To Set The Record Straight: How the Swift Boat Veterans Defeated John Kerry

[Burgold]

Link please. I remember too many articles saying that their funding came Republican sources. Their payoffs afterwards came from Republican sources and the promotion and distribution of their efforts were paid by Republicans.

Please link the investigation that showed that the Swiftboaters had no GOP involvement or aid.

(And yes, they did have the right to say what they said. I support their right to do that. It still doesn't minimize the fact that this was used as part of propaganda strategy that was brilliant despite it's hypocritical nature.)

[Mad Mike]

No, of course not.

Crimes are committed during all wars. Heck, crimes are committed nearly every day of the week in most major cities. The question is whether such crimes against civilians are military policy, as some claim, or if they are violations of policy that are punished when discovered.

Some people think that greatly exaggerating the number of such events is a useful way to undermine support for the military and its mission. That sort of political propaganda was a major reason that Vietnam veterans were viewed with contempt by a significant portion of the public for far too many years...

Quoted for truth.

[Mad Mike]

What amazes me is that people can hear that Kerry was in country for 4 months and came away as a "war hero" with three purple hears without their BS detectors going off.

[Kelvin Bryant]

Link please. I remember too many articles saying that their funding came Republican sources. Their payoffs afterwards came from Republican sources and the promotion and distribution of their efforts were paid by Republicans.

Please link the investigation that showed that the Swiftboaters had no GOP involvement or aid.

The Swift Vets did accept contributions from wealthy Republicans. They would have also accepted contributions from wealthy Democrats if any had been offered. There were no "payoffs afterwards." None of the Swift Vets made any money from their activities, including John O'Neill, who donated the royalties he received from "Unfit for Command" (approximately $1 million to date) to military charities.

Here is an excerpt from the FEC ruling, in which the Commission announced that the Swift Vets would be fined for organizing as a "527" rather than as a political action committee (PAC). Emphasis added:

---

The Federal Election Commission ("Commission") found reason to believe that Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth ("SwiftVets") violated 2 U.S.C. sections 433, 434, 441a(f), and 441b(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended, ("the Act") by failing to register as a political committee with the Commission, by failing to report contributions and expenditures as a political committee to the Commission, by knowingly accepting individual contributions in excess of $5,000, and by knowingly accepting corporate and/or union contributions. Following an investigation, the Commission concluded that Swiftvets did not unlawfully coordinate its activities with, or make excessive in-kind contributions to, any federal candidate or political party committee.

---

The FEC's December 13, 2006 Conciliation Agreement also states, "The Commission has never alleged that the SwiftVets acted in knowing defiance of the law, or with the conscious recognition that their actions were prohibited by law, made no findings or conclusions that there were any knowing and willful violations of the law in connection with this matter, and, thus, does not challenge SwiftVets' assertion of its good faith reliance on its understanding of the law." The complete report can be found in pdf form here.

[Corcaigh]

John McCain has no direct knowledge of the events involved.

Quoting him therefore fails to carry much weight or inspire any shame...

McCain knows a little about military service, honesty and honor though. And he recognizes a sleazy smear campaign from the Bush camp or its supporters as he was the victim of one himself.

There are plenty of eyewitnesses who have spoken in support of Kerry. Here's what Jim Rassman, a lifelong Republican and Army Special Forces lieutenant wrote in that the Wall Street Journal (hardly a left wing rag).

Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

Criticising Kerry for his testimony before Senate is legitimate. But attempting to go back and revise history, contradicting documented Navy records and attack an individual's service for political purposes is dishonorable.

Shame on you.

[Corcaigh]

John McCain has no direct knowledge of the events involved.

Quoting him therefore fails to carry much weight or inspire any shame...

McCain also said:

As it is none of these individuals (i.e. SBVT) served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

[Mad Mike]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={019F305A-C613-41C6-84C7-2F328A7B390D}

A True War Hero Speaks on Kerry

By Col. George "Bud" Day

FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Col. Geo. "Bud" Day is one of America's most decorated living warriors. A Vietnam POW from 1967- 1973, he is the proud owner of a Medal of Honor.

Here is his letter to Joe Scarborough of MSNBC:

Dear Joe:

The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam. Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies… fabrications… perjury… fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and given "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies... the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left… McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers".

A returned war hero said so. Kerry cut a dashing figure as a war hero, lots of medals, and returned home because of multiple war wounds… even a silver star. His Senate testimony confirmed what every hippie had been chanting on the streets..."Hey hey LBJ…How many kids did you kill today"????? He obviously was running for political office in 1971.

Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swiftboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies.

I was a POW of the Vietnamese in Hanoi in 1971, and I am aware that the testimony of John Kerry, the actions of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and the radical left; all caused the commies to conclude that if they hung on, they would win. North Vietnamese General Bui Tin commented that every day the Communist leadership listened to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane

Fonda and Ramsey Clark gave them confidence to hold in the face of battlefield reverses.

The guts of it was that propaganda from the anti-war group was part of their combat strategy.

While the Commies were hanging on, innumerable U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Foce members were being killed in combat. Every battle wound to Americans after Kerry's misdirected testimony is related to Kerry's untruthfulness. John Kerry contributed to every one of these deaths with his lies about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. He likewise defamed the U.S. with our allies and supporters. His conduct also extended the imprisonment of the Vietnam Prisoners of War, of which I was one. I am certain of at least one POW death after his testimony, which might have been prevented with an earlier release of the POWs.

My friend and roommate Senator John S. McCain denounced the Swiftboat video by John O'Neil. I have a different take on the Swiftboat tape and disagree with my good friend John.

John Kerry opened up his character as a war hero reporting for duty to the country with a hand salute...and his band of brothers...of which he was the chief hero. Most of his convention speech was about John Kerry...Vietnam hero, and his band of brothers. John Kerry's character is not only fair game, it is the primary issue. He wants to use Bill

Clinton's "is", as an answer to his lack of character. The issue is trust. Can anyone trust John Kerry?? "Never lie, cheat or steal" is the West Point motto. When a witness perjures himself at trial, the judge notes that his testimony lacks credibility. Should we elect a known proven liar to lead us in wartime??

I draw a direct comparison of General Benedict Arnold of the Revolutionary War, to Lieutenant John Kerry. Both went off to war, fought, and then turned against their country. General Arnold crossed over to the British for money and position. John Kerry crossed over to the Vietnamese with his assistance to the anti-war movement, and his direct liaison with the Vietnamese diplomats in Paris. His reward- Political gain. Senator…United States. His record as a Senator for twenty years has been pitiful. Conjure up, if you will, one major bill that he has sponsored.

John Kerry for President? Ridiculous. Unthinkable. Unbelievable. Outrageous.

[Kelvin Bryant]

Our book, To Set the Record Straight, contains an entire chapter detailing the events of March 17, 1969 on the Bay Hap river - Kerry's so-called "No Man Left Behind" incident. The short version is that the Kerry / Rassmann version doesn't hold water. These were 50-foot-long boats sitting motionless in a 75-yard-wide river for more than an hour, as they worked to repair a boat damaged by a mine. It would have been impossible not to shoot them full of holes with any sort of weapon.

One of the new witnesses we cite in the book is Richard O'Connor, commander of the Special Forces group -- Jim Rassmann's boss. He told us there was no enemy fire that day. So did a FAC pilot who had a birds-eye view of the event.

If you care about what really happened, which I doubt, you'll read what we have to say before making any more pronouncements on an event you haven't investigated and don't understand.

[Corcaigh]

What amazes me is that people can hear that Kerry was in country for 4 months and came away as a "war hero" with three purple hears without their BS detectors going off.

I don't consider him a great hero, but he served and was injured. The military chain of command awarded the medals to him, not his mother.

Whether he deserved all of them, or none is largely immaterial. LT. Rassmann recommended Kerry for a Silver Star rather than a Bronze star and still believes that was warranted.

Kerry was the target of a dishonest and dishonorable attack which was funded for political reasons.

[Kelvin Bryant]

McCain also said:

As it is none of these individuals (i.e. SBVT) served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

McCain is wrong. Steven Gardner was the gunner under Kerry's on PCF-44. Here's what he had to say.

[Corcaigh]

If you care about what really happened, which I doubt, you'll read what we have to say before making any more pronouncements on an event you haven't investigated and don't understand.

I've read a lot about the incident and there is no shortage of eyewitnesses who say there was enemy fire.

For you to conveniently discard those and yet accept the testimony of those who willingly admit they were out for revenge against Kerry because of his Senate testimony only shows that this is not an attempt at an accurate work of historical scholarship, but a partisan smear campaign against someone who served, was injured and was awarded medals for that service by the military chain of command.

Shame on you.

[Corcaigh]

The short version is that the Kerry / Rassmann version doesn't hold water.

When will you write a dishonorable and dishonest book smearing Rassmann and attacking his service too?

[Mad Mike]

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200408280010.asp

Statement of RADM (Rear Admiral) William L. Schachte, Jr. USN (Ret.)

August 27, 2004

As was true of all "Swiftees," I volunteered to serve in Vietnam and was assigned to Coastal Division 14 for a normal tour of duty.

I was a Lieutenant serving as Operations Officer and second in command at Coastal Division 14 when Lieutenant (junior grade) John Kerry reported to us in mid-November, 1968. Lt. (jg) Kerry was an Officer-in-Charge (O-in-C) under training in preparing to be assigned as one of our Swift Boat O-in-C's.

At some point following President Johnson's announcement of the suspension of bombing in North Vietnam in March 1968, we were directed to become more aggressive in seeking to find and destroy or disrupt the enemy in our operating area. As part of this effort, I conceived a new operation that became known as "Skimmer OPS." The concept was simple. A 15-foot Boston Whaler was sent into an area where, based on coordinated intelligence, North Vietnamese cadre and Viet Cong were expected to be meeting or where, for example, concentrations of enemy forces might be involved in the movement of arms or munitions. We were to draw fire and quickly get out of the area. This would allow more concentrated firepower to be brought against the enemy forces we had been able to identify.

These operations were carried out only in "hot" areas and well away from any villages or populated areas. A Swift Boat would tow the skimmer to the general area of operations, and the ambush team would then board the skimmer and proceed to the designated area of operations. The Swift Boat would be riding shotgun and standing off, occasionally out of sight, to provide fire support and long-range communications. The Skimmer was powered by an outboard motor, and we carried an FM radio, handheld flares, an M-60 machine gun with a bipod mount, and an M-16 mounted with a starlight scope. If the night was heavily overcast, we brought an M-14 mounted with an infrared scope. We also carried an M-79 single-shot grenade launcher. In addition to our combat gear and flak jackets, we often carried .38-caliber pistols.

The operation consisted of allowing the skimmer to drift silently along shorelines or riverbanks to look or listen for sounds of enemy activity. If activity was identified, we would open fire with our automatic weapons, and if we received fire, we would depart the area as quickly as possible, leaving it to air support or mortar fire from a Swift Boat standing off at a distance to carry out an attack.

I commanded each of these Skimmer operations up to and including the one on the night in question involving Lt. (jg) Kerry. On each of these operations, I was in the skimmer manning the M-60 machine gun. I took with me one other officer and an enlisted man to operate the outboard motor. I wanted another officer because officers, when not on patrol, were briefed daily on the latest intelligence concerning our sector of operations and were therefore more familiar with the current intelligence. Additionally, at these daily briefings, officers debriefed on their patrol areas after returning to port.

On the night of December 2-3, we conducted one of these operations, and Lt. (jg) Kerry accompanied me. Our call sign for that operation was "Batman." I have no independent recollection of the identity of the enlisted man, who was operating the outboard motor. Sometime during the early morning hours, I thought I detected some movement inland. At the time we were so close to land that we could hear water lapping on the shoreline. I fired a hand-held flare, and upon it bursting and illuminating the surrounding area, I thought I saw movement. I immediately opened fire with my M-60. It jammed after a brief burst. Lt. (jg) Kerry also opened fire with his M-16 on automatic, firing in the direction of my tracers. His weapon also jammed. As I was trying to clear my weapon, I heard the distinctive sound of the M-79 being fired and turned to see Lt. (jg) Kerry holding the M-79 from which he had just launched a round. We received no return fire of any kind nor were there any muzzle flashes from the beach. I directed the outboard motor operator to clear the area.

Upon returning to base, I informed my commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, of the events, informing him of the details of the operation and that we had received no enemy fire. I did not file an "after action" report, as one was only required when there was hostile fire. Soon thereafter, Lt. (jg) Kerry requested that he be put in for a Purple Heart as a result of a small piece of shrapnel removed from his arm that he attributed to the just-completed mission. I advised Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard that I could not support the request because there was no hostile fire. The shrapnel must have been a fragment from the M-79 that struck Lt. (jg) Kerry, because he had fired the M-79 too close to our boat. Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard denied Lt. (jg) Kerry's request. Lt. (jg) Kerry detached our division a few days later to be reassigned to another division. I departed Vietnam approximately three weeks later, and Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard followed shortly thereafter. It was not until years later that I was surprised to learn that Lt. (jg) Kerry had been awarded a Purple Heart for this night.

I did not see Lt. (jg) Kerry in person again for almost 20 years. Sometime in 1988, while I was on Capitol Hill, I ran into him in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building. I was at that time a Rear Admiral and in uniform. He was about 20 paces away, waiting to catch the underground subway. In a fairly loud voice I called out to him, "Hey, John." He turned, looked at me, came over and said, "Batman!" We exchanged pleasantries for a few minutes, agreed to have lunch sometime in the future, and parted ways. We have not been together since that day.

In March of this year, I was contacted by one of my former swift boat colleagues concerning Douglas Brinkleyπs book about Senator Kerry, "Tour of Duty." I told him that I had not read it. He faxed me a copy of the pages relating to the action on the night of December 2-3, 1968. I was astonished by Senator Kerryπs rendition of the facts of that night. Notably, Lt. (jg) Kerry had himself in charge of the operation, and I was not mentioned at all. He also claimed that he was wounded by hostile fire.

None of this is accurate. I know, because I was not only in the boat, but I was in command of the mission. He was never more than several feet away from me at anytime during the operation that night. It is inconceivable that any commanding officer would put an officer in training, who had been in country only a couple of weeks, in charge of such an ambush operation. Had there been enemy action that night, there would have been an after action report filed, which I would have been responsible for filing.

I have avoided talking to media about this issue for months. But, because of the recent media attention, I felt I had to step up to recount my personal experiences concerning this incident.

[Kelvin Bryant]

A solid majority of those present say there was no enemy fire - more than a dozen veterans. Only two veterans not on Kerry's boat (and not part of his campaign) say there was enemy fire. More to the point, Kerry's entire campaign story - that he alone turned back into an ambush to rescue Rassmann - has been shown to be a lie. Even the Washington Post eventually agreed that Kerry's boat was the only one to leave the scene of the initial mine explosion. Everybody else stayed there to conduct rescue operations.

But, as I say, you clearly don't care about the truth. When I shoot down one of your false claims, you just move right on to the next one.

Shame on you.

[Burgold]

The Swift Vets did accept contributions from wealthy Republicans.

There were no "payoffs afterwards." None of the Swift Vets made any money from their activities, including John O'Neill, who donated the royalties he received from "Unfit for Command" (approximately $1 million to date) to military charities.

---

The Federal Election Commission ("Commission") found reason to believe that Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth ("SwiftVets") violated 2 U.S.C. sections 433, 434, 441a(f), and 441b(a) [/b].

In it's purest sense you have validated everything I said here. The attention the Swiftboaters got was funded by wealthy Republicans (for the purpose of drawing negative attention and developing negative propaganda to be used against John Kerry's Campaign.)

The book deals and royalties that you list exceeded 1 million dollars just for one of the Swiftboaters. That he chose to donate that money is nice, but he certainly got paid well. Outside monies and funding that went to pay for the swift boaters expenses and other extravagances occurred as they went on tour. Did any of them get a speaking fee? I'm sure that they did. Did any of them get speaking fees anywhere equivalent to that prior to this election? If so, why not? Kerry has been in Congress a long time. Their stories were just as relevant ten years ago as during the last election, weren't they? If they suddenly began receiving large speaking fees or any that could count as a payoff depending on your POV.

Lastly, you found that they were found in violation of the law. With the major money and backing these guys had... in the millions of dollars, I find it impossible to believe that no lawyers were involved to make sure what they were doing and how they were doing it was above board. Again, in a legal sense, no one could prove that they knew what they were doing was illegal. That doesn't come anywhere close to saying that they didn't know it.

Finally, unless we are speaking in legalize, they were funded by Bush and Cheney... this is a duck that quacked like a duck, flew like a duck, floated like a duck and designed to make Kerry duck... while simultaneously encouraging the myth that the powers that be were courageous, honorable men.

That very similar attacks also occurred against other people who served our nation who disagreed with this administration is telling... and sad.

[ACW]

A solid majority of those present say there was no enemy fire - more than a dozen veterans. Only two veterans not on Kerry's boat (and not part of his campaign) say there was enemy fire. More to the point, Kerry's entire campaign story - that he alone turned back into an ambush to rescue Rassmann - has been shown to be a lie. Even the Washington Post eventually agreed that Kerry's boat was the only one to leave the scene of the initial mine explosion. Everybody else stayed there to conduct rescue operations.

But, as I say, you clearly don't care about the truth. When I shoot down one of your false claims, you just move right on to the next one.

Shame on you.

Shame on HIM? Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth." Funny how they smeared someone who actually fought, but were fine with 2 draft-dodging, cowardly chickenhawks as pres and VP.

[Kelvin Bryant]

When will you write a dishonorable and dishonest book smearing Rassmann and attacking his service too?

Nobody who is willing to call a book he hasn't even read "dishonorable and dishonest" is worth spending time debating. I'm done with you, Bucky...

[Corcaigh]

McCain is wrong. Steven Gardner was the gunner under Kerry's on PCF-44. Here's what he had to say.

That link is just to an image. Gardner admitted multiple times that he wasn't even on the boat that day in TV inerviews.

[Mad Mike]

I don't consider him a great hero, but he served and was injured. The military chain of command awarded the medals to him, not his mother.

Whether he deserved all of them, or none is largely immaterial. LT. Rassmann recommended Kerry for a Silver Star rather than a Bronze star and still believes that was warranted.

Kerry was the target of a dishonest and dishonorable attack which was funded for political reasons.

The military did not just give him those medals. He requested them and in one case he was turned down by the officer who knew best what happened and when that officer was transfered out Kerry went to his replacement to request a purple heart and was granted it by a man who was not in charge at the time the incident happened.

[Kelvin Bryant]

Finally, unless we are speaking in legalize, they were funded by Bush and Cheney... this is a duck that quacked like a duck, flew like a duck, floated like a duck and designed to make Kerry duck... while simultaneously encouraging the myth that the powers that be were courageous, honorable men.

No, I'm sorry - that's completely dishonest. The Swift Vets were not funded by Bush and Cheney, nor did they coordinate activities with them illegally. I just showed you the documentation, as per your request.

It appears that your need to maintain this false belief is stronger than any evidence I can show you. So be it.

[Kelvin Bryant]

That link is just to an image. Gardner admitted multiple times that he wasn't even on the boat that day in TV inerviews.

Here is the correct link. Your claim, quoting John McCain, was that none of the Swift Vets served on Kerry's boat. This is not true.

Why not man up and admit that you were wrong?

[Mad Mike]

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200408280010.asp

Anyone care to respond to this letter?

[Kelvin Bryant]

For those who are interested, a chapter from the book is available for free download at ToSetTheRecordStraight.com. It details the efforts by CBS News and Dan Rather to attack the National Guard service of GW Bush using forged military documents, and how those forgeries were exposed online by amateur investigators. It's a hell of a story, if I do say so myself...

Work beckons. I'll check back later.

Go Redskins!

[Burgold]

I'll try again (although there's no point, because as an editor and writer you have clearly taken sides and have shown no bent towards neutrality or objectivity.)

They were funded by Republicans strictly to benefit the Bush and Cheney Campaign. The funding did not coincide by accident with the Presidential election. Kerry has served the nation as a Senator for a looooooooooong time. If this was just about getting the truth out, then this info could, should have been made an issue in the 80's and nineties. In fact, it was, but was discredited back then.

Why was it resussitated? To aid Bush.

The funders of this Swiftboat effort were also major contributors to George Bush and the GOP were they not? They had links to people within the GOP did they not? Saying that Bush and Cheney didn't know about this is like saying the Commissioner had no clue that Steroids had ever been used in baseball prior to the Mitchell Report. There's just no credulity behind the statement. You can make it through legalize or technicalities, but not in reality.

[Spaceman Spiff]

2004 called, it wants it's hot button issue back.