement:

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml:

"Roy Hoffmann, who commanded the coastal division in which Kerry served, worried about Kerry, at least at the beginning. He said Kerry

and some other skippers initially "had difficulty carrying out direct orders. You know, they were playing the cowboy a little bit. John

Kerry was one of them. You don't go out on your own when you are given certain type of patrols, and we were having difficulty with that."

Actually, it was Hoffman who was making the Swift Boats go out without support:

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/2/larsen-endless.asp

"Captain Roy Hoffman was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, and it was Hoffman's decision to send Navy Swift boats up the narrow rivers in the Mekong Delta of South Vietnam --

almost always without support from helicopters or artillery -- where they ran the risk of mines and were fired on almost at will by Viet Cong dug in along the river's banks. A Swift boat mission up a Mekong Delta river was a fool's errand, serving no greater purpose than showing the flag. At one point, Kerry and a fellow skipper named Don

Droz protested to Hoffman's immediate superior, Area Commander Adrian Lonsdale, an act of courage in itself. Kerry told the commander: "Sir,

I don't see how you can ask American troops to risk their lives when the priority in that area isn't high enough to warrant their getting

certain support. I just don't think that's right." A career Navy officer, Lonsdale told Kerry and Droz he was doing what he was told and couldn't fight it.

The operation proved so dangerous, writes Brinkley, that the Swift boat crews "began to rack up more and more medals -- and death

certificates." Shortly after Kerry returned home, his friend Droz was killed when his boat was sent upriver with 800 pounds of high explosives and was raked with rockets and machine guns. Brinkley

argues that it was the pointless death of Droz and the insanity of the Swift boat operations that would turn Kerry into such an ardent protester against the war and dedicated advocate for fellow veterans."

So far from Kerry being the "loose cannon", it appears Hoffman was the glory-seeker eager to risk his men's lives for his own career. So much so, that conservative columnist Chris Caldwell, editor of the Weekly Standard, called

Hoffman a "Kurtz-like psychopath" in a column about Bob Kerrey's alleged crimes in Vietnam, cf:

http://www.nypress.com/14/18/news&columns/beans.cfm.

Anyway, returning to Hoffman's quote from the Boston Globe:

"Hoffmann said the problem was corrected and he supported the actions on the day Kerry won the Silver Star. "It took guts, and I admire that," Hoffman said."

However, now Hoffman in the Smear Boat Veteran's press release is saying Kerry's medals' are "specious", and he "bugged out" (after getting three purple hearts). But earlier, in the Boston Globe, he says that differences with him and Kerry were sorted out, and that

Kerry showed "guts" in the events that won him his medals. Maybe Roy Hoffman needs to have a serious arugment with Roy Hoffman about the topic.

Of course, the instigator of SBVFT is John O'Neill's, whose sole experience of "combat" with

Kerry was a debate with Kerry on TV in 1971 (O'Neill was hand-picked by Nixon's dirty-tricks aide, Charles Colson, to take Kerry on).

Unfortuately for O'Neill future political career, Kerry handed his ass to him. Evidently O'Neill's idea of a suitable commander-in-chief was

Tricky Dick. His quality of judgement isn't changed. O'Neill's political career languished; so he's getting his own back at Kerry. Maybe a nice wee ambassadorship or assistant undersecretaryship in return.

Note that the media contact for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a woman called Spaeth, formerly a PR adviser to Ken Starr and also behind some of Bush's smear tactics against John McCain. cf: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/index.html.

Hence McCain's denouncing of the ad.

Let's see what another Swift Boat commander said about Kerry: http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

"Michael Bernique, who was revered as one of the gutsiest swift boat commanders, marveled at Kerry's brazen approach to battle. Bernique

recalled how Kerry one day "went ashore in an area that I thought might be mined. I said, `Get the blankety-blank out of there.' John just shrugged his shoulders and left. John just was fearless.

"If you are asking, `Was he foolhardy?' -- he survived," Bernique said. "I don't recall anybody saying they didn't want to serve with

him. I would not have worried about my back if John was with me."

From the LA Times story:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-swift5aug05.story

"Meehan noted that two of the men in the ad flew to Boston in 1996 to support Kerry during a nasty Senate campaign in which his heroism had been called into question."

Isn't it going to be embarrassing if these two guys were on the record attesting to Kerry's war record in the 1996 campaign, only to contradict themselves in 2004?

If you assert that Clinton ran a drug smuggling ring out of the Oval Office to work up enough capital to get the real bribe money from the PLA, one could safely say you're more than a bit out there on the right.

Why, then, are the assertions that Reagan slaughtered millions of gays, and Halliburton conquered Iraq, not indicative of the loony left?

Obviously a stupendously high hurdle to merit that in your mind.

As his defense of those who still believe in "The October Surprise" proved.

"and I don't know why it wouldn't [check out factually]"

I hope to god I'm not as naieve about what the Left puts out about Bush as you appear to be about what the right puts out about Kerry.

That's a sincere hope for both of us.

Evidently the actual details of the various situations in which Kerry go