Who Will Answer Bill Maher's Good Question? (Why are some swift vets supporting Kerry?)

Friday night, Bill Maher had John O'Neill on his HBO television program. O'Neill, of course, is the principal author of Unfit for Command, the book version of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign to challenge John Kerry's military record.

The interview itself was almost unbearably anger-provoking, as Maher snidely attempted to skewer O'Neill over and over again, while a studio audience laughed and applauded the host's every word. At least, unlike Chris "Motormouth" Matthews, he didn't interrupt O'Neill's every sentence.

In the process of the interview, Maher asked at least (and perhaps only) one interesting question: if all that O'Neill says is true, why is it that other Swift Boat veterans are backing Kerry?

O'Neill didn't rise to the bait, and contented himself with pointing out that Kerry has in fact the support of fewer than twenty Swift Boat veterans, whereas well over 200 had signed up with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

But it is a good question, nonetheless, much better than Maher imagines, because it leads - or at least should lead - to some follow-up questions that, so far as I know, no news organization has undertaken.

Agree. The media needs to examine Kerry's BOB. I would like to see a graphic developed showing how long each BOB served with Kerry on his two boats (PCF 44 and PCF 94).

I think it would be very revealing. You can deduce where most of the crew members served by reading their comments on various incidents or looking at some of the photographs, but there are some real questions. Alston, the black preacher from South Carolina, who spoke at the Convention probably served less than 2 weeks under Kerry. We know that Gardner served the longest, more than 2 months.

If some investigative reporter would take the time to look into it and then produce some sort of graphic, I think it would be devastating to Kerry. The idea that you could have a Band of Brothers who barely served together raises questions as to the basis of their loyalty to him. Is Kerry paying them off? Did he use any influence to curtail their tours? Was there collusion in the awards and medals so that they all could garner recognition?

I note that Rassman received PH on March 13, the same day Kerry received his 3rd PH and a Bronze Star.

"IT would be virtually impossible for Kerry to prevail in court with any action against Corsi or O'Neill because he is a public figure. You can say virtually anything about a public figure, especially a national politician, with virtual inpunity. Any first year law student knows that, as does O'Neil. So that is a non-starter."

I, being no student of the law, would not no those legalities.

You are assuming that Kerry is filing the suit and not some other entity.

"What they are risking is that accomodations for many people may get a second look that may be just as cheesy or even more cheesy than Kerry's. That's the risk they (Corsi and O'Neil) run. And again, the Viet Vet gets dumped on."

That's a stretch. They knew full well going in that this was no piece of cake. Further they aren't stupid people. They knew they would be called everything in the book and the regularly non-investigative media would be going all out to find dirt on them.

No, they went into this with their eyes open.

It would be nice for a lawyer Freeper with knowledge of your first statement to expand on it.

Why are some swift vets supporting Kerry?

In a word, recognition.

I base my answer on a film my wife and I saw this weekend. As a sidebar, it is notable that this is first film we have ever seen where we were the only two in the audience. We've seen a few left-wing movies in the last couple of months, but no one else in the audience in liberal Kerry-loving New York City? Unbelievable, until you see the film, for reasons to be explained below.

"Brothers in Arms" is "little more than an infomercial for [Kerry's] campaign," according to the New York Post. Paul Alexander the director, interviews four of Kerry's crewmates from his last PCF: Del Sandusky, Mike Medeiros, David Alston, and Gene Thorson, some of whom may have been with Kerry less than a month. Despite re-up bonuses of about $10,000, none wanted to prolong their service in Vietnam with Kerry. Soon after discharge, all developed personal problems which ranged from alcoholism and drug abuse to divorce and suicidal tendencies. Tom Belodeau, who was not interviewed, died of a heart attack later. The plot thickens.

In 1971, Kerry testifies before Congress. Some crew men had antiwar sentiments, but none overtly support Kerry. In 1972, Kerry runs for Congress and loses the election he was favored to win, mainly because of his antiwar unpatriotic record with Jane Fonda, though having his brother Cameron and campaign field director Tom Valley arrested for grand larceny just before Kerry's September primary couldn't have helped.

Though he won a senate seat after Paul Tsongas unexpectedly resigned in 1984, Kerry decided when he had to run for reelection in 1986 that he would inoculate himself against charges that he was unpatriotic. Back to the film: Kerry contacted his former crewmates, and wined and dined them. They responded with gratitude. Suddenly their lives had meaning again. They remarked that they felt important as they were showcased and hugged on stage in front of large audiences, that it was exciting to be part of the Kerry campaign, and that the people they met in Boston really "took care of them," whatever that meant. To me, it meant "recognition" perhaps with side benefits.

* * *

I found it interesting that the film made no attempt to refute any of the arguments of the Swift Boat vets, and could not explain why other crewmates such as Steve Gardner or other Swift boat commanders did not participate in the film.

Furthermore, the film supports SBVT's hypothesis that Rassmann fell off PCF 94 (there was no second mine) as Kerry fled (Unfit, p. 90) versus Kerry's account of how he got his Bronze Star (p. 86), and confirms the SBVT version of events leading to the earlier Silver Star that Kerry was not taking hostile fire when he beached his boat (by prearrangement?) and pursued a single Viet Cong (wounded teenager?) into the woods where he shot him. (The VC had not fired because he was too close to PCF 94 for his rocket to properly arm.) There was no "intense automatic weapons" fire from hostile forces, as reported. The interviewed crewmen appear on the defensive, almost coached, since Kerry was severely criticized afterwards for poor tactical judgment, willingness to risk his boat and crew to secure medals and personal glory, and for submitting a false and incomplete after-action report (pp. 80-86).

Although not suggested in the film, it does appear that Kerry was willing to write-up medals for others who supported his version of events, a largess available during the campaign, especially since some estimates have the Kerry's net worth up to $3.2 billion. If nothing else, retribution might be severe if one attempted to break a pledge to support Kerry given the amount of wealth and political power Kerry could exercise against them.

Thus, we strongly recommend this infomercial film to anyone who is following the SBVT controversy and would want to hear the actual words and descriptions of four of Kerry's crewmates. (Though it just opened in New York, it can be bought at a discounted price of under $14.)

Kerry supporters will be disappointed; their standard-bearer, John Kerry, has again been exposed for his highly exaggerated or false accounts of engagements with the enemy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.