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

[Corcaigh]

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.

On the day that the incident in question occurred that he provided testimony about, your man was not on the boat. Given that, how is he a reliable eyewitness to the events that occurred that day. :doh:

The people who were on the boat that day back up the version of events that the chain of command used to award the medal.

Whatever actually happened that day, Kerry chose to serve his country voluntarily and was awarded a number of medals for his service. You however are a partisan hack who is apparently proud of being part of a dishonest and dishonorable campaign to attack him for solely political purposes, not because you gave a damn about what actually happened that day.

[The_cavalierman]

On the day that the incident in question occurred that he provided testimony about, your man was not on the boat. Given that, how is he a reliable eyewitness to the events that occurred that day. :doh:

The people who were on the boat that day back up the version of events that the chain of command used to award the medal.

Whatever actually happened that day, Kerry chose to serve his country voluntarily and was awarded a number of medals for his service. You however are a partisan hack who is apparently proud of being part of a dishonest and dishonorable campaign to attack him for solely political purposes, not because you gave a damn about what actually happened that day.

The guys that slammed Kerry were not on his boat?

The more I find out...the more I'm confused..

[ATV]

Whatever actually happened that day, Kerry chose to serve his country voluntarily and was awarded a number of medals for his service. You however are a partisan hack who is apparently proud of being part of a dishonest and dishonorable campaign to attack him for solely political purposes, not because you gave a damn about what actually happened that day.

Yup.

And now he's (smartly) selling his story to the partisans. Cha Ching.

[Destino]

The problem I have is simple, they can't seem to prove they were where they say they were despite mountains of paper work available. They had no problem at all with Bush and Cheney dodging the war... not to mention the questions as to Bush actually completing his service. They turned on a soldier in support of a dodger and I'm supposed to pretend that they didn't do it for political reasons. I'm supposed to pretend they are honest becuase they are soldiers. I'm supposed to pretend all this bull****... why?

[ZoEd]

Just because you think Kerry is full of **** doesn't mean you're supporting Bush. If it were merely a bunch of soldiers I might raise an eyebrow, a Rear Admiral I doubt would lie about something like this.

99.9% of politicians are liars anyway. It's sad that we have to rely on them to make the important decisions for this country.

[Destino]

Just because you think Kerry is full of **** doesn't mean you're supporting Bush. If it were merely a bunch of soldiers I might raise an eyebrow, a Rear Admiral I doubt would lie about something like this.

99.9% of politicians are liars anyway. It's sad that we have to rely on them to make the important decisions for this country.

You're right thinking Kerry is full of **** doesn't make you a Bush supporter. Being instrumental to the Bush campaign surviving when it otherwise would have failed does make me think so though. You think it was a coincidence that they timed their big effort when they did? All these years he has been climbing into powerful senate positions and the senate itself? Not a peep.

And again point by point they were unable to prove they were where they claimed to be. The people claiming to be on the boat weren't... and I find it shocking that the swift boaters that sided with Kerry said this OVER and OVER and everyone that was so damn concerned with these "honorable" soldiers completely ignored the other ones.

I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. On it's face Kerry seems less heroic than he claims and these swift boat vets seem a hell of a lot less honorable and honest than they claim. I see nothing to inspire me to make an assumption not in line with what the facts suggest.

[Mooka]

Dude just because someone served and received medals doesn't mean they did some amazing acts of heroism.

Doesn't Kerry have a Silver Star though?

[Burgold]

The guys that slammed Kerry were not on his boat?

The more I find out...the more I'm confused..

There are a lot of Vietnam vets who considered Kerry a Benedict Arnold for going before Congress and telling of atrocities that he'd witnessed over there. A number of these guys are outraged that he would then go and tout his service as they think he disgraced it by either reporting what he saw, exagerating what he saw, misrepresenting what he saw, or reporting things he heard about as his own experiences. I don't know enough to know if what he said before Congress was true, a fabrication or somewhere inbetween, but as a highly decorated vet his words caused a lot of deep wounds that never went away.

The Swiftboaters also told stories that may have been a mixture of truth, anger, and the desire for revenge, but most certainly were used as a political tool to help Bush.

[Jumbo]

Good thread. Rare. Lots of real meat and valid points on each side with minimal personal sniping. This was a big deal. One bottom line for me was you had a guy who was in combat vilified (and perhaps appropriately) and an administration who avoided being there in a variety of ways basically given a pass on being effectively challenged for their choices not serve in combat.

It speaks volumes, IMO, on the competency of one political machine versus the other.

I respect KB's work, appreciate ZoEd & cavalierman’s points, and lean towards Burgy's overview of how, to me, the most significant thing is the brilliant manipulation here that dealt a devastating blow to Kerry while completely misdirecting the privileged non-serving choices of the Bush II tribe, and questions about Bush's own Nat Guard service.

I voted for Bush even when I thought he was awful because I thought Kerry would have been worse. I was against the Viet Nam war as a young man, but was no hippy, not that there’s anything wrong with that . But I always made it clear that hating on our soldiers or defending the Cong or their supporters was reprehensible and ignorant IMO.

My take on Kerry during pre-and post-Nam era is that he was carefully crafting a political life and it’s my judgment based on what I have heard, seen, and read of the man that this impacts his credibility regarding these matters.

His immediate post-Nam senate testimonies, to me, were as much about being a self-serving future politician catering to his chosen constituency as about any genuinely held principles.

However, I feel he’s not meaningfully different than Bush II and tribe on such behavior, just less competent (if you can imagine that—I still shudder). IMV, Kerry's fraud is of smaller vision perhaps and that may be the main difference.

It’s difficult for me to pick a "side" in the swift-boat issue as to whose story is most credible, without knowing personally the key players making the "eye-witness" or insider reports.

This is partially because I have known high-ranking officers (as well as enlisted men of course) who held ideologies firmly enough to be willing to “lie through their teeth" under the right circumstances, and have said so, while still fully embracing their code of honor without much cognitive dissonance if they could achieve an important enough result to benefit their country.

A specific reason given in my presence during such discussions (more than once) was if it could seriously impede someone they consider a threat to this nation, or even just be extremely undesirable, seeking a high office or government position, or to damage someone they consider a serious opponent of the military itself.

Many people I have know view their oath of allegiance through a very individual filter based on their own belief systems more than some more neutral filter of understanding the constitution and remaining “outside politics."

Hell, as far as politics in all its ugly glory goes, the world of upper-echelon military advancement is as permeated with politics as any important board room on Wall Street. So in the end, it comes down to doing the best to get to the facts, but rarely knowing for sure where the truth and lies separate. I tend to follow the Yoda Principle on most things. I like to listen to various informed and differing perspectives, do some research, but in the end “my own counsel will I keep.”

Kerry was there and others weren’t. I think it is likely Kerry exaggerated the hell out of stuff to serve his politics, and I think if that's ture, it is reprehensible. I expect the same is likely true of those in the swift boat camp, and I think it’s equally sad, if so.

Overall, I think the swift-boat people have not proven much of their case effectively, and smell of political agenda and resentment-driven motive and bias more than truth-tellers setting the record straight. Nor do I think Kerry was likely any kind of hero, but he did serve in a combat zone and I give him that much credit. I thought his wrapping himself in the flag and emphasizing his military service transparent and phony. But these are just the best conclusions I can arrive at even after all the reading I have done and people I have talked to (and I haven’t read KB’s book so I make no comment on it).

The swift boat/Kerry controversy reflects why I continue my distance myself from most signs of partisanship. Given the recent political landscape, I often find such association seems to require a suspension of discernment or integrity.

[ATV]

From Wikipedia...

Connections with Republicans

SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group both in the legal sense and in spirit, yet several prominent individuals who assisted SBVT also have had close ties to the Republican Party. According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group's reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000).[68][69][70]

The initial communications consultant for SBVT was Merrie Spaeth, a Reagan administration press officer and a volunteer consultant to Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment; she was also a spokesperson for "Republicans for Clean Air," an anti-McCain 527 group formed during the 2000 primaries and funded by Bush supporters who also helped fund SBVT.[71][72] John E. O'Neill — the primary author of Unfit for Command and a key player in the formation of SBVT — donated over $14,000 to Republican candidates. He co-operated with the Nixon White House in opposing Kerry in 1971, and seconded Nixon's nomination at the 1972 Republican national convention.[73][74]

Retired Admiral William Schachte, a principal source for the SBVT allegations about Kerry's first Purple Heart, has donated to both of Bush’s presidential campaigns. Schachte was also a lobbyist for FastShip, a firm that recently announced it was receiving $40 million in federal funding for one of its projects. In addition, Schachte's lobbying firm associate, David Norcross, was chairman of the 2004 Republican convention.[75] Chris LaCivita, Political Director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002,[76] works as a private contractor providing media advice for SBVT.[77]

The SBVT postal address was registered to Susan Arceneaux, treasurer of the Majority Leader's Fund, a PAC closely tied to the former Congressional leader, Republican Dick Armey.[78]

Republican activist Sam Fox's donation of $50,000 to SBVT during the 2004 campaign[79] caused a controversy when Bush nominated him to the position of ambassador to Belgium. Because the Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicated that they would not support his nomination, Bush withdrew the nomination; he appointed Fox to the position on April 4th, 2007, while Congress was in recess.[80][81]

These ties, along with others (see below), led to suggestions in the popular press that SBVT was a front group for Republicans.[82][83][49]

Connections with the Bush campaign

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign did not condemn SBVT or the SBVT ads. The campaign did not endorse the group either, stating "We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[84] Kerry was dismissive of this statement, saying, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[85] Kerry also alleged that SBVT was "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work".[86] When pressed on the issue, President Bush called for an end to all 527 group political advertisements, and challenged Kerry to do the same.[87]

Critics and the Kerry campaign pointed to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denied.[88] Kenneth Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated that it had been unaware of his SBVT involvement.[89]

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, the top election lawyer to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[77] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to SBVT.

In January 2005, Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother and Florida chairman for his 2004 campaign,[90] sent a letter to SBVT member and former POW Bud Day, thanking him for his "personal support of my brother in his re-election." In addition, Governor Bush said of the SBVT:

"As someone who truly understands the risk of standing up for something, I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry."

[67]

[91]

[Kelvin Bryant]

And again point by point they were unable to prove they were where they claimed to be. The people claiming to be on the boat weren't...

That is quite simply false. Swift boats operated in groups, never alone. Many of the Swift Vets were officers who served in combat with Kerry just a few yards away from him. In many cases, they had a better idea about whether he was doing his job than the five guys "on his boat" did, who were just following his orders.

None of the Swift Vets were frauds. They served exactly where and when they claimed to. The one man who claimed to have served on Kerry's boat, gunner Steve Gardner, did just that.

[ATV]

Steve Gardner....

Stephen Gardner has been touted by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and by conservative hosts as a singularly authoritative critic with firsthand knowledge of Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) record in Vietnam because Gardner -- unlike all the other members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- actually served on a swift boat that Kerry commanded. Gardner has questioned Kerry's integrity; has claimed personal knowledge of the circumstances leading to Kerry's first Purple Heart; and has spoken with authority about the events leading to Kerry's Bronze Star. Fellow anti-Kerry Swift Boat Vets member Larry Thurlow has also cited Gardner as eyewitness support for his accusations against Kerry and against Kerry's first Purple Heart. Yet while Gardner did serve as a gunner under Kerry's command on PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) 44, he has admitted that he -- just like the rest of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claiming that Kerry is lying about his medals -- was not present for the incidents leading to Kerry's receipt of any medals or any of Kerry's three Purple Hearts.

Gardner admitted that "he was not on the boat with Kerry during the incidents for which Kerry got his medals," reported The Columbus Dispatch on August 6. And as a guest on Michael Savage's radio show, Savage Nation, on August 2, Gardner said that of Kerry's three Purple Hearts, he could only attest to the first; Gardner later admitted to Savage that he was "not on the boat with him [Kerry]" when that injury occurred.

Yet in repeated media appearances, conservative hosts have presented Gardner as an eyewitness to key Kerry events. And in at least two interviews, Gardner has falsely claimed that he was present for the incidents leading to Kerry's receipt of awards. On Savage Nation on August 2, Savage introduced Gardner as an "expert coming on this show eventually to talk about the phony John Kerry and his swift boat." On FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor on August 9, host Bill O'Reilly identified Gardner as "the only one who served directly under him of the 3,500 ... an eyewitness." As a guest on the August 20 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host and former U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL) introduced Gardner as "a vet who actually served on John Kerry's swift boat" who would provide "a firsthand account of what really happened in Vietnam." On that same edition of Scarborough Country, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan touted Gardner as the "first member who actually served aboard John Kerry's boat to speak since this controversy erupted," before he asked Gardner, "[W]ho is telling the truth?"

In an apparent attempt to substantiate his status as an eyewitness to key Kerry events, Gardner claimed on Scarborough Country, "[T]hat boat never left the dock that I wasn't aboard it with John Kerry, never. I was with that boat everywhere we went." Gardner went on to make assertions regarding the events that occurred on March 13, 1969, involving Kerry's rescue of Jim Rassmann, for which Kerry received the Bronze Star. Gardner claimed to know that Kerry fled the scene on the river that day while the other three boats stayed and that Kerry then "turned around and came all the way back to pick up Mr. Rassmann that he had thrown off his boat when he took off, when he fled down the canal." But later in the show, Gardner admitted to not being present that day. When Scarborough attempted to revisit the "March 13, 1969 incident," Gardner said, "I'm not going to deal with that. Because I wasn't there."

On the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Thurlow cited Gardner to substantiate his claim that Kerry's first Purple Heart "was fabricated and wasn't based on any factuality at all." According to Thurlow, Gardner said "that he [Kerry] received an injury due to a mistake he made when he fired an M-79 close aboard and was hit by his own shrapnel" and that "Kerry applied for a Purple Heart that he did not merit."

On the August 2 broadcast of Savage Nation, Gardner himself claimed that all of the wounds for which Kerry received Purple Hearts "were superficial wounds, and I mean very superficial, scratches. The very first one is the only one that I can actually attest to because I was there when that wound happened." But Gardner was not there when Kerry sustained that wound; as noted above, Gardner went on to admit: "I was not on the boat with him but I -- in the next three days following that, I was with him on the boat going to take our new position up down there on the seaward operations."

In addition, on the August 16 edition of the nationally syndicated radio show The Glenn Beck Program, Gardner falsely claimed that three of Kerry's other crewmates -- James Wasser, Drew Whitlow, and Steven Hatch -- "felt the same way that I felt about John Kerry" before they joined the Kerry campaign. As Media Matters for America previously reported, comments from Wasser in a March 9 article in TIME magazine written by Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley directly contradict Gardner's claim.

From http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240001

[Kelvin Bryant]

Thanks for a thoughtful and evenhanded post.

Overall, I think the swift-boat people have not proven much of their case effectively, and smell of political agenda and resentment-driven motive and bias more than truth-tellers setting the record straight. Nor do I think Kerry was likely any kind of hero, but he did serve in a combat zone and I give him that much credit. I thought his wrapping himself in the flag and emphasizing his military service transparent and phony. But these are just the best conclusions I can arrive at even after all the reading I have done and people I have talked to (and I haven’t read KB’s book so I make no comment on it).

To make such a statement with authority, I think you'd have to be pretty well versed on the facts of the controversy. That would include reading "Unfit for Command" and the contents of WinterSoldier.com and SwiftVets.com, including information packages such as the letter and supporting affidavits the Swift Vets sent to TV station managers in support of their devastating first ad. Of course I have no idea how much of this you may have already done.

If you'd like to learn more, I do have a book you might find interesting...

[Kelvin Bryant]

You're quoting Wikipedia and Media Matters as though they were real sources?

Heck, why not throw in Daily Kos as well?

The idiots who spam the Swift Vet page at Wikipedia had me listed as the "secret author" of Unfit for Command for years. They haven't got an inkling... and there are 16 inklings in a clue.

[ATV]

You're quoting Wikipedia and Media Matters as though they were real sources?

YES

Blaming the messenger again? Both of these sources back up their claims with credible newspaper articles, videos, actual quotes, audio samples, etc. It's all there. All one has to do is click the links to find out exactly what they're referencing.

[Burgold]

I agree that for a book, Wiki would be a terrible source, but for an internet discussion using secondary sources is okay especially if you link them and do not pretend that they are something different.

Also, saying they are full of bunk is different than debunking... I have no doubt that the Wiki article is highly biased against the Swift Boaters, it sure reads that way, but is it biased and inaccurate?

[Destino]

You're quoting Wikipedia and Media Matters as though they were real sources?

Heck, why not throw in Daily Kos as well?

Two points:

1- The media matter article shows it's sources, and they aren't daily kos. I'll let you look at it again so you can discover it for yourself.

2- You are no more credible than daily kos. Sorry to burst you bubble.

BTW - what is your free republic screen name?

[ATV]

Any resource that presents the truth is inevitably derided by the Right Wing. Whether the source presents the facts in a simple, concise, complete fashion is immaterial. Instead of addressing the verified facts, they attack the resource.

[TheLongshot]

It speaks volumes, IMO, on the competency of one political machine versus the other.

Very true. I've been very disappointed with the Dems the past 8 years.

But, I really don't understand how one could think Kerry could be worse than Dubya. From everything I can see, most of Bush's foreign policy has been a failure. I don't feel any safer now than when 9/11 happened, and the "war on terror" seems to be an endless slog that doesn't produce much in tangible results.

It is possible that his anti-war stance could have been politically motivated, but could you tell me one candidate for high office who doesn't do anything that isn't politically motivated? I'm inherently cynical about those who peruse political office, and I don't think there are that many "Mr. Smiths" out there, especially when it comes to Presidential candidates.

I'm not looking for someone who is ethically pure. I'm looking for someone who can do the damn job. Personally, I've never thought that George W Bush was ever that person, and he's proven it time and time again.

Jason

[Zguy28]

The fact remains that John Kerry was a decorated serviceman in Vietnam. The fact remains that George Bush/Dick Cheney spent a combined total of zero seconds in Vietnam. The fact remains that the country is still saddled with another year with these morons in power.

My dad was drafted, but didn't spend one minute in Vietnam. He was sent to Germany as part of a portable tactical nuke unit and served honorably.

Cassius Clay was supposed to serve there as part of his division, but dodged the draft.

In today's world, which one do you think people would pin medals on given the choice?

[ZoEd]

Jumbo, the more I read the more it makes me think of Wag the Dog. It's hard to believe either side.

The things I believe are this; Kerry grossly embellished his combat action for self serving reasons. I don't believe Kerry earned three purple hearts, three? For what? I know that I wouldn't want to be in the boat with a bullet magnet. Kerry's post war behavior did way more damage than it did good in regards to the troops still in Vietnam and the ones returning home. Again he embellished events for his own self serving political aspirations. I would never want a person who is such a bald face liar before he was President running our country.

As far as Bush, he's a liar too. However, I don't remember Bush using his National Guard service as a platform to win an election. Those of you in this thread who use the "Bush is more full of ****" excuse IMO doesn't excuse Kerry for being full of **** as well. They're both full of ****, how about that. This thread isn't about who's more full of **** though, it's about Kerry being full of ****. There's enough threads about Bush being full of **** to discuss that in.

Bush has proven to be just as full of crap as Kerry however I knew none of this when I voted for him almost 8 years ago. I voted for him last election because I loathed Kerry even more than him. I don't pledge allegiance to a party, hard to belive I know but believe what you want. I will vote for whomever I feel is least full of ****. Right now I don't know who that is but it's not Billary that's for sure. She's as full of it as they come. :2cents:

[ZoEd]

Any resource that presents the truth is inevitably derided by the Right Wing. Whether the source presents the facts in a simple, concise, complete fashion is immaterial. Instead of addressing the verified facts, they attack the resource.

Wiki isn't a source unless it supports your position. Wiki is the biggest piece of crap reference on the web. Not saying you're full of it, just saying Wiki is a weak resource to support an arguement with.

[Burgold]

You've lost me. If you're point is that we worship celebrities more than people who serve our nation, then I'll agree with you. Otherwise, I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make. For what it's worth, as loved as he is, many think Ali's choices left a stain on his reputation.

[ATV]

I don't believe Kerry earned three purple hearts, three? For what?

The later two are the from the OFFICIAL Miltary Records (Not some BS account from doubters who weren't even there)....

First - Military records released by the Kerry campaign are unclear as to details, but a citation does show that Kerry received a Purple Heart for an unspecified incident on December 3, 1968. The Boston Globe has also reported a medical report shows treatment for a wound on December 3, 1968; this record does not appear to have been made available along with other records at the Kerry campaign's website.

Second - A casualty report notes that "while serving as OINC aboard PCF 94 engaged in operations in the above river, LTJG Kerry suffered shrapnel wounds in his left thigh, when PCF 94 came under intense hostile A/W and rocket fire." A casualty report for crewmate Eugene Thorson also indicates that he suffered shrapnel wounds on February 20, 1969 "when PCF 94 came under intense hostile A/W and rocket fire."

Third - According to a citation signed by Vice Admiral E.R. Zumwalt Jr., Kerry was participating in a five-boat operation on March 13, 1969 on the Bay Hap River. One mine detonated under PCF-3, "lifting it two feet above the water and wounding everyone aboard," and another mine detonated close to Kerry's boat, knocking 1st Lt. James Rassman into the water and wounding Kerry in the right arm. While another boat stayed behind to help PCF-3, PCF-94 provided cover fire and went downriver. Kerry then turned PCF-94 around to help Rassman, "who by this time was receiving sniper fire from the river banks." While PCF-94's gunners provided suppressing fire, Kerry pulled Rassman aboard. Kerry then directed PCF-94 to assist PCF-3.

A casualty report notes that Kerry "suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94." This record is inconsistent with what Kerry told Douglas Brinkley and what Rassman told the Boston Globe. Rassman said that he believes that the injury to Kerry's right arm occurred because of the mine explosion and that the injury to the buttocks may have occurred earlier.

The Purple Heart citation indicates only that it was for "injuries received on 13 March 1969."

There you have it.

[Duncan]

However, there's no paper evidence that he ever examined Kerry in any way.

I bet you it is in Kerry's military file that he STILL has not made public.