The Swift Boat Saga, Part III

I was planning an extended rant on this later this week, but I'm breaking it up and publishing the parts I get done each night at home (yes, I have no life). But here's the thing: there's a lot of evidence these guys have offered to back up their claims, and the Kerry camp's response has been, to say the least, inadequate.

There's so much here it's hard to keep track. The responses by the Kerry camp and the liberal left have revolved around (a) ad hominem attacks, (b) questioning the veracity of the accounts of these veterans because they didn't serve on Kerry's boat, and (d) suing the organization. None of these statements effectively refutes the claims of the Swift Boat Vets.

Let's start with Jim Rassman's editorial in the Journal yesterday. I won't question Rassman's service, or the fact that Kerry saved him from drowning. But here's the thing -- why does he question the motives and statements of those on the other side? Here's part of his editorial:

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

First, they're the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, not the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush.

Second, the sponsorship of their advertisement has little to do with the accounts of the people who have given their first-hand accounts of what they witnessed of John Kerry's conduct, both on the day Kerry pulled Rassman out of the water and the rest of Kerry's four months in Vietnam.

Third, Rassman claims these statements contradict his account and Navy records. That's all well and good, but there's more people contradicting Kerry's accounts than confirming them. And Kerry won't release all of his military records, which may shed light on some of these issues.

Fourth, Rassman can't refute most of the claims of people who served with Kerry for far longer than he did. As Bob Novak noted when discussing the book Unfit for Command:

The book's weakness is support for Kerry's presidential campaign by his swift
boat crewmates, presumably people who knew him best. O'Neill told me that these
former sailors served with Kerry no more than five weeks. Jim Rassmann, now part
of the Kerry presidential campaign, was a Special Forces lieutenant spending a
few days with Kerry when he fell or was knocked off the swift boat while under
fire and was fished out of the Mekong River by the future candidate.

Fifth, why shouldn't we question this stuff? The press spent plenty of time this winter questioning Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Hell, they did it four years ago, as noted by CNN:

In its report, the Los Angeles Times said it found no evidence that either Bush or his father, former President George Bush, had personally tried to influence or pressure anyone to get the younger Bush a place in the Texas Guard. Bush's father was a congressman from Houston at the time.

But the Times also found that despite a long waiting list nationwide, Bush easily got in the Guard and received a commission as a second lieutenant, despite lacking the credentials many other candidates had, such as ROTC experience. He also had no previous aviation experience.

"He was a son of privilege, his father was a man of means, political means, and if he was Joe Schmo trying to get into the Guard ... it wasn't going to happen," said Richard Serrano, author of the Times story.

"His name didn't hurt, obviously," retired Col. Charles C. Shoemake, who served with Bush, told the Times.

Texas Air National Guard historian Tom Hail also told the Times that the fast-tracking of Bush through the ranks was unusual. "I've never heard of that," Hail said. "Generally, they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons."

However, the Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets.

Bush, a Yale University graduate, has said he joined the Air National Guard rather than volunteer for Army combat duty because he wanted to learn how to fly jet fighters like his father, who was a fighter pilot in World War II. "He said he wanted to fly just like his daddy," Bush's commander, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, told the Times. "Nobody did anything for him. There was no ... influence on his behalf."

The Times reported that many of Bush's former colleagues and superiors in the Guard remember him as a bright young leader who worked hard. "He did the work. His daddy didn't do it for him," said retired Maj. Willie J. Hooper.

The circumstances of Bush's service have been questioned repeatedly, and no one's discovered a shred of proof that he skipped out on his service, or that his daddy pulled the strings for him. But that was fair game for the press, even though Bush has never cited his service in the Guard as a reason we should elect him President. John Kerry, meanwhile, has repeatedly referenced Vietnam as a reference for his character. Now we have a number of people who dispute his accounts and think that's he not to be trusted. The press will eventually be forced to look into this, even if they want to ignore the story.

A final point to Rassman's editorial. He's got his account of that day. The Swift Boat Vets have theirs. Their account, at the very least, shows they're willing to back up their charges, and have meticulously documented it, as they indicated in their letter to station managers responding to the Kerry campaign:

As recounted in the attached affidavits of three on-scene participants (and
verified by many others present) Kerry's operating report, Bronze Star story,
and subsequent "no man left behind" story are a total hoax on the Navy and the
nation. As recounted in the affidavits of Van Odell (Exhibit 6), Jack Chenoweth
(Exhibit 7), and Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10) (and verified by every other officer
present and many others), a mine went off under PCF 3 -- some yards from Kerry's
boat. The force of the explosion disabled PCF 3 and knocked several sailors,
dazed, into the water. All boats, except one, closed to rescue the sailors and
defend the disabled boat. That boat -- Kerry's boat -- fled the scene. After a
short period, it was evident to all on the scene that there was no additional
hostile fire. Thurlow began the daring rescue of disabled PCF 3, while Chenoweth
began to pluck dazed survivors of PCF 3 from the water. Midway through the
process, after it was apparent that there was no hostile fire, Kerry finally
returned, picking up Rassman who was only a few yards from Chenoweth's boat
which was also going to pick Rassman up. Each of the affiants (and many other
Swiftees on the scene that day) are certain that Kerry has wholly lied about the
incident. Consider this: How could the disabled PCF abandon the scene of the
mine? Why did Kerry have to "return" to the scene?

Kerry's account of this action, which was used to secure the Bronze Star
and a third Purple Heart, is an extraordinary example of fraud. Kerry describes
"boats rcd heavy A/W and S/A from both banks. Fire continued for about 5000
meters." Exhibit 17. In other words, the boats went through a double gauntlet at
about 50 yards distance that was 3.2 miles long (comparable to Seminary Ridge at
Gettysburg on two sides), and yet none of the other boats within feet of Kerry's
boat heard a shot or suffered an injury after the PCF 3 mine explosion, except
for John Kerry's buttocks rice wound of earlier origin.

Clearly, Van Odell is right when he says, "John Kerry lied to get his
Bronze Star . . . I know. I was there. I saw what happened." As Jack Chenoweth
swore, "his account of what happened and what actually happened are the
difference between night and day." Most poignantly, Larry Thurlow, whose brave
actions saved the PCF 3 boat that day after Kerry fled, has the right to say,
"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

This is, in the end, the start of the storm. Next time, we'll discuss Cambodia.

Note: A tip o' the hat to the Captains Quarters Blog, which has done a far better job detailing this than I do, as well as Instapundit.