SwiftSmears: "What You Have to Believe" -- please add yours !!

[Sparkly]

(First of all, I'll feel silly if this has already been done!)

DUers, let's compile a list of "what you have to believe" in order to believe the Swiftboat Liars are telling the truth. I think it's something factcheck.org ought to have, since they insist that there's "no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth."

Here's what I've come up with so far (and feel free to edit or correct any of these):

1. You have to believe the Navy was wrong about a bronze star, a silver star, and two of three purple hearts.
2. You have to believe it's sheer coincidence that the Swift Boat vets against Kerry have records of supporting and contributing to Republicans.
3. You have to believe Bob Perry, a major Bush contributor who's financed the group, is just interested in the truth.
4. You have to believe George Elliott changed his mind and his memory from what he said in 1969 and 1996.
5. You have to believe Admiral Zumwalt, Admiral Hyland, James Rassmann, David Alston, and all the other crewmates of PCF-44 and PCF-94 are either liars, amnesiacs, brainwashed victims or partisan hacks (even though several, including Rassmann, are Republicans).
6. You have to believe Louis Letson treated Kerry's injury for the first purple heart, and suddenly remembered this one man's injury decades later, even though there's no documentation to support this assertion, he didn't sign the sick call sheet, and he wasn't a crewmate of Kerry's.
7. You have to believe the Navy's after action reports and medal citations are false, indicating it's very easy to get medals by making up stories.
8. You have to believe Roy Hoffman was lying when he said just last year that he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's record; and that he actually saw his boss, Admiral Zumwalt, award Kerry undeservedly, but didn't bother to tell Hoffman at the time.
9. You have to believe Larry Thurlow, cited in Navy after action reports as having returned fire on the day Kerry saved Rassmann, actually either didn't return fire, or fired at nothing, since the new claim is that there was no enemy fire; and that PCF-3, the boat he reportedly assisted, fell apart by itself, and was towed away by some other boat besides Kerry's, as reported, since Kerry supposedly left, making the Navy liars here again even in their reports on Thurlow himself.
10. You have to believe Shelton White, who says Kerry "betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," considers saving lives "betrayal" or doesn't believe Rassmann could have died when he fell overboard.
11. You have to believe that when John O'Neill debated John Kerry on the Dick Cavett show in June 1971, he decided to keep Kerry's supposed cowardice, lies, and undeserved medals out of the discussion, despite hurling a range of other personal attacks and accusations far less serious.
12. You have to believe Jerome Corsi is a man of nonpartisan credibility.

Others?

[vi5]

1. Awesome. Thanks for this list.

[graywarrior]

2. Interesting letter to Douglas Brinkley

http://diodon349.com/Politics_2004/an_open_letter_to_douglas_brinklley_JK_purple_heart.htm

[Sparkly]

5. That may add some...

You have to believe Purple Hearts are awarded based on the severity of wounds, thus disqualifying thousands if not millions of Purple Hearts that have been given.

You have to believe that Kerry threw a grenade into a rice pile to cause his own injuries, and everyone who saw and treated the wounds mistook rice pellets for shrapnel.

[Cerridwen]

3. Unless this was all said in the 60's as well . . .

You have to believe Nixon was unable to find this out about Kerry back then?

[Sparkly]

8. Good one! How about this...

You have to believe that President Nixon, on a vendetta against Kerry that enlisted John O'Neill himself, although the most powerful man in the world, was incapable of uncovering the deceit that merely scratching the surface has brought out today.

[Cerridwen]

12. Perfect.....................n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. Well done!

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

6. HuuuuuuhWOW.

I unsubscribed to FactCheck after their weasel out of this.

Nicely done...care to work on Ed Gillespie's "slip-up?"

Edit: I've nominated this for the homepage; stellar work.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. In order to believe factcheck would take your list seriously,

you have to believe they're interested in the truth.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=PA&last=Annenberg

[Sparkly]

9. Yeah well, you have a point there.

Maybe that's a dead horse, not worth beating.

But if nothing else, let's compile a thorough list for emails, LTTE's, or other media contacts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Oh, I think it's worth reminding everyone how biased factcheck is,

and it's good to bring up for that reason. They should not be cited as a source for anything because their technique is to truthfully debunk some minor things so they can sandbag us on the big stuff. I think it is a wilfull, planned deception.

And yes, I like your list as a general resource.

[Sparkly]

13. Okay, nevermind them.

I took them out of the thread's subject line. You're right about them, and I think you nailed their technique. :)

[meti57b]

10. great list! thanks!

[BayouBengal07]

14. About #10...

10. You have to believe Shelton White, who says Kerry "betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," considers saving lives "betrayal" or doesn't believe Rassmann could have died when he fell overboard.

The claim that "Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam" is regarding his testimony before Congress about US war crimes. But everythingb else is gold.

[Sparkly]

17. Thanks

I thought it was about his supposedly cowardly actions in Vietnam. I was trying to avoid the VVAW issues -- do they include them in their book? (Obviously, that's the real reason for their anger.)

Could start with:
You have to believe there were no free fire zones, harassment and interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, or villages burned by US troops in Vietnam.

Is that a whole different book? I dunno.

[kimchi]

15. Great list, and contributions.

A big kick and a nomination.

[sandnsea]

16. You have to believe

Jim Rassmann, a Special Forces officer, doesn't know gunfire when it's being shot at him.

[noamnety]

18. #5 is a bit off

I would drop Zumwalt's name off #5, since Admiral Zumwalt himself is not part of this group. And add this:

You would have to believe that Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, who never served with Kerry, is a better source of information than his father, the late Admiral Zumwalt, who signed Kerry's silver star recommendation and defended John Kerry in the midst of a close political campaign in 1996.

You would have to believe that Harlan Crow, a major financer of the group, a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation, and a man who served with Dick Cheney on the Board of Trustees of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank that funds research promoting conservative business and political interests) is only interested in the truth.

[Sparkly]

19. Thank you!

I meant Zumwalt was deluded (as they seem to claim) or lying when he awarded Kerry, for their stories to hold; but yes, more appropriate to put the Zumwalt son there.

The second one is great. :)

[alarcojon]

20. I would add to # 6

Not only would Letson have to remember treating Kerry decades ago, but treating him for a "minor" injury to boot. Because we all know it's the minor injuries we remember most clearly over the years.

This was pointed out most comically on the Daily Show.

[Sparkly]

21. True.

Good point. And I believe he said he treated his forearm, whereas the wound was above his elbow. But I'm sure everything else he remembered perfectly, including what he ate for breakfast that day. :eyes:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

24. This guy is a disgrace to the whole medical profession, allowing

himself to be used in this way.

[Bozvotros]

22. Great List and

Suitable for mass mailings. I took the liberty to recompile it with the thread suggestions...

What you have to believe to believe the Swift Boat smears:

1. You have to believe the Navy was wrong about a bronze star, a silver star, and two of three purple hearts.
2. You have to believe it's sheer coincidence that the Swift Boat vets against Kerry have records of supporting and contributing to Republicans.
3. You have to believe Bob Perry, a major Bush contributor from Texas, who's financed the group as part of the five million he has given to Republicans and conservative causes in the last three years, is just interested in the truth.
4.You would have to believe that Harlan Crow, a major financer of the group, a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation, and a man who served with Dick Cheney on the Board of Trustees of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank that funds research promoting conservative business and political interests) is only interested in the truth.
5. You would have to believe that Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, who never served with Kerry, is a better source of information than his father, the late Admiral Zumwalt, who signed Kerry's silver star recommendation and defended John Kerry in the midst of a close political campaign in 1996.
6. You have to believe George Elliott changed his mind and his memory from what he said in 1969 and 1996 and in August of 2004
7. You have to believe Admiral Hyland, James Rassmann, David Alston, and all the other crewmates of PCF-44 and PCF-94 are either liars, amnesiacs, brainwashed victims or partisan hacks (even though several, including Rassmann, are Republicans).
8. You have to believe Purple Hearts are awarded based on the severity of wounds, thus disqualifying thousands if not millions of Purple Hearts that have been given.
9. You have to believe that Kerry threw a grenade into a rice pile to cause his own injuries, and everyone who saw and treated the wounds mistook rice pellets for shrapnel.
10. You have to believe Louis Letson treated Kerry's injury for the first purple heart, and suddenly remembered this one man's injury decades later, even though there's no documentation to support this assertion, he didn't sign the sick call sheet, and he wasn't a crewmate of Kerry's and he got the location of the wound wrong.
11. You have to believe the Navy's after action reports and medal citations are false, indicating it's very easy to get medals by making up stories.
12. You have to believe Roy Hoffman was lying when he said just last year that he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's record; and that he actually saw his boss, Admiral Zumwalt, award Kerry undeservedly, but didn't bother to tell Hoffman at the time.
13. You have to believe Jim Rassmann, a Special Forces officer, doesn't know gunfire when it's being shot at him.
14. You have to believe Larry Thurlow, cited in Navy after action reports as having returned fire on the day Kerry saved Rassmann, actually either didn't return fire, or fired at nothing, since the new claim is that there was no enemy fire; and that PCF-3, the boat he reportedly assisted, fell apart by itself, and was towed away by some other boat besides Kerry's, as reported, since Kerry supposedly left, making the Navy liars here again even in their reports on Thurlow himself.
15. You have to believe Shelton White, who says Kerry "betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," considers saving lives "betrayal" or doesn't believe Rassmann could have died when he fell overboard.
16. You have to believe that President Nixon, on a vendetta against Kerry that enlisted John O'Neill himself, although the most powerful man in the world, was incapable of uncovering the deceit that merely scratching the surface has brought out today
17. You have to believe that when John O'Neill debated John Kerry on the Dick Cavett show in June 1971, he decided to keep Kerry's supposed cowardice, lies, and undeserved medals out of the discussion, despite hurling a range of other personal attacks and accusations far less serious.
18. You have to believe Jerome Corsi, a man who when cornered, admitted and apologized for writing vicious screeds about Catholics, the Pope, Muslims, Jews and Gays on a virulent right wing website, is a man of nonpartisan credibility.

[Zen Democrat]

23. You have to believe that every decorated Vietnam Vet ...

may not deserve his medals and may not have been injured enough to warrant his Purple Heart.

[Bozvotros]

25. You have to believe that

all these battle hardened Vietnam combat vets don’t mind a bit that the other guy, with wealthy connected parents, leapfrogged over hundreds of others to avoid the draft and get into the National Guard, got pilot’s training with the lowest possible score over other more qualified men, was advanced to 2nd lieutenant after just six weeks of airman training, signed off that he wanted no part of Vietnam, blew over a million in Flight training when he refused to take a physical and never flew again, completely didn’t show up for any of his responsibilities for over a year without consequence and still got an honorable discharge instead of immediate transfer to Vietnam as was the requirement then.

[kentuck]

26. You would have to believe they were standing over Kerry as shrapnel...

was picked out of his ass, arm, or wherever. Because, to say it was only supeficial scratches, you would have been watching them pick the shards out of his ass. Otherwise, you would only be speculating.

[nomatrix]

27. Their underlying rage over Kerry protest of the war

You would have to believe there never was
Daniel Ellesberg
and
The Pentagon Papers

"What I particularly learned, though, in 1969, and from the Pentagon Papers, was that Nixon, the fifth president in a row now, was choosing to prolong the war in vain hopes that he might get a better outcome than he could achieve if he'd just negotiated his way out and took what he could get and accepted, essentially, a defeat. He hoped to do much better than that. In fact, he hoped to hold on to control of Saigon and the major populated areas indefinitely for the United States, that these would be subject to our will and our policy and not be run by communists. And he hoped to do that, actually, in ways similar to the way Johnson had hoped -- by threatening escalation of the war, threatening bombing of North Vietnam. He was making such threats and then he was prepared to carry them out.

I did not believe the threats would succeed, so I foresaw a larger war. He was fooling the public about what he was doing at this time for the same reason Johnson had in 1964. The public would not, at that time, have supported a continuation of the war, let alone an expansion of the war. But he was successfully fooling the public, who didn't want to believe that any president could be so foolish and so narrow minded in his own interests as to keep that war going after the Tet offensive of 1968. So I saw a replay of 1964 and 1965 coming again. I saw once again a president making secret threats, almost sure to carry them out, and deceiving the public as to what he was doing.

By reading the Pentagon Papers, which I finished doing in the fall of 1969, in September 1969, I now had a historical sweep sufficient to reach a conclusion that I would have been very unlikely to reach without reading them, and that was that there was very little hope of changing his mind from inside the executive branch, for example, by giving him good advice or by giving him realistic estimates of what was happening in Vietnam. Because what I saw by reading the earliest days of the Pentagon Papers, going back to 1945 and 1946, was that every president had had such advice, as early as Truman. Truman had seen predictions of an indefinitely prolonged guerrilla war facing him and yet had gone ahead in supporting the French in this effort. And this had happened year after year. It happened year after year for Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson. The fact now that Nixon was embarked on a new course held out very little hope that he would be more responsive just to good advice about getting out than any of his predecessors had been."

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Ellsberg/ellsberg98-6.html

[nomatrix]

28. More from Ellesberg

"Actually, I'd been in the marine corps, I'd been in Vietnam, I'd been in combat. Three million men who went to Vietnam as soldiers exposed themselves to losing their legs, their bodies, their lives to a mine or to a sniper, or to a mortar round. And they were not regarded as heroes just because they accepted that role, or crazy. Nobody did a psychiatric profile on them, as was done on me, to ask why did they do that? They were doing it for the president or for the country. The president, however, was who decided what was good for the country. He was deciding very badly. And not just he, but five of them, were deciding very badly here and that wasn't even too hard to see. But you did what the president said, what he wanted you to do. And to do that is sensible, as you say rational, even if it involves your death, even if it involves your killing people, in what is in fact a bad cause. A bad cause by any other standard but the fact that the president has endorsed it. And this was a bad cause.

So dying, killing in a bad cause, all of that is regarded as very reasonable. And I had done it. I had been over there. Even when I didn't believe in the cause I served the president. I was learning from the inside about the government. I had various reasons, which didn't seem, in retrospect, good enough to justify what I was doing. But that's what I was doing. And the point was that what Randy Keeler revealed to me was that there were other ways of being conscientious than serving the president. There are other kinds of courage. And I had to ask myself, well, if I was willing to be blown up in Vietnam or captured, as friends of mine were, when I accepted the cause or supported it, should I not be willing to go to prison or risk my freedom? And when I faced that question, it was quickly answered.

When you ask me how could I be willing to face that, I was the kind of guy who had been willing to go to Vietnam. That didn't make me unique. It put me not with everybody in the country but with a lot of people. Oliver Stone had volunteered to go to Vietnam remember, as did lots of other people. The connection, however, that not many of them had occasion to make was between doing that sort of thing and making the same kind of commitment against the president's will and policy, against what he wanted to do, against what he was demanding. And to put yourself in the position of a dissenter, or of, let's say, a congressman who opposed the war."

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Ellsberg/ellsbe...

[nomatrix]

29. 3 million soldiers who went to Vietnam

to "this handful" of vets.
Their percentage doesn't qualify to represent the opinion of those who served. You have to believe they did.

Let's ask those who sacrificed their lives if they wished there had been someone like Kerry, who had the courage, to challenge the president, and congress, to stop this slaughter, before they had to die? You'd have to believe they would rather be dead.

How about those who would have been drafted since? Maybe they resent Kerry for not letting them be forced into service. You'd have to believe the was "a good thing" Kerry took from the 18-20 yr. olds.

You have to believe it was a "winable war". No, not like going to the wrong High School for a football scholarship and your team stinks. But a clear path to victory.

No, I think the problem with these guys is there loss of perspective. They came home. They had their limbs. They have this grandious delusion, that if it wasn't for Kerry, we would have won or some other Capra fantasy of a better ending.

Did that detective find you guys among the homeless? I bet they don't know the majority of homeless (at least it used to be) were Vietnam Vets. I guess I could have understood their actions then. Hungry, living on the streets, would barter dignity for food. Honor for a warm, dry, place to sleep. In fact, I would buy your book, so you could eat. But sell your soul for this trashing of a veteran because you could, you have to believe you could live with yourself after.

[SlingBlade]

30. My E-mail to Fact Check

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record .......

I have awaited your response to these attack ads by this group which
you point out is funded on a highly partisan basis.
The conclusions you come to considering what the Navy records and eye
witness testimony on behalf of Kerry by those who were IN THE BOATS with
him I find very confusing.

It's obvious to me as well as tens of millions of others that this is
simply an arm of the right wing attack machine.
Are you really as independent as you claim to be ?
If so, Then I suggest you reevaluate your conclusions on this particular
issue.
Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response from Fact Check

Why confused? Eyewitness accounts by those who were there are
contradictory. Were you there? I wasn't. simple as that.

You are of course free to believe what you want. We just stick to
describing the facts as best we can determine them. Sorry if that's not
enough for you.

--Brooks Jackson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My last Re to this hack organization.

Give Ed Gillespie my worst

Go Kerry!


:dem:

[The Doctor.]

32. What's funny about perspective...

I've been working to convince my hard-core Right Wing parents that Factcheck is not a 'Liberal left wing' organization.
It's interesting that the further to a side someone is - the more everything appears to be on the other.
Factcheck cannot draw pointed conclusions and remain a 'fact checking' entity.
But they have made a strong case to discredit the Smearboat Vets.


Clarification: Kerry's Silver Star citations

08.14.2004




In an Aug. 9 update we stated that Kerry's citation for the Silver Star made no mention of killing a Viet Cong. In fact, there are three citations, and one of the three does indeed mention the killing.This merely strengthens our conclusion that George Elliott's second affidavit is misleading. All three citations make clear that Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star for the reasons Elliott implied. We have amended our article on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad to reflect this.

Elliott, who was Kerry's commanding officer at the time, now says he believes Kerry shot a Viet Cong in the back, adding: "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." But the one citation that mentions the killing states that the Viet Cong "fled" and that Kerry "pursued," showing Elliott knew the score when he recommended Kerry for the award 35 years ago. Elliott's affidavit also fails to note that the Viet Cong's rocket launcher was loaded, posing a lethal threat to Kerry and his men.

Furthermore, all three versions of the citation make clear that the basis for the award was not "simply" for the killing alone, but for repeatedly attacking enemy ambushers.

*I'm only making this point because I have used factcheck as a valuable tool to show Repubs the kind of dirty tricks that are being used against Kerry. They invariably tell me that Factcheck is a liberal website! LOL- ain't perspective great!

I plan on writing to Factcheck to make much the same point you have, but we cannot ask them to draw TOO pointed a conclusion... the right already believes they are lefties.

[kwolf68]

31. You have to believe

That a man (George Elliott) who recommended John Kerry for the Silver Star, who said as recently as 1996 that Kerry exemplified honor beyond what was normal, who then disavowed Kerry’s valor in a recent book, who THEN said to the Boston Globe he regretted saying those things about Kerry WHO THEN has his wife THE SAME day retract what HE had said to the Globe has any credibility whatsoever

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

33. You'd have to believe the entire military chain of command is suspect.

I have to tell you, I'm glad somebody caught on to this. If the SWift-Vets are telling the truth, then a whole lot of high-ranking people are lying.

[Festivito]

34. Didn't Elliot happen to buy a house from a Repub...

You have to believe yea, Elliot, who's affidavit remains the only offered proof for the book "Unfit for Duty", who retracted his statement to the press saying he signed it in haste and then retracted his retraction (Perhaps clearly realizing how deep into legal problems his hasty signature placed him?), and who just happens to have recently bought a house from the wealthy Bush supporting McMansion home-builder and financier of that same anti-Kerry book.

[LTR]

35. ...That any commendation gets scrutinized by unrelated parties

One thing going through my head was, "Who is this O'Neill guy, and who the hell is he to question whether people deserved their medals?

Is he the one who determines merit? Why should one citizen's opinion contradict those of the US Military brass who gave Kerry his medals? Are people going to do this with all military awards?

I never knew there was such thing as a provate review from unconnected parties for this kind of thing.