If You Believed....
A few days ago I argued (here) that we're missing one of the most interesting things revealed by the Swift Boat veterans' criticism of Kerry, and that is that many Kerry supporters seem not to care whether the charges are true or not. Most of their effort is devoted to attempts to disparage and thus dismiss the critics as disgruntled right-wing hacks paid off by "mysterious" Republican money bags in Texas.
What I would like to hear from Kerry supporters is a response to this question: If you believed that Kerry knowingly submitted false after action reports in order to receive undeserved Purple Hearts so that he could escape from Vietnam to run for Congress at home and that for years he repeated a tale he knew to be false about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968, a tale that he retracted only now when disproving evidence has come to light, would you still support him?
While you're thinking about that, here's another recent revelation to add to the mix. Thanks to Captain Ed (and to Instapundit for the link), there is now pretty convincing evidence that one of the "Band of Brothers" who spoke glowingly of Kerry's leadership at the Democratic convention was never in the band, at least when Kerry was band director, i.e., he never in fact observed that supposed leadership because he did not serve under Kerry, as claimed. If this is true, then Kerry and perhaps even the DNC knew they were engaging in misrepresentation.
Say What?
The rationale for this claim has been disputed:
"If you believed that Kerry knowingly submitted false after action reports in order to receive undeserved Purple Hearts so that he could escape from Vietnam to run for Congress at home . . . ."
Taken from the "American Thinker" URL shown below: "Thomas Wright was one of John F. Kerry's fellow Swift boat officers in Vietnam. Since Wright outranked Kerry, he was Kerry's sometime boat group Officer-in-Charge . . . . . It {problems with Kerry] got to a point where Wright told his divisional commander he no longer wanted Kerry in his boat group, so Kerry was re-assigned to another one. Wright and like-minded boat officers {later] took matters into their own hands. “When he [Kerry] got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave. We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11. Kerry didn’t manipulate the system, we did.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3744
As with many aspects of this story, this is kind of strange - though it doesn't mean that Kerry WASN'T a scheming system-gamer, it does suggest that Kerry didn't have a long-term get out of Vietnam strategy going . . . . .
It does actually open up another motivation for Kerry's anti-war activities, which was that Kerry may have held a grudge against his immediate chain-of-command and wanted to embarass them as much as possible within the anti-war effort that Kerry led.
Posted by: Gary Haubold | August 15, 2004 11:38 AM
That story needs to be told nonetheless, Gary. If Kerry was held to be unfit for command by his fellow officers back in 68/69, then they are not being inconsistent or opportunistic by claiming that his unfit for command in 2004.
Certainly nothing in his senate record suggests any improvement in fitness.
Posted by: Fleming | August 15, 2004 2:04 PM
I wouldn't say I'm a Kerry supporter -- I think he's a terrible candidate -- but since Bush and the Republican Congress seem unable to control themselves fiscally, simultaneously spending like drunken sailors while cutting taxes, I'm voting for divided government. I doubt that Kerry will be able to get any spending done; Congress will block him.
Therefore, this story, which if true would confirm my already low opinion of Kerry, doesn't really do much to alter my primary concern about keeping Bush in office.
Posted by: Tung Yin | August 16, 2004 11:48 AM
If this story is true, that Kerry lied about everything, then I'm not gonna vote at all. If Kerry can refute these attacks then I'm gonna vote for Kerry. I won't vote for another liar like in the 90s.
Posted by: Akefa | August 16, 2004 1:31 PM
This is hilarious. Can somebody please name me ONE completely 'HONEST" politician?
--Cobra
Posted by: Cobra | August 16, 2004 3:32 PM
I would like someone to comment on former Senator Bob Kerry and his fraudulent medals from Vietnam. It is possible for the DoD to award medals for less than meritorious action.
Posted by: MKS | August 17, 2004 12:53 AM
I don't know why we are worried about giving out indeserved medals. It did help their self-esteem.
Posted by: Tim Gannon | August 17, 2004 7:32 AM
--I doubt that Kerry will be able to get any spending done; Congress will block him.--
Maybe, maybe not.
W's finally tightening up spending.
Posted by: Sandy P | August 17, 2004 2:16 PM
The Texas definition of an 'honest politician' is one that stays bought.
They're all crooks. But we tend to support them because they're OUR crooks, and we either benefit from their dishonesty or else we prefer the crooks we know to the crooks we don't.
Posted by: Claire | August 18, 2004 5:13 PM
John Kerry has apparently ignored the wisdom of the old aphorism, Be careful what you ask for."
Posted by: Howard | August 21, 2004 4:12 PM
The Swift Boat guys don't look so good today as when this thread started, do they? [1, 2, 3, 4, and esp 5]
I don't think I'm going to have to worry much about Kerry on this count, but for the record, I'd still vote for him, because his opponent is (also?) an outrageous liar. Even ignoring Bush's own dubious and inaccurately-recounted military history, which still has months undocumented, his commitment to balance the budget, and his most recent bizarre claims that Iraq wouldn't let inspectors in (you'll recall that Bush did an excellent—I'm not sarcastic here—job of forcing Saddam to admit inspectors, and then in utter folly Bush himself forced them out of Baghdad so he could get his war on), make one set of lies more dangerous for the governance of the country.
Posted by: Andrew Lazarus | August 22, 2004 1:23 AM