« Joe Biden, useful fool for terrorists | Main | If an overdose of ironic disingenuousness could be fatal ... »

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Kranish and the Boston Globe should post Kerry's records for public review

Today's Boston Globe contains two articles by staff reporter Michael Kranish that discuss Navy records pertaining to Senator (and failed presidential candidate) John F. Kerry.  The articles say that the Globe obtained the records pursuant to a Standard Form 180, signed by Sen. Kerry, which named the Globe as the party to whom the records were to be directly released. In one article, Mr. Kranish asserts:

The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions. An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service. Indeed, one of the first actions of the group that came to be known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was to call on Kerry to sign a privacy waiver and release all of his military and medical records.

The second article focuses on Kerry's Yale undergraduate grades and concludes that Kerry was a "lackluster student" whose grade average was "virtually identical" to Dubya's. (Although in fact Kerry's grades appear to be slightly worse, both can fairly be characterized as "lackluster.")

Although both articles make interesting reading, I can't help feeling considerable skepticism about their conclusions.

Mr. Kranish and the Globe have indeed sometimes been critical of Sen. Kerry. But at other times — in particular with their trashy and unethical treatment of Captain George Elliott — they've skewed facts in ways that have been extremely beneficial to Sen. Kerry. And sometimes they've simply made incredible and inexcusable factual bloopers that likewise worked to Sen. Kerry's benefit — as, for example, in their biographical book "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best," in which they described Sen. Kerry as "a man who was severely wounded in combat [and] who watched men under his command die." As I wrote last summer, the first statement is absolutely false. Kerry's wounds were trivial, but this egregious factual mistake about them wasn't. The second statement is unsupported and almost certainly an exaggeration.

Moreover, despite Mr. Kranish's subjective conclusion that the records he's reviewed contain no "substantive new material," his articles utterly fail to address, either in detail or in summary form, some of the most controversial questions about Sen. Kerry's war service — including in particular the questions regarding Sen. Kerry's discharge.

The Boston Globe should immediately post all the records, and the signed Standard Form 180, as .pdf scans on their website. Perhaps they already plan to do so, and simply haven't gotten the scans made yet. But even were there no past examples to create doubts about the Globe's and Mr. Kranish's objectivity and accuracy, those members of the public who are inclined to study the actual source documents — rather than accepting as gospel Mr. Kranish's pre-digested conclusions — should have the chance to do so.

If the Globe and Mr. Kranish feel themselves to be precluded from posting the source documents because of some lack of further authorization from Sen. Kerry or other privacy concerns, they should disclose the facts about that.

The Rathergate memos were only debunked when the public was able to examine them. Perhaps Mr. Kranish's and the Globe's analysis of the new records has been fair, balanced, accurate, and complete. But there's no excuse for preventing the public from seeing the source documents.

(Mr. Kranish's email address is kranish@globe.com, and the Globe's online feedback form can be accessed through this link. And there are many, many links to blogospheric reactions similar to mine at Michelle Malkin's, Captain Ed's, and Tom Maguire's blogs.)

---------------

Update (Tue Jun 07 @ 7:30pm): Hugh Hewitt and N.Z. Bear also had reactions very similar to mine.

Posted by Beldar at 11:02 AM in Politics (2006 & earlier), SwiftVets | Permalink

TrackBacks

Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Kranish and the Boston Globe should post Kerry's records for public review and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


» Michael Kranish and “Trust-Me Journalism” from Patterico's Pontifications

Tracked on Jun 7, 2005 8:27:47 PM

» 135 Days and Counting from I-Magery: A Family Blog

Tracked on Jun 14, 2005 10:31:02 AM

Comments

(1) Geek, Esq. made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 12:01:39 PM | Permalink

Seriously, though, can we just about put this discharge nonsense to bed? I can understand Kranish maybe slanting a few items, but an omission of a "discharge for being a commie traitor" would be unfathomable.

At what point does a conspiracy theory collapse for a total lack of evidence?

That said, Kerry was a terrible candidate and I was kinda hoping there would be something damaging in there.

(2) Appalled Moderate made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 12:23:38 PM | Permalink

Geek:

Once the Form 180 is posted, there is no mystery left (except for those doin' the illegal substances that Oliver Stone has been ingesting). So, I think Beldar here is asking for the right thing.

(3) ed made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 12:54:30 PM | Permalink

Hmmm.

It's a simple request. Show me the discharge papers from 1972.

It can't get any simpler than that.

(4) Chris made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 1:08:12 PM | Permalink

Asking for the right thing, maybe, but still laboring under the ridiculous assumption, more than six months after the election, that the SBV's allegations were not, if not wholly, at least mostly fabricated to inflict political damage.

I agree that the documents should be published. But if they are, will we ever see an honest assessment from Beldar of the SBV's positively disgusting display of opportunism? Beldar's face is stained red with their Kool-Aid; I predict subtle implications of a massive, press- and government-aided cover-up ... at least as long as Kerry stays in the ring for 2008.

(5) FredRum made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 1:33:53 PM | Permalink

Y'all seem to be viewing this through LLLily-tinted glasses, Chris & Geek. Until Kerry's full record is released for public scrutiny rather than filtered and redacted through a Kerry-friendly reporter at a Kerry-friendly paper, both Beldar's previous analyses and the SBVT claims seem to hold up just fine.

And in the unlikely event that Kerry and the Globe release the documents for public scrutiny, I'm guessing that Beldar would be among the first to provide a fully transparent and honest assessment (unlike what the Globe has done in this instance) and if necessary, highlight what he got wrong and why. What grounds do you have for thinking that Beldar would do otherwise?

(6) Geek, Esq. made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 1:38:04 PM | Permalink

AM:

I agree--let's see the originals so our friends on the right can finally let go.

(7) Geek, Esq. made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 1:39:47 PM | Permalink

Fred:

I am confident that Beldar would own up if the originals were posted.

However, you know there are going to be plenty who will maintain that there's a secret cover-up going on.

(8) Fresh Air made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 1:56:51 PM | Permalink

Chris--

Your ad hominem aimed at the Swift Boat Veterans is not an argument. If you had read the book that John O'Neill wrote, you would understand the chasm between your spurious attack on their motives and the powerful evidence they marshall in condemnation of Kerry.

This non-release-release is just more of the same. "Nothing to see here, move it along..." The man was discharged in 1978. In between he met with the enemy in Paris. Not a peep about this in his records? The big bad military didn't keep tabs on its most notorious public critic? Why did the third Purple Heart get awarded mysteriously after the first two? Where is the paperwork for it? Why is John Lehman's signature on his Silver Star? Why did he have to get his medals re-issued? Could it be that perhaps they were stripped when he was given an other-than-honorable discharge? I really don't care about any of this stuff anymore. But to claim all the questions have been answered is absurd.

Face it. Kerry was then, and still is, an ass. After the unmitigated, unabashed trashing so many veterans received at his hands, it's a wonder somebody didn't shoot the son of a bitch. Keeping him out of the Oval Office was their gift to the country.

(9) RiverRat made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 3:36:36 PM | Permalink

"After the unmitigated, unabashed trashing so many veterans received at his hands, it's a wonder somebody didn't shoot the son of a bitch."

You'd better believe that more than a few of us, in irrational moments, considered it...as far back as 1971.

(10) Fresh Air made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 3:48:34 PM | Permalink

Rat--

Not irrational at all.

(11) Beldar made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 4:08:59 PM | Permalink

Folks, I'm quite sure (from comments both have left on this blog in the past) that neither RiverRat nor Fresh Air are seriously, or even semi-seriously, suggesting that anyone shoot Sen. Kerry. Otherwise I'd delete their comments.

The veterans who were most offended by Sen. Kerry's anti-war activism are likely to also be among those Americans most committed to nonviolent, democratic discourse.

So let's avoid even joking references to violence, please. It's in bad taste, and I don't want to be construed to be encouraging it by permitting it on my blog. Thanks.

(12) Chris made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 4:09:37 PM | Permalink

"Face it. Kerry was then, and still is, an ass. After the unmitigated, unabashed trashing so many veterans received at his hands, it's a wonder somebody didn't shoot the son of a bitch. Keeping him out of the Oval Office was their gift to the country."

This last paragraph deftly sums up the reason for the SBV attack, the reason they felt justified in their fabrications, and the reason so many Americans believed them. It was never about facts; it was always about how one felt about the issues surrounding Kerry's early politics.

I don't really care about John Kerry the candidate. He wasn't my choice for President. But if you think you've got a handle on what really happened because you heard from the people most invested in one of the most divisive issues of our time tell their version of events at the exact moment of greatest potential effect ... well, then, I'd say you're believing what you want to believe. I don't believe Kerry on the podium, and I don't believe opportunisitic hothead authors in election years. Unproveable assertions are not facts, and one shouldn't place burdens of proof based on them.

If this is about John Kerry's character, fine. Let it be about that for you. But don't spread stories first because you think they reflect what you feel is true and only as a distant second because you think they're probably true.

This isn't about the SBV, or Kerry, or Bush. This is about refocusing on actual issues, instead of delighting in the frothy rhetoric one finds one can create by oversimplifying vastly complex issues.

(13) Fresh Air made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 4:27:59 PM | Permalink

Kerry gets a lot of vets' blood up. But let's put that aside.

On the question of character, to me and millions of other Americans, Kerry obviously fails. Your mileage may vary.

However, let's not construe motives and "feelings" with truth. Beldar is a lawyer and he specializes in facts, logic, reason and argument. That's why I was so glad he put a post up on this subject. (Sorry about the invective, BTW. I don't want anyone to shoot Kerry, but I could understand why some vets might have thought about doing it.)

The assertions the Swift Vets laid out in their book and broadcast in their TV ads were heavily backed up by sworn testimony and documentary evidence, much of it from Kerry's own biography. It was methodical and powerful.

Aristotle said there are three components to an argument: (1) Pathos, or emotion; (2) Ethos, or appeal to credibility; and (3) Logos, or logic.

What you purport to do is to say that the Swift Vets lacked ethos, while their pathos was what governed their claims. But ultimately, it is the logos of the book that must be answered. This pseudo-release of information does nothing in that regard.

I will continue to wait for the rest of the file. I'm sure Beldar will do the same.

(14) RiverRat made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 4:36:07 PM | Permalink

"Folks, I'm quite sure (from comments both have left on this blog in the past) that neither RiverRat nor Fresh Air are seriously, or even semi-seriously, suggesting that anyone shoot Sen. Kerry. Otherwise I'd delete their comments."

Sorry Bill,

Point well made. However, you're right...it was in jest.

Tom

(15) Patrick R. Sullivan made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 5:47:37 PM | Permalink

Read carefully what Kerry said to Tim Russert on MTP:

"I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out,"

He cleaned up his record, and THEN authorized its release to a chosen source; his home town paper.

(16) David Blue made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 6:23:55 PM | Permalink

John F. Kerry could not have successfully prosecuted the war we are in, even if he had had the support base to do it (which as Beldar pointed out, he would not have), and even if he wanted to, which is in doubt. (He seemed more inclined to troop withdrawals, which we can now see would have been a disaster.) After promising to simply sign a disclosure form, he did nothing for over a hundred days, then signed the form but did not mail it, then sent it but with a provision that the information was to be released to certain of his allies, who in turn did not release the most controversial documentation. A man so incapable of crisp decision-making and follow-through could not have been a successful supreme commander.

No matter what is in John F. Kerry's records, it can't be worse than what he has already revealed about his fitness to command.

I think instead of continuing to be excited over every political detail, we should put our present circumstances - with George W. Bush in charge and the war on course for victory - in the context of the catastrophic turning point in history we recently avoided. We should give thanks, and we should relax.

Of course, the papers should still be published. But whether they are or not, it's too late for John F. Kerry to lose us the war now. George is in the White House, enough's right with the world.

(17) RiverRat made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 6:55:19 PM | Permalink

David,

"Of course, the papers should still be published. But whether they are or not, it's too late for John F. Kerry to lose us the war now. George is in the White House, enough's right with the world."

You miss the point for us that served on the rivers of Vietnam. My shipmates at SBVFT said from the outset that this was not about politics. Even after Kerry's defeat it's still not.

It's about Kerry's treachery and his slander of our service...it always will be.

It's a quest for those of us that served in Vietnam, not only to recover our honor but to assure that the anti-liberty left is put on notice that their slander of our brothers and sisters in today's military will not be ignored.

I, for one, don't want the veterans of today's war to suffer such abuses in silence as I have for the last 35 years.


(18) stan made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 7:19:16 PM | Permalink

Chris,

You keep saying that they Swiftvets lied, but you are a little short on evidence. Put up or shut up.

(19) James B. Shearer made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 7:35:39 PM | Permalink

RiverRat, if you don't want our soldiers abused you should work to keep them out of no win situations like Vietnam or Iraq. America tends to be hard on losers.

(20) Bingo made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 7:44:37 PM | Permalink

I think instead of continuing to be excited over every political detail, we should put our present circumstances - with George W. Bush in charge and the war on course for victory - in the context of the catastrophic turning point in history we recently avoided. We should give thanks, and we should relax.

There are 250+ Swift Vets and POWs who rose, yet again, to the defense of this country whose names are now being used by the MSM as a euphemism for the word "smear". The perpetrator of this mockery of justice continues to extract his political sustenance via a well-honed, 30 year habit of defamation of our brothers and sisters-in-arms in the service of his political ambitions.

Relax? Not until this fraud is driven from the office which he now disgraces with his presence. It's the least we owe to the SVPT.

(21) Bingo made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 7:57:47 PM | Permalink

...and, if I might add, to history.

(22) Fresh Air made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 8:25:46 PM | Permalink

James Shearer--

Do you think because men who fought well and bravely were poorly served by their commander-in-chief should be grounds for their being slandered by one of their comrades?

How would it feel to be a member of Uday's soccer team who got tortured after they lost a match? Just being hard on a "loser," huh?

You make me want to puke.

(23) Fresh Air made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 8:52:06 PM | Permalink

Well, Beldar, it looks as though somebody over at the Democratic Undergound blew the silent whistle and all the moonbats echolocated their fuzzy little rodential asses over here to drop some guano in defense of the first French nominee for president. Mon dieu! Regardez, les chaus-souris de la lune!

Sorry to see things haven't changed much since the election. They have a strange attraction to fact-based sites like this one, sort of like moths to a light: they buzz around it but don't really understand what it is.

P.S. You will appreciate I self-censored my last post to Jimmy Shearer. I won't go into the details, but it had something to do with the appropriate anatomic location where he could insert his sentiments.

(24) Boger made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 9:23:12 PM | Permalink

Chris -

I'm with Stan, please put up or shut up.

The operative word in this matter, and the keystone of the Swiftboat Veterans' position on Kerry, is "truth." Here is what they said from day one: "Constructing a complete picture of Kerry's service is difficult due to gaps in the Naval Records provided by the Kerry campaign. These gaps include missing and incomplete fitness reports, missing medical records and missing records related to his medal awards."

By virtue of a Purple Heart awarded for an injury sustained on the Bay Hap river in March 1969, Kerry was home in three weeks after completing only a third of his tour. Thus he survived. His good buddy Droz did not, he was killed on an operation several months later. The core question is, can Kerry honestly say, There but for the grace of God, go I? It is an appropriate, legitimate question to ask to see the medical records and Purple Heart recommendation that Kerry used to exit a combat zone before his obligation was fulfilled. A fact that you cannot dodge, is that Kerry never provided them.

But now maybe he has. Beldar has provided the email address of the guy who has them. Do your thing. Contact Kranish at the Globe, get those documents that show Kerry properly received a 3rd PH, honorably served in Vietnam and report back to us. Put up or shut up, its a fair proposition and I assume you are a fair person. If you don't follow through,we all will assume you are a clown and an intellectual coward. Please join us in getting to the rock bottom truth about Kerry's military service.

(25) John Boyle made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 9:39:37 PM | Permalink

"If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em."

The SF 180 is actually a request for "Report of Separation" which document is in the sole custody of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis - not the branch in which the veteran served (in this case the Navy). And the character of Kerry's "separation" (discharge) from the Navy is obviously the document(s) to hide.

The SF 180 directs the National Personnel Records Center to release records. What is the Navy doing in the middle of this? The Navy must have been the first directed recipient of the NPRC release in the SF 180 (not the Boston Globe). As a Federal entity, the Navy is then subject to Privacy Laws and any release by them had to be additionally waived by Kerry. He could then easily not waive specific documents for release that he found damaging. What the Boston Globe got was the remainder of whatever the Navy received from NPRC, less what Kerry wished to withold.

A real shell game. Kerry may not be very bright, but he as enough money to buy very slick advice.


(26) ed made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 10:09:19 PM | Permalink

Hmmm.

"A real shell game. Kerry may not be very bright, but he as enough money to buy very slick advice."

Hmmm.

Very slick, and very insufficient.

You know I'm seeing a lot of curious posts on a lot of conservative blogs on this issue. I wonder if some Democratic researchers aren't trying to find out how much flame there is left in prep for a Kerry 2008 run. With Kerry/SBV and Daschle as examples, logically speaking anyone with national ambitions would have to be a fool to not find out what kind of support or opposition there is in the blogs.

Practically then there would be a few different approaches. One would be to whip up contraversy 6-9 months prior to any election cycle so that all issues are thrashed out and people are completely saturated and bored. Another approach would be to time saturation just prior to the election cycle, in order to whip up support.

It's a curious thing really. But I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing both research attempts, with which to gauge intensity of reactions, and indirect attempts at manipulation.

curious.

(27) SemiPundit made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 10:13:37 PM | Permalink

Can someone help me find the service record information for John O'Neill and the other Swiftboat veterans? I am not having any luck.

(28) Bingo made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 10:48:02 PM | Permalink

Can someone help me find the service record information for John O'Neill and the other Swiftboat veterans? I am not having any luck.

Well, since John O'Neill signed an SF 180 unrestricted authorization for release back in January ( http://polipundit.com/images/O'Neill_Form_180.gif ) you're just an FOIA request away from having your very own set. Of course, you might be a bit late to the dance, as I assume O'Neill's records have already been microscoped to a fair-thee-well by Kerry, Inc., but perhaps your insights might unearth something? As to the other 250+ Swift Vet and POWs, I'd suggest you check with them right after they announce for the Presidency.

(29) Charley made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 11:04:07 PM | Permalink

"Face it. Kerry was then, and still is, an ass. After the unmitigated, unabashed trashing so many veterans received at his hands, it's a wonder somebody didn't shoot the son of a bitch. Keeping him out of the Oval Office was their gift to the country."

This last paragraph deftly sums up the reason for the SBV attack, the reason they felt justified in their fabrications, and the reason so many Americans believed them. It was never about facts; it was always about how one felt about the issues surrounding Kerry's early politics.
=======

You have reversed the situations. It was Kerry who did the "fabrications" and the SBVs who set the record straight.

One statement that is absolutely correct is that Kerry was attempting to cover up his "politics" of the past. The SBVs caused everyone to concentrate on his past and his embracement of totalitarian communism as acceptable. He is still the same person now.

(30) PC made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 11:07:11 PM | Permalink

Semi -- Contact John O'Neill. Good Texan boy, I doubt he has anything to hide.

As for the other Vets, plan a little get together with da boys, say at the local tavern and just ask them, mano a mano. But ask them nicely.

(31) SemiPundit made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 11:33:09 PM | Permalink

Thanks for the assistance. Is there any reason to think any of Mr. O'Neill's information has been held back?

Regarding the other SBV's, they are not merely concerned parties operating from the sidelines; they by choice placed themselves in the middle of the political situation during the presidential campaign. They are active players in the drama and as such should submit themselves to the sames standards of behavior that they asked of Mr. Kerry. It would be a most honorable gesture. I would not hesitate to provide mine if I were in their position.

The battle incidents they describe involved not only Mr. Kerry, but themselves as well, and we are entitled to know as much about them as we are about Mr. Kerry.

(32) Boger made the following comment | Jun 7, 2005 11:56:37 PM | Permalink

Semi, Semi, Semi,

Too bad the Jesuits didn't get ahold of you in time. You're lost, man.

Don't you recognize the standard rape defense technique when you use it?

(33) GodBlessAmerica made the following comment | Jun 8, 2005 2:53:31 AM | Permalink

I'm really getting tired of reading blogs by trial lawyer scum. God, I hope the next ambulance you chase leaves tire marks on you.

[This commenter's fictitious URL and email addresses have been edited out because of their profanity, and his IP address has been banned. Not that I think he'll mind. — Beldar]

(34) John Hansen made the following comment | Jun 8, 2005 6:53:14 AM | Permalink

Hello as I understand it the Boston Globe is to be the facilitator of the full release of the Kerry records, and that by releasing them to the paper that Senator Kerry expected a full disclosure to the public.

When will these record be posted.

The Boston Globe is a media organization and they can do anything they want with these records....clearly the Senator thought by signing them over to a Newspaper that their disclosure would be forthcoming.

(35) RAZ made the following comment | Jun 8, 2005 11:00:42 AM | Permalink

The Boston Globe only has a version of Kerry's records that have previously been vetted by Kerry if this report from Powerline is to be believed:

On the mixed-up files of John Kerry

Reader John Boyle writes:

I have been yelling since last year that the Navy does not have Kerry's records, nor does DoD.

The Navy has always been Kerry's hide-out. The Navy is covered by the Privacy Laws. You're a lawyer, right? The SF 180 is generically addressed to the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. These records are 30 to 40 years old. They are history! They do not stay at Navy Personnel Command forever.

It seems to me that all of Kerry's tortured rhetoric on this subject attests to the fact that he was having his records vetted, in spite of the public claim to openness. How to accomplish this? Tell the NPRC, on the SF 180, that the designated recipient of the records is to be a federal Agency (subject to the Privacy Laws) - the Navy!

Then, Kerry or his people get to vet the records at the Navy's offices, allow release of what they want by another required waiver separate from the SF 180, withhold what they don't want out there, and the Navy cannot comment on the process, their holdings - or their withholdings!

The trick is in whom he designated to receive the outflow from NPRC. Read the opening of Kranish's article again:"The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe..."

This is not rocket science, yet no one seems to understand what was done here.
Boyle followed up with the following message:
I want to give you another shot on this, just to be sure you understand. It is crystal clear obvious to me, yet very few people seem to get it...is it how I 'splain it?

The SF 180 is actually a request for "Report of Separation" and all such documents are in the sole custody of the National Personnel Records Center, in St. Louis - not the branch in which the veteran served (in this case the Navy). And the character of Kerry's "separation" (discharge) from the Navy is obviously the document(s) that are hot.

The SF 180 directs the National Personnel Records Center to release records, at the request of the documented veteran, and send them to whomever he designates (usually himself) - period. What is the Navy doing in the middle of this? The Navy must have been the designated recipient, on this specific SF 180 (not the Boston Globe, as Kranish explicitly admits). As a Federal entity, the Navy is then subject to Privacy Laws and any release by them had to be additionally waived by Kerry - or not. He could then easily not waive specific documents for release that he found damaging. What the Boston Globe got was the remainder of whatever the Navy received from NPRC, less what Kerry wished to withhold.

It may be that the Globe is unaware of this game; although I wrote about this at length last week to their reporter Joan Vennochi, who had written that Kerry's 180 was in the pipeline, in order to alert the Globe to what was afoot.

A real shell game.

We have it on good authority that ace reporter Thomas Lipscomb is working the story of the Globe and Kerry's records as well. Until Lipscomb's stories surface, we'll try mull over Boyle's explanations.

Posted by Scott at 07:54 AM | Permalink

(36) ed made the following comment | Jun 8, 2005 11:32:10 AM | Permalink

Hmmm.

"Regarding the other SBV's, they are not merely concerned parties operating from the sidelines; they by choice placed themselves in the middle of the political situation during the presidential campaign. They are active players in the drama and as such should submit themselves to the sames standards of behavior that they asked of Mr. Kerry. It would be a most honorable gesture. I would not hesitate to provide mine if I were in their position."

That is, quite frankly, an absurd and ridiculous standard. The very fact that you're pushing this nonsense pretty much erodes any credibility you might have. The idea that people have to open up every facet of their lives, to your personal scrutiny, in order to criticise a politician seeking the highest office, is beyond the believable.

It is also a standard that no MSM reporter or journalist would be willing to accept.

Peddle this nonsense somewhere else. If you can't debate on the points, then you simply are incapable of debating period.

(37) SemiPundit made the following comment | Jun 8, 2005 1:24:35 PM | Permalink

Maybe it's just my peculiar way of looking at the matter. It seems that when the idea is put forward that Kerry's complete records would reveal truths about his performance in combat incidents in which they all participated, then, in order to assemble a complete picture, the records of all parties should be considered as well.

It appears that you are saying that O'Neill unnecessarily provided his records.

Tell me how I can be assured that both Kerry's and O'Neill's revealed records are complete.

(38) ed made the following comment | Jun 8, 2005 2:09:37 PM | Permalink

Hmmmm.

"Tell me how I can be assured that both Kerry's and O'Neill's revealed records are complete."

What complete nonsense.

I'm not going to waste my time debating this. If you can't understand that you've got the credibility now of a 4 year old, then that's your problem.

When you come up with a real argument, go ahead and post it. Until then I'll feel free to utterly disregard you.

(39) David Blue made the following comment | Jun 8, 2005 8:51:18 PM | Permalink

Hi, RiverRat.

"You miss the point for us that served on the rivers of Vietnam. My shipmates at SBVFT said from the outset that this was not about politics. Even after Kerry's defeat it's still not. ...

It's about Kerry's treachery and his slander of our service...it always will be."

I thought that the issue was John F. Kerry's unfitness to command. (Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry -- by John E. O'Neill, Jerome R. Corsi.)

It seems to me that the Swift Boat Veterans made their case, and the public accepted it. It also seems to me that John Kerry has continued to prove since the election that he is indeed unfit for command.

I didn't think of your point of view, so I missed an important point. I stick to my opinion on what the most important point is.

"It's a quest for those of us that served in Vietnam, not only to recover our honor but to assure that the anti-liberty left is put on notice that their slander of our brothers and sisters in today's military will not be ignored."

Well, I assumed you won. But I've been astounded by the willingness of some people to still talk as though the Swift Boat Veterans and Prisoners Of War were liars.

"I, for one, don't want the veterans of today's war to suffer such abuses in silence as I have for the last 35 years."

I don't know what to do about the mainstream media's bias.

But there isn't going to be another generation of victims of defeat. John Kerry did not win the election. The veterans of this war are going to be vindicated by victory. That is the most important thing.

(40) Stephen M. St. Onge made the following comment | Jun 8, 2005 10:08:02 PM | Permalink

"The Boston Globe should immediately post all the records, and the signed Standard Form 180, as .pdf scans on their website."

      NO!  Nothing should ever by posted as a .pdf, that invention of the devil.  Post high-resolution .gifs.

      But otherwise, right on.  And by the way, it's interesting that Kerry only decided to release the records to the Globe, rather than the world.  Doesn't he ever learn?

THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!

(41) trainer made the following comment | Jun 9, 2005 12:11:30 AM | Permalink

Looking at the originals at the Globe will do no good.

Records this old are held in Kansas. The form 180 released the documents to the Navy (usually they are released to the vet) at Kerry's request. The Navy can only release those parts of the documents to the Globe that Kerry wants seen. Kerry's people went over the docs and picked what they would allow to be seen.

The Navy has the full set of documents, but as a non-principal party to this they are bound by confidentiality. Kerry still has not released the full documents to anyone who can really examine them.

It's a scam.

(42) PC made the following comment | Jun 9, 2005 11:56:48 AM | Permalink

Seim- From today's New York Sun

O'Neill made Kerry an offer. "I'll be happy to bring one (Form 180) to Kerry's office and help him fill it out. And then we can take mine and his and deliver them to the right place together to make sure, as Kerry puts it, 'the truth in its entirety will come out.' "

O'Neill has already signed a 180 and it allows anyone access.

(43) Bingo made the following comment | Jun 9, 2005 12:35:00 PM | Permalink

Beldar...

The Boston Globe should immediately post all the records, and the signed Standard Form 180, as .pdf scans on their website.

Beldar

From Josh Gerstein's NY Sun article...

Now that the Boston Globe has in its possession what it claims are Kerry's "full military and medical records," is the Globe ready to make these records available to the public? Wilkinson replied, "It is my understanding that Kerry will release these papers to anyone else now that he has signed the Form 180. The Boston Globe is not going to make available the papers we have received."

http://www.nysun.com/article/15135

Asked...answered.

(44) eecee made the following comment | Jun 9, 2005 1:50:22 PM | Permalink

>>>You keep saying that they Swiftvets lied, but you are a little short on evidence. Put up or shut up.<<<

Well, for starters:

link

link (see posts starting at Nov. 25)

(45) eecee made the following comment | Jun 9, 2005 1:53:24 PM | Permalink

The LA Times has an article that suggests they have also accessed the records:

link

(46) eecee made the following comment | Jun 9, 2005 2:00:51 PM | Permalink

>>O'Neill has already signed a 180 and it allows anyone access.<<


Even without an SF180, we know that O'Neill has misrepresented his own military service.

Among other things, he repeatedly stretched his 15 month service in or near Vietnam, into three years.

He also repeatedly claimed to have spent a year in Cos. Div. 11, and claimed to have spent 18 months "in the same place" as Kerry. All untrue.

Then of course he wrote that he took over Kerry's boat "after he requested early departure," when in fact it was five months after Kerry left.

link

(47) Boger made the following comment | Jun 9, 2005 8:45:54 PM | Permalink

Dear EECEE,

As for your, "Well, for starters..." Well, lets see if you can handle the truth or if you are an imposter?

I went to the first web address you gave: link On that page I was able to find a web link to the Personnel Casualty Report on LTJG Kerry. (link.) This Casualty Report message was for injuries sustained on 13 Mar 69 on the Bay Hap River. For your convenience I will give you verbatim the injury descripition: "While serving as Officer in Charge aboard PCF-94 engaged in operations in above river. LTJG Kerry suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttock and contusiinos on his right forearm when a mine detotanted close aboard PCF-94." These are the injuries for which Kerry received his 3rd Purple Heart. The SPOTREP for this action also reports on WIA and KIA's. It reads as follows: "HSHRAPNEL WOUND LEFT BUTTOCK AND CONTUSION LEFT FOREARM (MINOR)."

During the 2004 election campaign The Washington Post ran a piece by Michael Dobbs in which the 13 Mar 69 operation on the Bay Hap was discussed in depth. The date of the article was 23 August 2004, and its title was, Swift Boar Accounts Flawed. You will remember that this was the action when Kerry lost the SF advisor, Rassmann, overboard and went back and picked him up. The article contained the following quote about Kerry and Rasmussen's activities a couple of hours before the river mine ambush:

"As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top ot the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades in the hole and ran. Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. 'He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end,' Rassmann said with a laugh. 'It was more embarrassing than painful.' At the time the incident did not seem significant and Kerry did not mentione it to anyone wher he got back on the boat."

It gets better. In an online discussion moderated by the Post several days later (26 August 2004), John O'Neill said the following: "With respect to Kerry's third Purple Heart, Kerry represented to the Navy that he had received shrapnel from an underwarter mine. He now admits that he had wounded himself earlier in the morning playing around with a grenade. The wound was minor and superficial."

Finally, the military's regulations for the PH require that the injury be "as a direct result of hostile enemy action."

The onus on you, EECEE, is to rebutt with credible documentation that Kerry's third Purple Heart was legitimate and proper basis for him to exit the Vietnam war zone before his assigned tour was completed.

Until and unless you do, the whole truth appears to be that Kerry unethically manufactured a Purple Heart which he then used to shamefully escape his duty. I do hope you have the testicular fortitude and intellectual accumen to respond on point, but I am not going to hold my breath.

(48) ed made the following comment | Jun 9, 2005 8:53:21 PM | Permalink

Hmmmm.

"en.wikipedia.org"

ROFLMAO!

You're using WIKKIPEDIA as a source to back up your claim?

WikkiPedia, the greatest source of online lefty bull**** in the known universe. Here's a clue, WikkiPedia is manipulated by lefties in order to provide other lefties with something to back up their ridiculous claims. Anyone who relies on WikkiPedia deserves all the offal thrown at him.

LOL. WikkiPedia! LOL.

(49) ed made the following comment | Jun 9, 2005 8:56:51 PM | Permalink

Hmmm.

All this stuff has been thrashed out repeatedly. It's up to Kerry to provide the *full* and *unedited* records.

Something that I doubt he'll ever do as it'll probably destroy his political career.

(50) eecee made the following comment | Jun 10, 2005 12:19:19 AM | Permalink

>>>ed: You're using WIKKIPEDIA as a source to back up your claim?<<

Uh, if you'd read the article, you would know that it actually links to all the records in question.

Give it a try.

The comments to this entry are closed.