Kerry Critics Eating Crow

"I knew it was wrong"

John Kerry's former commanding officer now retracts a statement he signed onto at the prodding of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans that said Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star. It was a "terrible mistake," and he felt "time pressure" from those involved in the book, the officer says. The Drudge Report, at least partly responsible for the hype around the anti-Kerry ad and book -- and which yesterday bore this blaring headline: "VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL..." is linking to the Boston Globe piece with the understated headline "One Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry..."

Yes, one veteran, who happened to be Kerry's commanding officer. Since none of the other veterans who appear in the anti-Kerry ad actually served with Kerry, this retraction delivers a mighty blow to their claims. As the Globe points out: "All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star."

From the Globe: "A key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake' in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book."

"Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.'"

"The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives."

"Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star. 'I still don't think he shot the guy in the back,' Elliott said. 'It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here.'"

"Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure' from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse,' Elliott said. 'I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.'"

"The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. The book, 'Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,' is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report."

Click to expand...

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

And there it is ... the republican party yet again getting caught making up crap.

Two things:

1) This is not the Republican party. These are actual Vietnam vets raising their own money to get out the word. After initially raising enough money to get together and hold a press conference (covered on CSPAN, though subject to a near media blackout anywhere else) detailing their evidence and stories, they got some help in the way of donations. The largest donor was a texas real estate guy who donated 2/3 of their $150,000.
Of course he's a republican, democrats wouldn't pony up cash to hear veterans speak unless it was for another Winter Soldier investigation. If this was an actual RNC campaign don't you think they could come up with a little more cash???

2) This headline has already been debunked.
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html

"Yes, one veteran, who happened to be Kerry's commanding officer. Since none of the other veterans who appear in the anti-Kerry ad actually served with Kerry, this retraction delivers a mighty blow to their claims. As the Globe..."

Curious how Salon doesn't think the officers on the other patrol boats in the same theatre under the same command "actually served with Kerry". Maybe there are Two Vietnams and they just happened to be serving in the other one. Or are the only veterans who can comment on Kerry's service the people who were in his boat?

Here's an idea: maybe Salon.com isn't the best place to find the truth. But then that wasn't what you were shopping for was it?

The other men in the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth did not serve on the same boat with Kerry. Duh, was that so hard to understand.

I'll put Salon up any day against the Drudge Report and Fox News.

Edit: after reading the following story, I don't think his C.O. knows what he believes

Update:

Veteran disputes newspaper report of recanted Kerry charges

Boston Globe stands by story

Friday, August 6, 2004 Posted: 6:33 PM EDT (2233 GMT)

Sen. John Kerry has made his Navy service in Vietnam a central theme of his presidential campaign.

BOSTON, Massachusetts (Reuters) -- One of presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam war comrades, who had appeared to back off his criticism of Kerry's war record, recanted Friday and said, yes, in fact he did question whether the U.S. senator deserved his medals.

Last week at his nominating convention, Kerry painted himself as a decorated war hero capable of leading the nation in troubled times and a man better qualified to be commander-in-chief than President Bush.

That portrayal of his time as commander of a Navy Swift Boat sparked a heated exchange this week between those who support him and those who question that image.

This week a group calling itself the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched a television spot accusing the Democratic candidate of betraying his country by speaking out against the war when he returned home.

On Friday, a member of that group who was one of Kerry's supervisors in Vietnam, George Elliott, appeared to back off an earlier affidavit in which he suggested Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. In the affidavit, he said, "I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

In Friday's Boston Globe, Elliott was quoted as saying: "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott told the Globe Kerry did deserve the medal.

Playing golf

Inundated with calls to verify the statement, Elliott grew media shy and said through his wife he would not talk. Earlier in the day, Mrs. Elliott said her husband was playing golf and would call back when he returned in the afternoon.

Elliott later issued another affidavit -- witnessed and notarized -- this time saying he was misquoted by the Globe and reaffirming his belief that Kerry has "not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Elliott also wrote: "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong."

Martin Baron, editor of The Boston Globe, said in a statement: "Regarding George Elliott's statements on John Kerry's military service, which ran in the Globe this morning, the Globe stands by the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate."

Next week the group will step up its campaign against the candidate with a book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."

Veterans supporting Kerry called the ad a "smear campaign" and two whose lives were saved by Kerry hit back.

"What these people have said is not true and a lot of it is grossly inaccurate," said James Rassmann, who has appeared at many campaign appearances with the candidate.

"These gentlemen appear to be making this up as they go along and they are not keeping their stories straight," he said.

Fred Short, who also served with Kerry, said the ad shows "The Bush campaign has nothing to talk about, so they resort to these dirty tricks."

Meanwhile Republican Sen. John McCain, another Vietnam veteran, called the attack dishonorable and dishonest.

The Bush administration distanced itself from the advertisement Thursday but did not condemn it. "We have not and we will not question Sen. Kerry's service in Vietnam," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Click to expand...

Now I don't think this guy knows what he believes anymore.

[quote name='famousmort']Two things:

1) This is not the Republican party. These are actual Vietnam vets raising their own money to get out the word. After initially raising enough money to get together and hold a press conference (covered on CSPAN, though subject to a near media blackout anywhere else) detailing their evidence and stories, they got some help in the way of donations. The largest donor was a texas real estate guy who donated 2/3 of their $150,000.
Of course he's a republican, democrats wouldn't pony up cash to hear veterans speak unless it was for another Winter Soldier investigation. If this was an actual RNC campaign don't you think they could come up with a little more cash???

2) This headline has already been debunked.
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html

"Yes, one veteran, who happened to be Kerry's commanding officer. Since none of the other veterans who appear in the anti-Kerry ad actually served with Kerry, this retraction delivers a mighty blow to their claims. As the Globe..."

Curious how Salon doesn't think the officers on the other patrol boats in the same theatre under the same command "actually served with Kerry". Maybe there are Two Vietnams and they just happened to be serving in the other one. Or are the only veterans who can comment on Kerry's service the people who were in his boat?

Here's an idea: maybe Salon.com isn't the best place to find the truth. But then that wasn't what you were shopping for was it?[/quote]

You do understand that the lead guy in that group was initially chosen by Tricky Dick to try and discredit Kerry when he started protesting the war, don't you? This isn't some conscience-ridden guy who's come forward to tell his tale. This is a man with a major axe to grind, and his information should be considered in that light.

Who exactly is the "lead guy in that group" you are referring to, dennis? Is it Rear Admiral Hoffmann ? John O' Neill? Goerge Elliott?

What's hard to undertsand, MBE, is how you don't think the veterans who crewed the same boats, running missions in coordination with Kerry's boat, in the same waters at the same time, for the same unit, don't have any qualification to comment on his Kerry's service and character. Saying that they "didn't serve with Kerry" is disingenuous, it implies they must have served at another time or in another place, and therefore have no qualification to comment.

A common image from Kerry's 'Band of Brothers' ads is a photo of 20 swift boat officers taken on An Thoi in 1969. Of those officers, 11 (including George Elliott) signed a letter sent by Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry demanding he stop using their images in his ads. Six of those officers didn't want to get involved either way. Two (!) of the twenty officers pictured support John Kerry. And the 20th is John Kerry, who appears to support using his own image (at least for now).

If these veterans "didn't serve with Kerry", why does he use their image?

[quote name='famousmort']Who exactly is the "lead guy in that group" you are referring to, dennis? Is it Rear Admiral Hoffmann ? John O' Neill? Goerge Elliott?

What's hard to undertsand, MBE, is how you don't think the veterans who crewed the same boats, running missions in coordination with Kerry's boat, in the same waters at the same time, for the same unit, don't have any qualification to comment on his Kerry's service and character. Saying that they "didn't serve with Kerry" is disingenuous, it implies they must have served at another time or in another place, and therefore have no qualification to comment.

A common image from Kerry's 'Band of Brothers' ads is a photo of 20 swift boat officers taken on An Thoi in 1969. Of those officers, 11 (including George Elliott) signed a letter sent by Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry demanding he stop using their images in his ads. Six of those officers didn't want to get involved either way. Two (!) of the twenty officers pictured support John Kerry. And the 20th is John Kerry, who appears to support using his own image (at least for now).

If these veterans "didn't serve with Kerry", why does he use their image?[/quote]

I refer to John O'Neil. Sorry for the vagueness.

Two thoughts on the other discussion:

(1) I think I would trust the guys who actually served on the boat with Kerry before I would trust these other officers. O'Neil never even served at all with Kerry -- he came after Kerry left. Why's this guy leading the charge?

(2) Attacking a decorated serviceman's record is a despicable act, and I think the Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves. This comes at a time when we should be honoring military service in any way possible. Is this what the kids now serving in Iraq have to look forward to should they later enter politics on the "wrong" side? Bush ought to publicly rebuke these ads, and the fact that he doesn't just lowers him further.

I was going to respond but dennis_t said everything I was going to. I couldn't agree more.

I too believe attacking decorated servicemen is despicable. So does John O'Neill. That's why, after two years of duty, recovering from a knee injury in a military hospital, Mr. O' Neill took great offense at Kerry's coming home and painting all of our servicemen with a broad brush of atrocity. (which we all agree, is bad). So he contacted the Foreign Relations Committee and wanted to testify. No go. Eventually, Kerry agreed to debate him on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. O'Neill confronted Kerry from day one, and continues to, as John Edwards likes to say, "speak truth to power".

Fast forward thirty years and O Neill is again in a hospital, donating a kidney to his wife. He hears about John Kerry, who at that time had not yet locked up the nomination. He does indeed have an axe to grind, and a good one at that. Their unit suffered substantial casualties because of their restraint, his friends dead, and Kerry turns around and testifies before Congress (april 22, 1971) that American soldiers had, as the rule, not as an exception, been guilty of systemic war crimes in the destructive fashion of Genghis Khan.

There are many veterans that feel John Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against the War helped establish the image of all Nam vets as murderous criminals and cannot stomach his attempt to run on his war record to become Commander-In-Chief. Are you suggesting they have no right to challenge his telling of events? Are you suggesting Bush has some obligation to rebuke veterans for speaking their minds?

Let's wait for the book to come out, then we can review things for ourselves instead of in dribs and drabs as things leak out and the Kerry camp counters. It sounds as though they will make specific allegations which, if Kerry releases the pertinent medical and military records, can easily be proved or disproven.

[quote name='famousmort']I too believe attacking decorated servicemen is despicable. So does John O'Neill. That's why, after two years of duty, recovering from a knee injury in a military hospital, Mr. O' Neill took great offense at Kerry's coming home and painting all of our servicemen with a broad brush of atrocity. (which we all agree, is bad). So he contacted the Foreign Relations Committee and wanted to testify. No go. Eventually, Kerry agreed to debate him on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. O'Neill confronted Kerry from day one, and continues to, as John Edwards likes to say, "speak truth to power".

Fast forward thirty years and O Neill is again in a hospital, donating a kidney to his wife. He hears about John Kerry, who at that time had not yet locked up the nomination. He does indeed have an axe to grind, and a good one at that. Their unit suffered substantial casualties because of their restraint, his friends dead, and Kerry turns around and testifies before Congress (april 22, 1971) that American soldiers had, as the rule, not as an exception, been guilty of systemic war crimes in the destructive fashion of Genghis Khan.

There are many veterans that feel John Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against the War helped establish the image of all Nam vets as murderous criminals and cannot stomach his attempt to run on his war record to become Commander-In-Chief. Are you suggesting they have no right to challenge his telling of events? Are you suggesting Bush has some obligation to rebuke veterans for speaking their minds?

Let's wait for the book to come out, then we can review things for ourselves instead of in dribs and drabs as things leak out and the Kerry camp counters. It sounds as though they will make specific allegations which, if Kerry releases the pertinent medical and military records, can easily be proved or disproven.[/quote]

I agree that we should wait until the book is out to see what's what. You will note I had nothing to do with starting this thread.

However, I think it's pretty cheap to have this unsubstantiated ad running, attacking Kerry's war record, when none of the supposed evidence that would support the accusations has been released. I think Bush does have an obligation to disavow such dirty tactics. If these guys can prove something, they should prove it, not just air an ad that floats unsubstantiated accusations. It's dirty politics, plain and simple, no matter what the source. And some of that dirt should stick to Bush, should he choose not to wipe it off.

I also note that O'Neill has longstanding ties to right-wingers and Republicans -- he clerked for Rehnquist, carried Nixon's water in the fight against Kerry, and works for a law firm directly connected to the Bush White House. How much of this really is honest outrage and how much of this is a calculated political smear carried out by a handmaiden of the Republican Party?

Link:
http://archive.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/04/23/o_neill/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/index.html

Last week, thanks to constant plugs by the Drudge Report, a book entitled Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry reached Amazon's number 1 spot based on pre-orders. At the same time, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released a TV ad which attempted to call Kerry's honesty into question and insisted that he'd "betrayed" his fellow troops and was not fit to lead the country. The ad begins with a clip of John Edwards saying, "If you have any questions about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him." The screen goes black, and writing appears which says "Here's what those men think about John Kerry," before launching into a series of clips of Vietnam veterans personally attacking Kerry and accusing him of lying. Let's break this down shall we?


Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is supposed to be a non-partisan organization. But it was organized with the assistance of Merrie Spaeth, a Republican public relations executive "whose late husband, Tex Lezar, ran for Texas lieutenant governor on George W. Bush's ticket in 1994," according to Salon.com.


Also according to Salon, the Swift Boat Veterans' website "was put up courtesy of William Franke, a St. Louis businessman with longstanding ties to Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Missouri Republican Party. Its chief financiers, according to the group's last quarterly IRS filing, are Houston builder Bob J. Perry and the Crow family, both major Republican donors from Texas." During the past four years Perry has apparently given "$5 million to candidates and causes, nearly all of them Republican and extremely conservative."


Again, according to Salon, "the group's IRS filing names several experienced Washington political operatives. The June 30 filing shows payments to Robert A. Hahn, a right-wing Internet activist and Web designer who also runs something called the Free Republic Network."


Swift Boat Veterans head honcho and co-author of the Kerry-bashing book, John O'Neill, is a partisan hack who used to clerk for William Rehnquist and has had a long-standing feud with Kerry since the early seventies, when he was hand-picked by Richard Nixon in an effort to discredit Kerry's anti-war activities.


The other co-author of Unfit for Command, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD, has in the past called Islam "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"; said of Muslims that, "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters - it all goes together"; said of Catholics that, "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"; said of John Kerry, "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"; and said of Sen. Hillary Clinton, "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?" And there's plenty more where that came from (if you can stomach it).


None of the veterans in the commercial served on a boat with John Kerry. Despite saying in the ad that they "served with" Kerry, they only served in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry. All but one of the surviving veterans who actually served under Kerry's command have endorsed him and strongly support him. Jim Rassmann called the ad, "pure fabrication."


One of the veterans who appears in the ad - Kerry's commander in Vietnam, George Elliott - said last week that he had made a "terrible mistake" by suggesting Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. Elliott originally recommended Kerry for the award, saying he was "calm, professional, and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire." Elliott - along with one of the other Swift Boat Veterans - even came to Boston during Kerry's Senate campaign in 1996 to support him. Now he says that his contradictory statements "makes me look kind of silly, to be perfectly honest." By the way, Elliott has since retracted his retraction. Guess the guy just can't decide what he believes. Either that or his "pals" gently reminded him that it ain't so easy to back out of a signed affidavit.


John McCain, chairman of Bush's campaign in Arizona, denounced the ads last week, saying, "I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire." Referring to the dirty tricks Team Bush used against McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries, he said, "It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me."


Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not - and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam," but refused to condemn or criticize the ad, instead using the opportunity to complain about "unregulated soft-money activity."
So - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Hardly. On the contrary, this is likely to go down in history as one of the most dishonest and dirtiest campaign tricks ever. Shame on Team Bush for not disowning this crap.

Have any of you people who are accusing Kerry of accusing ALL soldiers in Vietnam of war crimes, have any of you actually HEARD the winter soldier testimonies?

Thousands of other vets came out and congratulated him for starting the movement and for speaking the truth about Vietnam.

(And to get the full picture you need to hear Nixons "secret tapes" also)


I HAVE HEARD THE TESTIMONY AND JOHN KERRY AND ALL OF THE OTHER SOLDIERS WHO JOINED HIM ARE TRUE AMERICAN HEROES.

They were not attacking all of the soldiers, they were protesting the immorality of the war and actions taken by the president as well as many other people in leadership positions.