Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong

Chicago Tribune ^ | August 21, 2004 | Tim Jones

[palmer]

The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war record.

William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

...

[bimbo]

O'Niell rebuts the contentions of the article adequately.

I'd love to see a re-run of the O'Neill - Kerry debate from the Dick Cavet Show, but there's no way any media network would show Kerry in his Anti-American Military splendor.

[jimbo123]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096936

Page 302: Bill Rood, another officer, called Kerry "Ichabod," as in Crane.

[cyncooper]

Thank you very much.

[Condor51]

I just sent a STRONG letter to Editor Wood - as a stockholder (and soon to be EX stockholder).

I stated that either the Trib sue to obtain all of Kerry's records - like they did with Jack Ryan, have Kerry sign off on SF 180, or that Wood resign as he is NOT impartial and as such has no business working for the Trib as an Editor.

it was really difficult NOT cussing :-)

[gilliam]

Kerry Spot is on it (with a little help from their friends):

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

[uncbob]

Rood has chosen NOT to bring up for 35 years,

Makes it sound like there was a controversy for 35 years he didn't speak out on

Sorry but the controversy has just surfaced

So this remaining silent for 35 years is a bogus statement aimed at making it sound like he finally had enough

[combat_boots]

Truly excellent, excellent idea.

[soozla]

Or.....if you read the article that will come out in Sunday's Chicago Tribune, he GOT A PERSONAL CALL FROM KERRY.....seems like the Kerry camp is doing some pretty good manipulation of its players..........a few of the cable news shows asked for interviews with Kerry's "Band of Brothers" but I guess Kerry camp has ordered a lockdown on any and all interviews by them........they are just sending out Kerry's "FIXER" the disgusting Hurley guy!!!!

[hole_n_one]

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news - web sites), left, and William B. Rood, right, are shown in this undated photo at the Swift boat base at An Thoi shortly after the action for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star and Rood was awarded the Bronze Star in early 1969 during his service in Vietnam. Both men are holding weapons captured in the mission. Rood, a night city editor with the Chicago Tribune, who served with Kerry during the Vietnam War as the commander of a Navy swift boat on the 1969 mission ischallenging the attacks on Kerry's account of the incident. (AP Photo/Chicago Tribune, Courtesy William B. Rood)

[uncbob]

Doesn't Kerry himself describe the VC as a teen in a loin cloth? I'm quite certain he and his supporters have but this guy Rood, while trying to say the Swifties are wrong is actually at odds with Kerry's acount of the incident and closer to the Swifties.

If this is true the paper should be contacted and ask this guy how come he contradicts Kerry himself

[Condor51]

I'll post the email I sent 'Editor' Wood in a moment (have to reformat and take out my name and address)

[TC Rider]

Unless he was in the same boat with sKerry, his testimony is worthless. Also, what party does he belong to? I question the timing of this revelation!

/sarcasm

[SteveH]

Doesn't the Chicago Tribune article even report Rood's party affiliation??

Optimally, it would be good to have a "degrees of separation" chart for this guy showing any and all links to the Democrat Party... if any links exist, they are newsworthy and readers deserve to know.

[YaYa123]

I made the same mistake, thinking this guy was disputing the Rassmun incident. I havne't been able to get in to the Trib to read the column, but I suspect it will add more confusing smoke and mirrors to the discussion, which will only solidify positions on both sides.

the most salient point in all this is how increbibly believable John O'Neill and the Swifties are. How compelling their story, how justified their motives, how righteous their efforts.

John O"Neill, in every interview I've seen, has always said he did not fault Kerry for shooting the fleeing VC in the back. I haven't finished the book, and I can't read this article, so I shouldn't jump to concrete conclusions on this particular incident, or Rood's credibility.

But........ I suspect the pro-Kerry media will use Rood like they did the chart in yesterday's New York Times. The Times said specifically it offered no proof the Texas republicans and Bush were connected to the Swifties, but the media made it part of their attack on Bush anyway.

Even if Rood specifically says he can't for certain discredit the Swifties, the media will claim he did.

[Condor51]

This is what I sent to 'Editor' Rood

---

To: Editor Rood
Subject: Your 'Coming Out' For Kerry
Date: Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:34 PM

Dear Sir,

Since you have come out in support of Sen. Kerry's version of certain events and have successfully obtained the 1969 'After Action Report' from the US Government regarding the disputed event leading to some of Kerry's Medals, I urge you use the same diligence in obtaining ALL of Senator Kerry's Military Records.

As the Tribune had absolutely no problem in going to court to obtain the sealed records of Jack Ryan's divorce, it should do the same regarding Senator Kerry. That's if the Tribune Co is impartial -- which I seriously doubt.

Furthermore, as you are an apparent friend of the Senator, and dare I say one of his 'band of brothers', I urge you to use your influence and have him sign off on Standard Form 180 - which as we all know, he has thus far REFUSED TO DO! As that would end any and all doubts as to who's version of all the events in question are true (and those questions are growing daily). Yours and ten other of his 'brothers' -- one of which who it's now been proved that he DIDN'T serve on Kerry's boat or with Kerry at all -- or the 200 other Naval Officers who state Kerry is a liar, a phony and Unfit To Command.

So,
1) Either file suit to have ALL the records released.
2) Have Kerry SIGN form SF 180, or...
3) I suggest you resign from the Tribune - because if you do NOT do either of the first two you are NOT an impartial party and then have no business functioning as an Editor of the Tribune.

(My Name)
Woodridge, IL
Stockholder and probably EX Stockholder come Monday morning.

ps: Col. McCormick must be spinning on his grave considering what HIS newspaper has become.

pps: There is no need to respond because I know where you stand, and it's on the WRONG side!

---

I made the email link active in case anyone else wishes to correspond with Mr Rood

[spunkets]

Here's why the story's bogus and so is Root for obfuscating for Kerry:

JOE PONDER (wounded 1968): The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam were just devastating ..."

KERRY: "... randomly shot at civilians ..."

PONDER: "... more than any physical wounds I had."

KERRY: "... cut off limbs, blown up bodies ..."

KEN CORDIER (former POW): "That was part of the torture, that you had to sign a statement that you committed war crimes."

KERRY: "... razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan ..."

PAUL GALANTI (former POW): John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and my comrades in the prison camps in North Vietnam took torture to avoid saying."

KERRY: "... crimes committed on a day-to-day basis ..."

CORDIER: "He betrayed us in the past. How could we be loyal to him now?"

KERRY: "... ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam ..."

GALANTI: "He dishonored his country and, more importantly, the veterans he served with. He sold them out."

[Question_Assumptions]

Important points about the article.

First, it says John O'Neill claims that Rood's version "is not substantially different from what appeared in his book". What was the full version from Rood that was conveyed to John O'Neill?

Second, all of the accolades were, again, the result of that same report of what happened. Yes, they all sound the same because they were all based on the same report. What's being questioned is the truth of that report. This is just sleight-of-hand.

Third, a second ambush is not part of the awareds or the controversy. Why are they even mentioning it? More sleight-of-hand?

[RaceBannon]

A lot of us know awards are given for politics, and to just give away an award to someone they want to motivate for service, also.

I know a well deserving Navy Achievement Medal given to a Marine I served with, me and him were almost equal in talent and abilities in our MOS at the time, but he was more mature than I and also figured out a way to hook up the comm equipment so we could communicate better, a way that was not in the books. I could set up camp better than he, operate as well, do Tactical Marine stuff better or as good, but he was just a little sharper than I in my MOS, and on one deployment, he was awarded the medal, and I think he was a fitting recipient.

I saved many swimmers from drowing in Hawaii, we handed them off to the lifeguards after we saved their sorrybutt in the waves off K-Bay.

But, the one time I escorted an officer back to shore, who had absolutely no trouble, she was just gone longer than her friends thought safe and they caled PMO and they launched a SAR aircraft to find her, well, because she was an officer, we all got letters signed from the Commanding General, our own C.O. and all that, stood up in formation, had a presentation, it was a hoot.

So, I know personnaly that some awards that are deserved are never given, and some awards are given just because of who was there and who you did the act for/with.

And some are given to dead men who are the salt of the Earth who deserved much more than a Purple Heart.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Rood's account omits, as delineated in Unfit for Command {page 82} that Doug Reese, a pro Kerry Army Vet, disagrees with Kerry's version.

Reese & his South Vietnamese troops disembarked on beaching & killed the enemy.

When Reese's {transport?} boats {not a swift boat?} beached much earlier in the battle, he and his South Vietnamese troops killed the enemy.

In his report Kerry took credit for it when he wrote that he "personally led a landing party" and dispatched the enemy - Kerry forgot to mention Reese's actions.

[palmer]

a second ambush is not part of the awareds or the controversy.

Well the second ambush is in Rood's Bronze Star citation. In that citation which I transcribed above it says that three VC were killed by the Swifts downriver and in the after action report it says a total of 4 VC's were KIA by the swifts. So presumably one VC was killed by the swifts in the second ambush. Was that Kerry's kill? I have no idea from any of the material published today.