« More Fair and Balanced | Main | Slime and Relativity »

September 05, 2004

Unfit for Command Revisited

As promised, I'd like to return to the now-infamous Swiftvets book, Unfit for Command to take a look at how the claims by the Swiftvets have held up. I believe it's important to do this, because the book has clearly become an issue in the campaign, and it's important to try and determine what the facts are. Sadly, the big lefty bloggers have all decided to simply argue that the Swiftvets are lying, so there's no story here. Since they provide no evidence that the Swiftvets are lying (other than the tautology that Kerry was a hero in Vietnam, therefore anyone who says that he wasn't must be lying), I think they only hurt their own case. I seem to recall most of these same bloggers going Hell-bent for leather after the Bush-AWOL stories, and while I don't know if anyone ever actually said that Bush's accusers were lying, I'll wager none of the lefty bloggers would have simply let the matter rest there. So, since none of them have the intellectual honesty to really examine the issues, I feel someone should step in, and since I don't see anyone else volunteering, I'll take up the challenge.

As with the claims made by the left regarding President Bush being AWOL, I believe the Swiftvets have to be held to a pretty high standard. Nobody raised these issues until Kerry became a serious candidate for President, 35 years after the events in question. In that time, memories can fade and even change, and it's certainly fair to ask why nobody raised the issues until now. The bottom line remains, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, so the Swiftvets have a tough job to do in making their case.

I'm not going to handle every one of the claims in the book, since that would be a book in itself, but I'll try to hit the high notes.

The Antiwar Recruit. The Swiftvets note that Kerry only volunteered for the Navy after his request for a deferral to study in Paris was denied. This is the truth, and has been acknowledged by Kerry. It does undermine his claims of having volunteered somewhat, but the fact remains that he did go.

The First "Tour of Vietnam." Kerry claims to have served two tours in Vietnam, but in fact his first tour was his assignment to the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that spent a little over a month in the South China Sea. Technically, the Swiftvets are correct that Kerry did not spend two tours in Vietnam, but he did spend two tours that involved Vietnam. I'm inclined to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt here.

The Swift Boat "Volunteer." Kerry has admitted that Swift Boat duty was a safe pasttime when he volunteered for it, and the Swiftvets point this out. Certainly it's true that Kerry didn't intentionally volunteer for dangerous service. Still, he appears to have done his duty, so I don't see this as an issue.

The Purple Heart Adventure in the Boston Whaler. The Swiftvets review the events surrounding Kerry's first Purple Heart. It appears that they may be on to something here, as even Kerry's campaign has now acknowledged that Kerry may not have merited his first Purple Heart. There's no smoking gun here, but the Swiftvets seem to get the better of this claim.

A Trip to An Thoi. Here the Swiftvets attempt to dismantle Kerry's claims to have had dinner with an LST skipper who recounted a massacre of Swift Boat sailors due to U.S. incompetence. There appears to be no evidence of this for either side, so in accordance with my above philosophy, the tie goes to the runner and Kerry gets the benefit of the doubt here.

Christmas in "Cambodia." This issue has been reviewed everywhere but the mainstream media, and it's clear Kerry missed the boat on this one. Maybe Kerry was in Cambodia at some other time and jumbled his memories, but he clearly wasn't in Cambodia for Christmas 1968.

The Sampan Incident. Another issue that hasn't gotten much attention. Kerry's boat engaged a sampan after curfew, killing at least two civilians, including a child. The Swiftvets dispute Kerry's account, but it is once again a he said, she said situation. Benefit of the doubt to Kerry.

The Second Purple Heart. I'm not sure why the Swiftvets really bother addressing this one, as they never argue that Kerry wasn't wounded by enemy action. They do suggest it was a minor wound, but that's already well-known.

The Silver Star. The Swiftvets go into great detail to undermine the story of Kerry's Silver Star. Unfortunately, as in so many cases in the book, there is no physical evidence for either side. Kerry therefore gets the benefit of the doubt.

The Third Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. This is the Rassmann incident that received a great deal of play when the Swiftvets story finally broke. There is some physical evidence that suggests the Swiftvets may be correct (no bullet holes in the boats), but nothing conclusive. The basic facts of the event are not in question: a boat hit a mine, Rassmann went into the water, there was a great deal of shooting, and Kerry pulled Rassmann out of the water. The rest is a jumble of conflicting memories, and I don't see any way to definitively call the issue for either side. Therefore, I go with the contemporary accounts, and give the benefit of the doubt to Kerry.

The book then goes into Kerry's activities following the war, which I won't address, save to say that I think that his actions were disgusting.

Overall, the book really comes down to who you choose to believe. If you believe Kerry, then the book only catches him in a few errors. If you believe the Swiftvets, then Kerry has a great deal of explaining to do (although only because he keeps waving his service around like the E-ticket that will get him into the Oval Office). Since the odds are pretty good most people already have a preconceived belief about Kerry, you can assume that people's reactions to the book will follow what they already want to believe.

Update: The Navigator takes exception to my conclusion, and he has some valid points regarding what documentary evidence exists. I don't agree with him, but since I've been wrong before, readers would be well-advised to read his comments as well and draw their own conclusions.

Update 2: The Navigator is dead right on one thing: I have no delved at all into the various contradictions to the Swiftvets' testimony. This is due to several reasons, but one is that I'm inclined to believe them on the big issue, which is that Kerry is unfit to be president. I assume that nobody who comes here makes this their only stop in the blogosphere, but this is a valuable reminder of why it's important to sample from sites with different political positions. Granted, you know our biases when you visit blogs, but that just means you've got to read what we have to say knowing that you're probably not getting the full story at any one stop.