Swift Boat Vets and standards of proof

Jim Geraghty has a piece at The Campaign Spot titled "Remembering what the swift boat vets actually said".

I'm not the first to make this point, but it seems the attacks on John McCain's war service stem from prominent Democrats completely misreading what happened with the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. The Democrats' conventional wisdom is that A) everything the group said was a lie and B) they attacked Kerry's wartime service.

Go back and reread what they charged. (Take a walk down memory lane from the Kerry Spot here, here and here and Byron's assessment of the impact here.) A lot of their stories came down to their word against John Kerry's. Some of the points of contention were inconclusive, and some of the reactions their comments triggered, like convention delegates wearing "purple heart band-aids" on the floor of the convention, were crass. But they scored several major points. The first was when they pointed out the impossibility of Kerry's story of "Christmas in Cambodia" that was "seared, seared" into his memory. When one of Kerry's oft-cited war stories had such a glaring impossibility at its heart (Richard Nixon wasn't president, and thus couldn't be denying bombing in Cambodia, on Christmas 1968) it raised doubts about all of his other accounts of the war.

Second, no Kerry supporter could dispute the candidate's postwar "Genghis Khan" testimony before Congress, which many Vietnam veterans saw as a betrayal. When it became clear that Kerry was referring to secondhand accounts, and had not himself seen soldiers cutting off heads and ears, many veterans saw that as reckless at best and most likely slander. I'd argue that this was the Swift Boat Vet argument that really gained traction, and I suspect many voters saw it as a situation that revealed Kerry's character.

Third, there were about 200 members of Swift Boat Vets for Truth. Maybe some of them had faulty memories, or were down-the-line Republicans, or just plain didn't like Kerry. But all of them? Many Americans looked at the sheer volume and detail of their stories of Kerry, and concluded that where there was smoke, there was most likely fire.

If we see hundreds of men who served with McCain come out and denounce him, the American people will reconsider their opinion of him, as well. But I would not hold my breath waiting for that to happen...

Swift-Boating of McCain?

I was talking to someone last night about the Democrats' commandeering and utter misuse of the word "swiftboating." To "swiftboat" a candidate, in lib parlance, is to call into question some facet of a candidate's character or record that the Left deems unquestionable, and to do it in some dastardly and dishonest fashion. Alternate definitions also include the words "noise machine."

Of course, to those of us who thought the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth brought up some legitimate points-- like the fact that John Kerry lied about being in Cambodia, and ticked off a bunch of honorable veterans by lumping them in with those "reminiscent of Genghis Khan"-- "swiftboating" means raising totally legitimate questions about the centerpiece of a candidate's campaign using his own words, eye-witness accounts, and the testimony of acquaintances to bolster the arguments. The very fact that the Left would rather leave those questions unasked is what makes the process of "swiftboating" dastardly in their eyes.

....

And, we've got another one today from a Democratic surrogate. This is George McGovern being, well, a jerk (emphasis Jim Geraghty's):

Let me tell you what I would say to John McCain: neither of us is an expert on national defense. It's true that you went to one of the service academies but you were in the bottom of the class. It's true that you were a pilot in Vietnam, that you were shot down and spent most of the war in prison and we all sympathize with that and honor you for your courage. But you and I both had these battle experiences, you as a Navy fighter plane, I as an army bomber. I am not going to criticize your war record and your knowledge of national security but I don't want you criticizing mine either.

If I'd be allowed just one little dig at Senator McCain, since he gave me. I would say, 'John, you were shot down early in the war and spent most of the time in prison. I flew 35 combat missions with a 10-man crew and brought them home safely every time.'

Is this really the line of attack they want to try? McCain's war record is certainly not off-limits. It's the centerpiece of his campaign and character much as Kerry's was, though I'd argue McCain is making a much clearer connection between his battle-scarred past and his battle-ready future than Kerry ever did.

The party of tolerance and compassion strikes again

(Story via Bill's Comments.)

Steve Gardner had a story to tell about John Kerry.

His superior, for four months, was none other than Lt. j.g. John F. Kerry. "I had confrontations with him there. He nearly got us rammed by the VC one night because he wasn't watching the helm. I heard the motor coming close, turned on the spotlight, and the boat was only 90 feet away, coming fast. The VC was aiming an AK47 at us. I shot him out of the boat. We pulled a woman and a baby off the boat. Kerry wrote it up that we captured two VC and killed four more on the beach. None of that was true. The only thing true on Kerry's report was the date. The woman was catatonic and wouldn't call her baby VC and there were no VC on the beach. If we had seen that report before Kerry sent it up the chain of command, he would have been court-martialed and never allowed to run for office. And that's just the San Pan incident.

Well, if this is slander, Kerry could sue. Apparently no lawsuit was ever filed. Instead,

Gardner said he received a call from Douglas Brinkley, the author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. Brinkley told Gardner he was calling only to "fact check" the book -- which was already in print. "I told him that the guy in the book is not the same guy I served with. I told him Kerry was a coward. He would patrol the middle of the river. The canals were dangerous. He wouldn't go there unless he had another boat pushing him." Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking" conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for Time.com. The article, implying that Gardner was politically motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother." Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the job back.

So much for the Democrats' belief in free speech.

Unfit for Command – Epilog

(Hat tip: David Limbaugh)

This link sends you to a page where you can have the epilog e-mailed to you. It details how Kerry has changed his story in response to the Swift Vet ads, and the rest of the book.

The mainstream media have been stating, without any sort of backup, that the stories of the Swift Vets have been discredited. Well, if the MSM continue to ignore the fact that Kerry's story has changed significantly over the past few months, and refuse to look at inconsistencies in the records, I suppose they'll be right.

At the very least, though, the change in Kerry's story is evidence that Kerry gives the Swift Vets a lot of credence.

Kerry's discharge

(Hat tip: David Limbaugh)

Thomas Lipscomb of the New York Sun has been investigating John Kerry's records. He's found some documents that are very hard to explain if we assume Kerry was honorably discharged.

Of course, Kerry could fill out a form 180 and clear this whole thing up.

More Swift Boat Vet Activity

Kerry once said, if we wanted to know about him, ask his band of brothers from Vietnam. Well, more of his band of brothers speak out.

Did Kerry write the action report?

The Chicago Sun Times has a piece by Thomas Lipscomb that examines the question of just who wrote the action report that led to Bronze Stars for both Kerry and Thurlow.

First of all, Thurlow did not write it, even though it would normally have fallen to him after the incident. The report was written by someone designated "TE 194.5.4.4/1."

Now "TE" is not some person's initials. It stands for "Task Element", which is defined by the numbers that follow. In this case

"194" is Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; "5" is Hoffman's swift boat command; "4" is Lonsdale's command, and the last "4" is Capt. George Elliot's swift boat base at An Thoi, where the boats on this mission were based. The last "1" indicates someone other than the commander of the mission. If the report had been submitted by the mission commander, in this case Thurlow, according to the operations order, it would have begun with a "C" for commander of the Task Element, and the sender would have been "CTE 194.5.4.4."

Thurlow definitely did not write the report. So who did?

According to a Navy communications expert, Chief Petty Officer Troy Jenkins, who has examined the message traffic, the report in question was sent from the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Spencer, Lonsdale's command ship, at 11:20 that night. Only three of the officers on the mission that day were on the Spencer, John Kerry, Dick Pease and Donald Droz. Droz took the wounded from the mine explosion to be examined and treated at the Spencer, including the third officer, the severely wounded Dick Pease. Since the Spencer had no helipad for the evacuation of the wounded, Droz then had to return to the USS Washtenaw County, stationed about 25 nautical miles away, leaving only Kerry aboard the Spencer at the time the message was sent at 11:20 p.m. Could Droz have somehow written the report? Lonsdale says command precedence of days in swift boat service alone rules this out. "According to the command procedure I set down, Kerry would have been the only logical candidate. Kerry had been in Vietnam since November. Droz just arrived at An Thoi in February." Thurlow adds, "I never liked the paperwork anyway. I was happy to have Kerry write them up."

The documentary evidence supporting Kerry's account of events that day now becomes what lawyers call a "self serving document". Its probitive value is somewhat diminished, don't you think?

Swift Vet FAQs

Here's a pretty comprehensive FAQ, and even SAQ (Seldom...) for the Swift Boat Veterans' story. I'd like some evidence that the folks who raise objections to their story show some evidence of having at least read this document.

Debunkers, you know who you are. At least address the points that are raised here. Show some sign you're actually looking at, and for, evidence. If you're not going to treat the responses seriously, why should I take you seriously?