Talk:John Kerry military service controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Inspector General report

Logically, shouldn't the most recent material be at the end of the article? -khaosworks 03:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

don't know that it's a matter of logic. obviously, if a forward chronology is your desire, it should go last. to me, it seemed most useful to the reader to put the InspGen report up top. i mean, we go make them wade through a lengthy discussion of the intricacies of who said what. and then, at the end, we let them in on the secret that the InspGen has made a ruling on the matter. so to me, the question is what order of presentation is most helpful to the reader. i viewed the most recent information as being of very considerable relevance to a reader wanting a quick overview. i might note that the various allegations are not presented in a chronology, either.

i'm not digging in my heels here, though. why do you think the original order was better, if you do? Wolfman 04:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Few reasons, really. Not a huge thing, but...

1. Normally, when I scan an article or a book, I expect the end to hold the conclusion or the "state of the art". The body of the piece may jump all over the place chronologically, but the end should hold either the conclusion of the thesis or the most current status.
2. Structurally, the article starts by saying that Kerry's critics have made all these statements - the next thing I would expect is not the conclusion of an investigation but an elaboration of those critical statements followed by analysis of same. Then we hit a conclusion.
3. To see that InspGen paragraph up there before we understand what the allegations are exactly that need investigating is a little jarring. Imagine if someone had no prior knowledge of the controversy - the InspGen paragraph makes a lot more sense if you understand why the approval process needed to be looked into.

-khaosworks 09:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair points all. I believe both our points could be accomodated by briefly mentioning the findings of the IG's report in the introductory paragraph, and then by moving the section to the end. Feel free to make that change, if you like. Wolfman 13:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed and done. -khaosworks 16:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the appeal to the IG decision be the last thing mentioned? The result of the appeal will follow. -SEWilco 06:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to presuppose that there is some sort of stamp of finality to the Kerry controversy by the IG decision when, in fact, the only "awards" aspect reviewed was the "process", not the merits. This was acknowledged by the IG when he stated that "...(c)onducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive." The legitimacy of the "process" was small potatoes and almost virtually unchallenged as compared to allegations of questionable legitimacy of the award criteria. It is widely held among the Kerry opposition that the Navy "punted" on this question due to political considerations.

Given the Navy's own admission on the limitations of its review, I would hardly deem this to be some "Rosetta Stone" of the Kerry controversy mandating "top billing". I have re-written and re-organized the article - see discussion below.--JakeInJoisey 00:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Added reference and quote from Judicial Watch reacting to IG decision. It is unclear from the existing text that the IG's determination was based on procedure only and was not an investigation of the substantive merits of Kerry's awards. While this was acknowledged in a previous "letter to Judicial Watch" from the IG (already cited), the difference between a procedural review and a review of the merits is critical to understanding the objections raised by Judicial Watch.

I would suggest that a bad precedent has been set in this section by using rather lengthy quotations from source material as opposed to a summation with references to source material.--JakeInJoisey 22:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually suggest a short summation of both the IG's letter JW's response, rather than detailed quotes from both.--EECEE 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that would better serve the article. Right now it reads like a chronology (then this, then this, then this and on and on). I'll have a whack at it and try to preserve the substance when I can work up the time and motivation...unless there's another volunteer :-)--JakeInJoisey 00:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Silver Star Incident

Hello Khaosworks - Thanks for the cleanup edits on the Silver Star material. However, I originially included the after-action report information and the mention of Elliott's original citation to indicate what facts Elliott knew at the time - this is in reference to Elliott's statement (included earlier) that he didn't know the facts at the time.

Not everything that is in the after action report appears in the original citation, such as the fact that the VC was wounded or that other parties followed Kerry in the second sweep and took out the VC. So it isn't strictly correct to say "these details are reflected in the citation" - hence my edit to say "most" of the details. It is correct to say all of these details together - report and citation - reflect what Elliott knew at the time.

Is there a way to present this with an NPOV ?

Thanks. EECEE 01:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've tried another edit - see if that works better. --khaosworks 01:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it sure does. Thanks! EECEE 09:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Statements to the media

I'm not convinced these block quotations are appropriate, but if the statements are being quoted or even summarized, we should provide links to the sources if such are available. JamesMLane 05:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SEWilco has links, I think. A summary of media statements here might be fine, with a link to wikiquote for full text. Wolfman 05:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are various copies around in various formats. SEWilco 07:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cavett: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

Washington Star: (page 79 of PDF) http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Sub%20A%20Section%2001/Sub%20A%20Section%2001.pdf

Meet the Press: http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/3552.html
Various quotes in text form: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Quotes

I don't think relying on the freepers is a good idea unless there's no alternative. I've added the History News Network citation, and I'll try to find more reliable sources for the others (too tired to look right now). Other points on quotations: There's no reason to italicize an indented block quotation. I also replaced the vague reference to "controversial" with an attempt at a terse NPOV summary of each side.

Wolfman, your edit summary suggested that you had listened to an audio of the Meet the Press appearance. On that assumption, I left in the emphasis, without appending "(emphasis added)" as I normally would if adding such formatting to a text source. If I misunderstood you, then the passage should be changed. JamesMLane 08:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I listened to an audio link that SEWilco provided a while back. Kerry very intentionally and distinctly emphasized the words "in that", so I think some visual cue of his own emphasis is necessary to provide a fair sense of his statement. Wolfman 14:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The WinterSoldier.com text quotes are merely convenient to find. Google on fragments of the quotes for other sources. I haven't tried to get video copies with suitable permissions for Wikisource. SEWilco 18:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missing Military Records

Does the fact need to be mentioned that the Kerry campaign refuses to sign the form to release all his military records which would clear up questions about the purple heart injuries?

Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."Plot thickens after checking records

well, it's covered in SBVT. this article got spawned out of that one last month, and the Form 180 business was in a different part of that article. personally, i think this article should be about what is known of his actions in Vietnam. whether he chooses to sign a form releasing private records may be criticized (and SBVT has done so), but it's not part of the controversy about his Vietnam service per se. Wolfman 04:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I had added that it was unclear whether those "at least a hundred pages" were contained in the 100+ pages Kerry released on his own. After all, plenty of them would only have been available to him. Then of course there's the 37 or so pages of his medical records, which are also private records. But the reference was edited out, because well... "unclear" is unclear both ways I guess. EECEE 01:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Nightline Story

Fascinating. They interviewed Vietnamese witnesses to the Silver Star event; pretty well establishes there was an intense firefight. Wolfman 15:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It pretty well establishes that whomever the translator was, and whomever the people who were interviewed, in front of the representatives of the Vietnam government they said there was a lot of shooting. There is plenty of discussion elsewhere about discrepancies which ABC News chose to not mention. I'm glad that with all that warfare and chemical usage that the villagers still have memories of that skirmish; the human mind is a wonderful thing. -- SEWilco 06:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I forget, which witness to events disputes the Silver Star account? And if this person exists, why is his memory less impaired than everyone else's? Rood, Rood's crew, Kerry, Kerry's crew, and the VietCong. I imagine this "skirmish" loomed pretty large in the lives of all those involved, considering they were almost killed. Wolfman 06:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Wolfman - You're right. No witness to the events disputes the Silver Star account, including the only member of SBVT who was there that day, Larry Clayton Lee. He says Kerry earned his medal. In addition, the citation that George Elliott actually wrote (NOT the one in "Unfit") also reflects what was written in the after-action report. [EECEE][27 Jan. '05]

Navy investigation - October

What is the source for: "The Navy denied the appeal, citing the statutory authority of the Inspector General in this matter."? Is this a reference to England supporting the pre-appeal IG statement? Or is someone confused by page 3 in the October 5 FOIA reply, where the statutory authority is given in reply to the FOIA request about the basis of the original review? The first 5 pages of the FOIA document seem to only be replies to document inquiries, with no reference to the appeal. Is there a reply to the appeal? -- SEWilco 12:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. August 18 and September 8, 2004: Judicial Watch files requests for review.
   1. September 17, reply from IG Route. [1]
2. September 23, Judicial Watch appealed [2] (with mention of an FOIA request)
   1. October 5, Secretary England deferred to the Inspector General's decision and did not initiate a separate review of the first IG reply. [3]
   2. As of October 22, IG has not replied to the October 5 appeal.
3. Judicial Watch also filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents used in review.
   1. October 5, Navy Inspector General's office replied to September 23 FOIA [4] with documents about the September review. [5]

First Purple Heart

To the unknown poster who edited the "First Purple Heart" entry re criteria for award to say "Some have countered that there was no enemy action in that area" :

In my opinion this edit belongs elsewhere in the article. Those paragraphs are merely setting out the criteria for the award - I don't think anyone really "counters" the criteria - and some circumstances under which it was awarded.

My suggestion is to find a place later in the discussion of the claims and counterclaims about whether he deserved the award, insert your statement there, put it in context, and add a backup link. EECEE 04:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

form 180

re: this change. is independent -> public verifiable? who made the criticism? also, why is '3-kerry designated ...' important? is the implication that they lied? if so, can you provide an example of someone suggesting this is the case. if not, what is the relevance? thank you. Derex 02:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The text, as it was written, failed to characterize the precise nature of the qualified release. It is historically inaccurate to leave an interested reader with the perception that these documents were made available to unrestricted PUBLIC examination. They were not, and it has been widely documented in most MSM reportage. If you feel that links to such documentation are appropriate, I would be happy to provide. However, I would think you would be willing to stipulate as to the veracity of the above. --JakeInJoisey 03:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

i know that kerry was criticized for not signing a form 180. the question is: did anyone make a big fuss about the "precise nature" of the eventual release, which you have now specified. i don't recall any, so i'm asking you who made the fuss? "was criticized" is in no way helpful to the reader in determining whether this criticism was widespread or by a single rabid blogger or even by just jake himself. if there was no criticism about that aspect, i don't see why it's detailed here as it seems to imply such criticism. if there was some, i think we should specify by whom. i think you'd be willing to cite your source rather than ask me to stipulate the veracity of that about which i have no knowledge. Derex 04:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First let me address your last observation...

• i think you'd be willing to cite your source rather than ask me to stipulate the veracity of that about which i have no knowledge.

I was suggesting that you might be willing to stipulate that the release was limited, not to the character or breadth of any "criticism" (which, BTW, was not my wording).

• "was criticized" is in no way helpful to the reader in determining whether this criticism was widespread or by a single rabid blogger or even by just jake himself.

I don't believe that citing an established fact always requires further development. The reader is free to interpret its relevancy or significance. "Here", for example, is a precedent which seems to have been deemed acceptable...

After the election, the group was praised by conservatives for contributing to the success of the George W. Bush campaign, while critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign.

• did anyone make a big fuss about the "precise nature" of the eventual release, which you have now specified. i don't recall any, so i'm asking you who made the fuss?

I can't fairly describe reaction as a "big fuss"(frankly the media had tired of the story), however the qualified release was noted by the principle protagonist, John O'Neill, and at least several other media sources...(emphasis mine)

We called for Kerry to execute a form which would permit anyone to examine his full and unexpulgated [sic] military records at the Navy Department and the National Personnel Records Center.

John O'Neill, "Blogs for Bush", June 7, 2005

More than a year after promising on national television to release his full military record, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts authorized the Navy last month to provide his service file to selected news organizations.

However, Mr. Kerry has not given the military permission to disclose the records to the general public, fueling continued speculation by the senator's critics that he is attempting to hush up some aspect of his service.

Kerry Hangs Back From Disclosure to All By JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun, June 9, 2005

But both papers are guilty of failing to comprehend the shifting dynamic in news coverage and consumption. We live in an age where home-schooled journalists have made a habit of correcting once revered institutions like CBS News and the New York Times."

"Serious consumers of news prefer to co-exist with the mainstream media using Ronald Reagan's maxim: Trust, but verify. This means readers and viewers want a gander at primary sources whenever practical. It also means that when a media organ says in effect, "Just trust me," the plea will have precisely the opposite effect of what's intended.

Dean Barnett, Weekly Standard via CBS News Opinion

--JakeInJoisey 07:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually reverted it back before seeing this discussion, sorry. But my point as made in the edit summary was that to imply that signing the SF 180 in itself authorizes "public" access is incorrect; it merely authorizes independent access by the party or parties named on the form. If you want to bring in SBVT criticism that it didn't authorize Joe Public to get the records, I think that should be a different sentence... or the whole paragraph should be re-written. --EECEE 06:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You reverted while I was in the process of composing a response to Derex. I'm not sure why a different sentence is required. I have edited the text as follows...He was criticized for not authorizing independent public access to his military records. That appears to be a fair statement of the facts, no? --JakeInJoisey 07:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the rewrite works. My main objection was the implication that an SF180 itself authorizes "public" access. It doesn't. --EECEE 23:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have edited it to be a bit less POV, for readability, to more accurately reflect the SBVT position (I don't recall seeing the word "demand" in their initial statement...I might be wrong tho) and to reflect media's interest in this issue.

Perhaps this entire subject of the SF180 controversy could use some development.

Yes, looks good. As to "development," I notice that Wolfman points out, in the "Missing Military Records" party of the discussion, that a lot of this info is probably be more appropriate to the SBVT page. There is a fair amount of development of the topic over there. So I tend to agree that a quick mention works here, maybe with a link to the other page. --EECEE 06:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm ignorant about the genesis of either article and, quite frankly, am a bit mystified that some consenus of opinion felt a need for differentiation. IMHO the two subject matters are joined at the hip and I'm at a loss to conjure up some aspect of either article that wouldn't be appropriate in the other. I suppose I could trudge through the history files and find the answer or compare the indexes to find uniquely applicable material but I'd rather shove bamboo shoots under my fingernails. Perhaps one who was here at the time might enlighten me?

Well, I would rather have had bamboo shoots shoved up my nails than to have been involved. But, I was (as Wolfman, my old name, retired). Essentially, the split came at the demand of one very vociferous and cantakerous conservative editor for symmetry. Texans for Truth and the George W. Bush military service controversy pages were separate, as was sensible. That controversy pre-dated TFT, which was really started in response to SBVT. Of course, the Kerry controversy was much more closely connected to SBVT, which essentially created the controversy. Nonetheless, it did seem a reasonable demand to have one article on the group per se and another on the controversy. There is a certain logic to this, and it seemed a satisfactory solution to everyone. So, we did it. Derex 16:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Cambodia section

I did some cleaning up on the Cambodia discussion. First, I know of nowhere where Kerry claimed - "repeatedly" or not - that he was sent on an illegal secret mission to Cambodia on Christmas Eve. The Boston Globe story cited, and everything else I've seen, mentions Kerry's claim that he was ambushed on a regular patrol near the border, and ended up over the border. His 1979 and 1986 statements don't say he was sent on a mission over the border, simply that he was there. But if anyone has a primary source that says otherwise, feel free to include it.

I have also put the passage from his 1986 floor speech in its actual context.

Also in context, Kerry's remarks about Nixon (both in the 1979 article and 1986 floor speech) are ambiguous. It just isn't clear he's claiming Nixon was actually making denials in December 1968. So I put the information in neutral language - let the reader draw his or her own conclusion.

The source for the statement that Kerry "indicated" that the Cambodia incident changed his views of the war is an excerpt from "Unfit for Command" (as posted by MSNBC). But it was Michael Kranish doing the "indicating" on Hannity and Colmes, according to the book. It does include a Globe biography quote about Kerry begining to distrust government pronouncements, so I will put it back in as shown in the Globe biography.

I also included more from his journal entry.

As I say, please feel free to add anything with primary sources. Thanks. --EECEE 06:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have also put the passage from his 1986 floor speech in its actual context.

In context, Kerry's remarks about Nixon (both in the 1979 article and 1986 floor speech) are ambiguous.

They may or may not be ambiguous, but one thing is fersure...they're irrelevant to illustrating the primary point of contention as expressed in the section introduction...Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" claim(s?)...In fact, you've supplied so much "context" that one can barely discern the applicable quote.

One chapter of SBVT's Unfit for Command questions Kerry's repeated statement that he was in Cambodia during Christmas, 1968. [43] For example, on March 27, 1986, in arguing against United States aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, Kerry made a speech to the Senate that, among other things, touched on the Vietnam war:

While you're certainly welcome to present arguments that might suggest some rationale for Kerry's "Nixon" reference, it is certainly out of place here given the obvious intent of the opening paragraph to illustrate the operative "quote". If a reader wants "context" the link provided will give it to them is spades. I'm deleting the "context" and suggest that you develop "Nixon" as a separate subject within the "Cambodia" topic.

I've also added Steve Gardner's quote on "Cambodia" from a National Review article.--JakeInJoisey 00:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I want to put the full quote from the 1986 speech back in. In this case, context is everything. SBVT and the other Kerry critics have used this partial quote to claim that Kerry simply said the memory of Christmas in Cambodia is "seared" into him. However, Kerry begins by asking "how quickly do we forget" the promises that were made re Vietnam, and sets out to "remind" the listeners with a long list of promises/denials by American politicians. The final portion cannot be broken apart and still make sense in the context of the earlier language:

>>Finally, President Nixon, 1970. "In cooperation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clear out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border."

Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.<<<

That is the only way it makes sense. Nixon said he was sending troops in 1970, but he remembers being there in December 1968.

In addition, I think it is clear from the larger context that the memory that is "seared" into him is the memory of all the promises and denials about Vietnam, especially as the phrase is part of a larger thought: "I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict. Mr. President, good intentions are not enough to keep us out of harm's way." Going over the border illicitly on a single day is not a "kind of conflict" to be avoided; nor did he suggest anywhere that Nicaragua would be the "kind of conflict" where the President would lie about the presence of troops. Personally, I think it's clear he is saying that the memory of the history he lays out tells him that we should avoid the "kind of conflict" where the war is widened despite repeated assurances that it wouldn't be. That is the only way it seems to make sense, especially given the next statement that "good intentions" are not enough. Good intentions for what? Good intentions not to widen the war, as demonstrated by the long list of good intentions he'd just set out.

This seems clear to me, but I say let the reader decide. I'm going to put the entire quote back in , with no POV commentary.

Moreover, in his 1986 speech, Kerry doesn't say he remembers Nixon saying anything in 1968. If he is referring to remembering a denial by the President while sitting in Cambodia over Chrismas, it could easily have been Johnson's ongoing denials. If, in the second sentence, he is simply speaking of all his excursions into Cambodia - after all, when he was ambused that night it probably wasn't by Cambodians - he could be speaking of Nixon or just American denials in general. I suspect he meant, in that second sentence, that he remembered what it was like being in Cambodia ... and then have the President say that troops had never been there - just my take.

I think at the worst he is telescoping several memories into one. Let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

The Nixon quote in the 1979 article is ambiguous, because he doesn't say he remembers Nixon making the denial at the time. Again, I think at worst he is telescoping his memories.

Nevertheless, I think all the Nixon-timeline stuff has now been pretty much handled in a NPOV way.

I think the Gardner and Wasser quotes should be deleted and their observations simply summarized. They are really just personal observations - and Gardner's quote is almost exactly repeated in the UFC reference. Next there will be some other vets' comments about Operation Daniel Boone or other covert activity. For example, at least one vet posting at the SBSA guestbook says he has distinct memories of Kerry's crew passing through on the way to Cambodia - he and they all sat around and compared Cambodian women to Vietnamese women. Other vets have posted elsewhere their own memories of how easy it was to get over the border from Sa Dec - should those quotes be included? How about the quote from Zumwalt's book about his son's Bronze Star for a mission in a pretty questionable location, that suggested such things were a pretty regular occurence? Sure, they weren't on Kerry's crew, but plenty would see all this as relevant to Gardner and SBVT's claims. So ... how long can this page get?

I also think it is overreaching to say "nor has Kerry presented any evidence or documentation to support such a claim," because as stated later on Brinkley says his journal does describe certain missions. In addition, Kerry told Tim Russert that he has pictures that he had given the campaign. --EECEE 04:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

As I understand your argument, you are asserting that there is some requirement to make "sense" through "context" of now Kerry-acknowledged false declarations of fact? With all due respect I don't think ANYONE is up to that level of spin. And what of the AP and Herald documentations of his other similar claims? Must they be made "sense" of as well? Should we also consider the "context" under which those similar now-retracted claims were made? I'm sorry but this is just too much obfuscation for a rather clear issue.

If one wants only to talk about the "Christmas in Cambodia" claim, then it should be the one sentence - "Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia." Period.

But as long as people want to include the parts about the President denying the presence of troops, and a memory being "seared" into the speaker, then there is a selected "context" with an implied meaning. So yes, I think there is a "requirement" that the reader be able to judge the full statement as it was spoken - as part of a larger thought. Here, we are setting out the sentences that preceeded the ones in question - how is that a problem? Does it mislead the reader in any way? Nope. He or she is free to consider the statement and draw his or her own conclusions. --EECEE 20:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It is NOT what might have motivated or inspired Kerry to utter the now self-debunked "seared, seared" Congressional prose but the fact that he made the assertion repeatedly over the course of his career...period. THAT fact is the raison d'etre for this section. His statement on the Senate floor is simply the most illustrative and widely celebrated example of that reality and it needs no "context" to qualify its singular relevance to this topic.

You are putting your own reading into that statement, one that is not apparent on the face of it. Again, it is up to the reader to decide.--EECEE 20:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue of his alleged "Nixon" faux-pas is a tangential one having ZERO bearing on his prior claims and should be treated accordingly.--JakeInJoisey 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Nixon faux-pas" is already being discussed in the article. I told you what I think his references mean, but nothing in the article forces the reader to draw that conclusion. --EECEE 20:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

As it will take me some time to appropriately respond to the bulk of your rebuttal, let me quickly respond to your last point. There must be some minimal degree of access and scrutiny applied to "evidence or documentation" in order to even suggest credibility, especially in a medium that purports to be an "encyclopedia". Allusions to thus far privileged "journal entries" by Kerry's "biographer" (opponents have suggested "hagiographer") or pictorial evidence that seems to have, thus far, eluded distribution and examination are hardly the stuff of "evidence and documentation". Even IF this purported material were made available for examination, it would STILL require corroboration as it is from the same source...Kerry. Thus far, not even a member of the BOB will step closer to this than "might have been there" to say nothing of a total (that's TOTAL) lack of hard evidence that these incursions ever occurred and considerable evidence that they didn't. Wikipedia would do well to emulate BOB reticence in this regard.--JakeInJoisey 06:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is not really accurate to say Kerry has not presented any evidence or documentation to support his claim. --EECEE 08:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the Gardner and Wasser quotes, to mostly summarize, as discussed earlier. Summarized most of Brinkley quote. Also re-arranged some of the Nixon-Johnson timeline stuff.

I think all this looks cleaner but am open to suggestions.

Added a sentence to the effect that no official documentation of incursions by either of Kerry's boats has been discovered. --EECEE 08:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I believe that the introduction to this article requires a re-write and the article itself needs to be re-organized. Using the Wiki article on George Bush's "military controversy" as a basis of comparison, the current introductory text contains non-introductory impeachment material which, IMHO, has been gratuitously inserted as POV. Nor does the current text accurately reflect SBVT's primary objection to Kerry's fitness for office, his alleged wholesale defamation of Vietnam-era veterans and his post-war conduct while acting in a national leadership position with the VVAW.

I am proposing the following as an introduction with the introduction of a new sub-Heading, "Background", into which I will insert the second introductory paragraph for further editing. The text referencing the "medals" issue is impeachment material, already has it's own sub-heading and is out of place in the introduction. I believe these changes fairly compare to both the structure and treatment utilized in the George W. Bush military service controversy.

• New "Introduction"

During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry's post-Vietnam anti-war activities as a national director of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and hisVietnam war record became the subject of controversy. In television advertisements and a book called Unfit for Command, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) questioned Kerry's fitness for office, the veracity of Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, details of his military service record and circumstances relating to the award of his combat medals.

• New "Background" sub-heading(needs re-editing)

Several SBVT members were in the same unit with Kerry, but only one, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat. Other SBVT members included two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott. Hibbard and Elliott have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved. In addition, members of SBVT have questioned his other medals and his truthfulness in testimony about the war. Defenders of John Kerry's war record, including nearly all of his former Swift Boat crewmates, have responded that the accusations are false and are refuted by the records and by the statements of eyewitnesses. They have also charged that organizers of SBVT have close ties to the George W. Bush presidential campaign.

--JakeInJoisey 17:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice 'n clean. --EECEE 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Edited out of article, more appropriate here:

This discussion should be preceded by an examination of who funded the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". They were connected with the Republican party and with Karl Rove, (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth/Funding) and thus their impartiality and truthfulness should come into question. (Isn't it interesting that Kerry's highly decorated military service should be put under a microscope by the same people who would hide any records of his opponent, George Bush's avoidance of military service. This is in keeping with Karl Rove's game plan to attack where an opponent is strong.) Sariks --

EECEE 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

.......... concerning the First Purple Heart, I think it is important to point out that since Kerry's name did not appear on any casualty list, he had to ask his commander to submit his [Kerry's] name for the commendation, a request that Kerry's first commander denied. CorvetteZ51

Hi CorevetteZ51.

Sorry if my edit seemed peremptory. My reasoning is this. To say that Kerry’s name doesn’t appear on a casualty list seems conclusionary (is that the word?). Just because an injury report with Kerry’s name on it has not been found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Somewhat the same with the absence of his name on any summary of injury reports (is that what you mean by casualty list ...and is there one?). As we’ve all seen, military records going that far back can be spotty at best. At most, I suppose one could say Kerry's name does not appear on the list of injuries for that date (if there is one)...or something similar. And then link to it.

Second, only Hibbard says Kerry came in asking for anything.

Third, it seems logical that even if Kerry was asking for anything, he would be asking for an injury report, which would be the basis for the PH. From everything I’ve read, the commanding officer doesn’t “submit” a name for the award, rather it’s pretty much automatic if there’s an injury report.

And fourth, there’s no record of a subsequent commander signing off on anything either, and what would he sign, an injury report? Did he put the paperwork through? We just don’t know. Of course that subsequent commander would have been George Elliott, who is an SBVT member but has said nothing about any role in the award of the PH (and I’m pretty sure he would if he could). Don’t forget that Hibbard at first said he probably signed off himself after some discussion. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45917

I understand the point of trying to fill in the gaps, explaining the logic of how things might have transpired. But in the absence of objective proof, it seems best to leave out what amounts to a theory. And not to be too circular, but the absence of a publicly available injury report isn’t really objective proof of anything.

(I got dinged for something similar over at the John O’Neill page. I had suggested that the fact that O’Neill didn’t get a PH was proof that his leg was not injured in combat. It was rightly edited to be less uh, “conclusionary.” Feel free to check it out.) --EECEE 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

hello EECEE,

a medal-comendation is not proof,it is a second hand account, with that said, These are the facts as I believe them. Kerry's name did not appear on the casualty list, because the wound was not treated in any kind of emergency or combat-related situation,along with the fact the Kerry did not lose any time to injury, along with the fact that - if there even was a report filed in this incident, it did mention Kerry's wound.So, there was no 'normal' way for the officer who handles the PH award, to become aware that Kerry had been wounded. Kerry goes to sick call the next morning, is treated by some doctor {not sure about that, but I dont dispute it] Kerry keeps the note signed by a hospitalman. Kerry asks his CO [commander} to put Kerry 'in' for the PH. CO refuses. Kerry gets transfered. Kerry asks his [new to hom] CO to put him [Kerry] 'in' for the PH. His 'new' CO, agrees. I think it is important to show the claims of Kerry's critics in this article. EECEE, please advise how I would do that,perhaps noting that this is a claim of the Swiftvets,or something like that,wouldbe fine Keep in mind that the evidence for Kerry's side of this is, Kerry's words, as told to his second CO, plus the hospitalman's note, plus documents based on those things. CorvetteZ51 15 January 2006

the appropriate way would be to paraphrase or quote a statement by the swiftvets. this must be sourced, very preferably with an internet link. correction on a couple details: 1st, it is not a "hosptialman's note", it is the official medical record provided by the Navy during a document release. 2nd hibbard vividly described seeing the wound in a boston globe interview, so he was either directly aware of it or confused. 3rd, i recall that there are first hand accounts by two witnesses that kerry received the wound in a firefight (see the 1st-hand accounts links). i've never seen the swiftvets claim that the ph was submitted after a transfer by kerry by his new CO, what's your source on that? all that said, i definitely agree that kerry's critics should be accurately represented, though i'm not yet sure that's not currently the case. Derex 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello CorvettZ51 -

As you said, those are the facts as you believe them. But absent objective proof, much can only be characterized as speculation and should not be included in the article. I agree with Derex that if the SBVT have made claims they could be summarized and addressed - as I believe they are - but to put our own theories in there makes it a POV article.

For instance, I have not seen a casualty list of any sort for that date, have you? If so, it should be linked. Then it could be pointed out that Kerry's name does not appear on it. In addition, not losing time due to an injury is no indication that someone wasn't eligible for a PH... plenty of guys in the unit, including at least one SBVT member, got PHs for no-time-off injuries.

Again, Hibbard is the only one to claim to have had this discussion with Kerry. It can be included as his accusation, but it is not proof of what Kerry did before or afterwards.

The only objective, undisputed proof of anything is a sick bay report saying Kerry was treated for a wound received in an incident the night before. That in itself is sufficient basis for a PH.

Like Derex, I don't think the SBVT folks have gone into detail about how the PH might have transpired if Hibbard actually did refuse to authorize it (again, only his unsupported word). So it really is only speculation to say he must have gotten it on the recommendation of another commander.

PS to Derex - yes, Hibbard claims to have seen Kerry's wound, but he describes it as being in the wrong place. --EECEE 09:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Derex, you are correct in pointing out my error in the matter of, what the SBVT claim about what Kerry did after Hibbard supposedly turned Kerry down, thanks, and my apologies to everyone. OK. I tried to present what are the important SBVT claims. Certainly, PHs were awarded for 'no-time-lost' wounds, but the SBVT would seem to claim that Kerry went too far.

EECEE, I disagree in part with one of your assertion for PH basis... the PH awvrd criteria includes words to the effect, wound must be needful of treatment by a medical officer. Most people, having a wound such as Kerry supposedly had, would not contend that the wound was sufficiently serious to need the expertise of a doctor to treat, most would contend that any medical person would be sufficient, or that no treatment is needed. This is controversial, and certainly worth pointing out. If Kerry contends that the wound, was beyond the normal skill of hospitalman to treat, you should point that out.

The Bronxe Star incident seems to needs a lot of work. I would like to suggest the article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html as a starting point, would anyone like to comment? CoKrvetteZ51 18 january 2006

regarding the criterion for a purple heart, please follow the link to the regulation. you will find the exact wording there. i don't believe it corresponds to your interpretation. you might want to review the talk page archives, there are extremely lengthy discussions of the PH and the regulations there, or it may be in the SBVT talk page archive, from which this article was spun off. also, you will find extremely detailed discussions of the PH issues in the John Kerry talk page archives from a couple months back. similarly, there are quite lengthy discussions of the Bronze Star in those various archives. a review of those might be helfpul in finding inaccuracies in the present discussion. P.S. EECEE, yes I remember now ... I believe I made that point myself once, over a year back. hard to keep my year-old recollections of so many 30-year old recollections by others straight.Derex 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------

CorvetteZ51 - In response to your note, the PH criteria indeed specify treatment by a medical officer, but that term does not necessarily mean treatment by a doctor. You will find plenty of incidents of Swift Boat personnel who received PHs after being treated by a corpsman for very minor wounds, and even being returned straight to duty - look at the injury report for SBVT member Robert Hildreth for February 20, 1969, for example. [6]

In addition, I don't think the document in question is an entry in a sick call logbook, and it isn't described that way in the passage from UFC that you link to. I think that should come out of the article.

And by the way, I don't think Kerry ever said the wound was beyond the skill of a corpsman or needed a doctor's treatment. That isn't even really relevant to the issue, as you see.

Also, I disagree with the wording that says Kerry's name doesn't appear on any casualty report. Even UFC, which you link to, just says there is no casualty report. I would point out again that just because one has not been found doesn't mean one was never written. I think the article should be revised accordingly. Something like "no casualty report for the incident has been found."

Moreover, all PH citations probably came from Saigon, so it means nothing to include that point in the article. If you are wanting to say that the citation was issued some time after the fact, I think that could be included without drawing any unwarranted conclusions.

Finally, I think the Hibbard stuff could be revised a bit in the next edit, to simply state that this is what he claims - then a quote or a link.

Okay, thanks for posting, CorvetteZ51. By the way, did you know if you click on the second button from the right at the top of the edit screen, your signature will appear along with a time stamp? Like this: --EECEE 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I cleaned up the 'Hibbard claims' issue somewhat. I am working on better cites, for the documents at issue. --CorvetteZ51 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I am going to take a crack at it and you see what you think. I still have problems with the reference to the casualty report language because no casualty report was found, period. Also, there is nothing that says the corpsman's document was an entry in a logbook - not even the excerpt from UFC that you link to. And Kerry had a real PH citation and presentation letter [7] ..it is misleading to say it was just a "generic order." Unless of course every PH citation ever awarded is just a generic order. And again, your linked excerpt makes no such claim. --EECEE 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have rewritten the first paragraph for clarity. I also moved the Hibbard claim farther down in the article, to put it in chronological order. I think it flows a little better this way.--EECEE 06:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

purple hearts

EECEE, your edit is fine with me, good job. Concernng the Bronze Star incident, an important SBVT claim is not addressed, that... Kerry's Bronze Star comendation says, 'arm bleeding', Kerry's personal casualty report does not, it says 'contusion'. This discrepency has implications for the associated Purple Heart. Perhaps someone would like to discuss the issue.--CorvetteZ51 06:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are the personnel casualty reports for the feb 20 & march 13 incidents. what in these renders the purple hearts suspect? contusion definition ... "blood leaking from these injured blood vessels into the tissues", hardly inconsistent with the arm bleeding externally as well. however, i suspect "shrapnel wounds in left thigh" and "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks" respectively are quite enough for a purple heart. or, has someone noteable argued that these casualty reports are falsified? if so, who & where? i definitely agree that any allegation of falisified reports should be included, along with any relevant evidence for or against. i suppose even allegations that the purple heart wasn't warranted, despite the shrapnel wounds should be included ... as even questionable or false charges are an important part of this "controversy" story. Derex 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

EECEE, here is some background. Earlier on Mar 13th, Kerry was wounded by flying frags and rice, in a demolition incident. Friendly fire, no enemy involved, no PH. Later. came the 'river mine' incident. The 'shrapnel wounds', would seem to be from the demolition incident.The B.Star commendation reads in part "his arm bleeding", but that does not show on his personal casuaty report. If you are contending that it is acceptable to have a 'contusion' {bruised, to most people} be called 'bleeding', I think that should be pointed out to Wikipedia readers.--CorvetteZ51 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

actually, i think you're responding to me, Derex. the bronze star & the personnel casualty reports are based on separate reporting mechanisms. the bronze star is based on the after-action report, as well as witness reports & a recommendation from the commanding officer (i think that was Hibbard in this case). the personnel casualty report is based on the medical treatment received. my point is that there is no inconsistency. both sources agree he was injured on his arm. the bronze star report indicates he was bleeding on site. the casualty report indicates he was bruised, at the time of treatment. i've certainly bashed myself in ways that generate plenty of blood, but that clot on their own.

so, it doesn't look to me like there's any conflict here. but that's irrelevant, because this isn't about my views. if it's a controversy, it's a controversy. just cite the source explicitly. but in the end, the fact is that he received medical treatment. the regs say ph, that has to be included.

btw, the shrapnel wounds are in different places ... thigh vs buttocks. i imagine we can't get kerry to show us the scars on his ass as proof, so we're going to have to go with the official record on that one. i would think though that 3-week old shrapnel wounds look quite a bit different than fresh ones anyway. Derex 19:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

To Derex and Corvette - Thanks for your responses and notes. However, I would point out a couple of things that are implied in different parts of your posts.

First, an injury need not break the skin in order to qualify an individual for a PH:

A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record. [8]

Kerry would have qualified even with a bruise. Remember that it was severe enough to warrant an x-ray. And he was wearing an ace or other type of bandage when he arrived home in the states nearly three weeks later (see Brinkley's "Tour of Duty").

As Derex points out, it is the Bronze Star citation that mentions that Kerry's arm was bleeding (notice it says nothing about the injury to his buttock). That has nothing to do with the award of the PH. However, it should be noted that every single person on that boat, including the required witness for the medal recommendation, and the Green Beret, Rassman, said Kerry's arm was bleeding. They have said it separately in interviews even before it was an issue. They would certainly be in a position to know. (By the way Derex, it was Elliott, not Hibbard, who wrote up the Star recommendation.)

Interestingly, one of the SBVT accusers actually supports the contention that Kerry's arm was bleeding. In an interview for a video you can see at the SBVT website, Jack Chenowith said that when they were later trying to keep the damaged boat from sinking, he saw no blood on Kerry's arm, just a white towel or t-shirt that he had wrapped around it. So...why would one wrap one's arm up if it hadn't been bleeding?

Derex is also correct that a "contusion" does not necessarily mean the skin hasn't been broken.

And finally, the rice bin incident is common knowledge by now. Kerry never denied it...in fact he talks about it in Brinkley's book. But again, notice that the Bronze Star citation says nothing about the buttock injury. Remember, Kerry was qualified for the PH by virtue of the arm injury alone.

As an aside, SBVT member Tom Wright has been quoted in UFC and elsewhere as saying they all knew at the time Kerry was getting a PH for the March 13 incident, and he and another guy actually told him to take the three and out option and go home. Wright's story falls apart on several bases I won't go into here, but if everyone knew Kerry was getting a PH, and it wasn't justified, why didn't anyone say anything? Just doesn't make sense. --EECEE 07:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

meticulous & correct, as usual EECEE. wish my memory for detail were as good as yours. Derex 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Derex. I've found Eric Rasmussen's website [9] to be an excellent source of information, including primary sources. --EECEE 05:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

new nytimes article, for your reference

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?ex=1306468800&en=7158a7f024f0ee5a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

and see also kerry's pictures at http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/05/27/washington/20060528_KERR_GRAPHIC.html

Judicial Watch Quote (Is It Accurate?)

Presently this article includes this quote from Judicial Watch's reply to the Navy Investigator General (who upheld the validity of Senator Kerry's military awards):

"Instead, Admiral Route and his investigators exhausted their investigative efforts reviewing a Washington Post article from Aug. 22, 2004, and a Newsweek report from the Aug. 30, 2004, edition. The unnamed investigator(s) also relied on Kerry’s presidential campaign Internet site to conduct the investigation." [My italics.]

I think it is important to ask: Is it true that the Navy Investigator General merely looked at a newspaper article, magazine article, and campaign web site, or was his research actually more exhaustive?

If this answer is that his research was more exhaustive, I believe the article should say so immediately following this assertion; because at present I am left not knowing what to believe in regard to this assertion, which, I would think, would be easy enough to prove or disprove. --70.150.12.98 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate. See the IG's response. I note that section is simply absurdly long. It ought to be two or three paragraphs, at most. There is no reason whatsoever to have such enormously lengthy quotes. The IG's letter can be put in wikisource, or linked. Only a summary, and perhaps a pertinent one sentence quote need be given. Same with Judicial Watch's response, which frankly, I think, isn't even notable enough to include. Derex 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Derex. The JW topic should be edited to summary form, without all this he said/he said business. It could go on forever. Want to do the honors? --EECEE 04:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that, perhaps in the consolitation, the rebuttal requested by 70.150.12.98 was removed. (Or perhaps never added?) I added a sentence outlining the additional materials used by the IG. 71.230.18.108 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, the whole section needs to be edited down. It is waay too long for such a tangential issue. If nobody objects in the next few days, I'll give it a try. --EECEE 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I (71.230.18.108) don't particularly object, but I can't quite see how the Navy Inspector General's review of a huge controversy is tangential.RuBiscoJohn 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the Navy IG reviewed the award of medals is worth noting, as is a short summary of the questions presented, but the back and forth over who read what or interviewed whom bloats the importance of the topic in the overall controversy. --EECEE 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

To JonMoseley - I removed some of the language you had added to the article for several reasons. Some were explained in the history notes.

Generally, people tend to want to put a lot of back and forth stuff in an article, in an attempt to portray both sides. But it often ends up confusing and distracting from the main point of the article. For example, the business about SBVT's/Kerry's claims about the release of his records appears more fully elsewhere in the article. Also, the SBVT accusations about Kerry's 1971 testimony, etc. are really not part of the "military service controversy" and are addressed pretty extensively in other articles (like those on SBVT, VVAW, and WSI, to name a few acronyms). --EECEE 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's Medals?

What about the fact that Kerry threw "his" medals over the wall of the White House, only to later have the same medals shadowboxed and placed on the wall of his Senate office? There was quite a bit of controversy over that. and it isn't mentioned here.

That's because this article is about Kerry's military service, not his antiwar activities. The controversy is mentioned, for instance, under the "antiwar activities" portion of the John Kerry article, as well as the "demonstration at the Capitol" portion of the John Kerry VVAW controversy.

By the way, you do realize that whole "he threw his medals but displayed them in his office later" thing is an urban myth (to put it kindly)? Kerry never claimed to have thrown his actual medals (an inaccurate 1971 interview transcript and dishonestly edited SBVT ad to the contrary), but threw his ribbons and the medals of two vets who asked him to toss theirs. His actual medals were not on display in his office, but, according to Douglas Brinkley, stuck in a drawer in his desk at home. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/04/28/medals/index.html?pn=1 --EECEE 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly "unsourced" statement

I'm restoring this statement in the "Background" section: "Defenders of John Kerry's service record, including virtually all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT's accusations are false."

It's not separately sourced because it's a summary of the detail provided in the next section of the article. The later subsections include, for example, the following statements, each meticulously sourced:

• "Kerry crewmates Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon dispute Schachte's 2004 account."
• "Several other witnesses insist that there was hostile fire during the incident."
• "Kerry’s crew members who were there that day do not agree with Elliott’s characterization of the event in his 2004 affidavits."

There would be no point in piling up a dozen footnotes in the introductory language to give links to all the published accounts that support Kerry's version of events. JamesMLane t c 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I think saying virtually all is misleading when the only specific examples we have here are from two of the crewmen and "several other" witnesses out of a normal complement of 6 on board. Please correct me if I've skimmed over exactly how many people were on board at the time. The link for the reference for the third quote is broken. KevinPuj 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the busted link. ABC redesigned its site, and the story now begins here: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128984&page=1. I've corrected the passage so that each of the quotations from that story is linked to the page on which it appears. That story quotes a total of four Kerry crewmembers who support Kerry's version of events: Sandusky, Short, Alston, and Thorson. The fifth, Tommy Belodeau, died in 1997. [10] I think that "virtually all" rather than "all" is correct because SBVT included Steve Gardner, who served under Kerry briefly on Kerry's previous Swift boat. JamesMLane t c 16:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps giving the exact number ("four out of five living crewmembers") would be better than the more general statement? If I've understood you correctly, that's the number. Please confirm. KevinPuj 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, with the exception of Gardner, the crews of both boats Kerry commanded (PCF 44 and PCF 94) support him and oppose SBVT. As there were replacement crewmembers at various times (Short for Alston, for instance), I'm not sure what the total number would be. --EECEE 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For the reason stated by EECEE, I think "virtually all" is the best wording. Note that the first paragraph of this "Background" section already states that one former Kerry crewmember (Gardner) is a member of SBVT. JamesMLane t c 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am of the firm belief that giving the reader as much information as possible and then letting the reader decide exactly how to categorize that is the best course possible. KevinPuj 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that an introductory summary is, well, an introductory summary. I looked up the crews of the two boats Kerry commanded: PCF 44 - Zaladonis, Wasser, Whitlow, Hatch, and Gardner; PCF 94 - Beladeau, Short, Sandusky, Alston, Medeiros, and Thorson. With the exception of SBVT memeber Gardner, all these men are either quoted in the article or in pieces cited in the article as defending Kerry's record and contradicting claims made by SBVT. Beladeau is no longer living, but he did stand by Kerry's side in 1996 and dispute any suggestion that his action on Feb. 28, 1969 did not deserve a Silver Star. --EECEE 09:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note further that Gardner who was not present at any of the various actions for which Kerry was decorated (including the PH's).[11] Derex 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor, contrary to his claim, was he the "longest serving" crewmember under Kerry. Nor, by his own claim, could he have gotten near enough to the Cambodian border to know whether it was "blocked" or not. --EECEE 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First Sentences

What am I missing about why this hasn't already been changed or at least discussed?? --

"The slow response by the Kerry campaign to counter what it believed to be blatantly false misinformation about a key asset that distinguished Kerry from Bush dented public recognition of that distinction and weakened Kerry's poll numbers at a critical time in the campaign."

There are a lot of assumptions in there. But a few:

• That the evidence supports the author's contention (isn't the evidence here for folks to decide for themselves)? If I go to Kerry's main page will I find him described as the "candidate virtually everyone agrees should have been elected in 2004", or Bush's main page stating, "the inferior candidate we all know should have lost to Kerry."?

• That Kerry's service was a key asset? Combined with his anti-war activities, it was muddled at best, and perhaps something that he should not have made the centerpiece of his campaign in the first place (that, arguably was the actual mistake).

• That Kerry's service was superior to Bush's. Etc.

LAEsquire (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC) LAEsquire

Those are facts, not assumptions. There was nothing "muddled" about Kerry's service record, despite the success of the Swift Vets' lies in convincing many people to the contrary, and his actual combat service was clearly superior to Bush's "service" of using daddy's political connections to skip the waiting list for a National Guard position he was unqualified for and then not showing up for drill probably to snort cocaine. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Unfit for Command.jpg

The image Image:Unfit for Command.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to go, by Harry Constance

The book by Harry Constance, ex Navy Seal, tells a story about a fake Silver Star award setup for an officer being now aknow politician. Sorry cannot find the book or paragraph. Was this John Kerry?

90.229.197.192 (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If the author doesn't name Kerry in his storytelling then it won't matter if someone finds the book; we couldn't use the item in our article. JamesMLane t c 06:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the unlikelihood that a "fake award setup" would be necessary when the commendation reflected exactly what was in the after action report, which has been supported in almost every detail by everyone there (including an SBVT member). And when the awarding officers repeatedly stated (pre-SBVT) that the award was "well-deserved." --EECEE (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

broken citation - OK to fix by linking to blog?

The article says:

The only member of SBVT who was present that day, Larry Clayton Lee, has stated he believes Kerry earned the Silver Star.[broken citation]

The link apparently went to a story in the Louisville Courier-Journal. The story is no longer archived on the CJ website, but here's a blog that quoted from the CJ at the time. Is it OK to restore the citation link by citing the blog that is quoting from the paper?

http://www.mahablog.com/oldsite/2004.08.22_arch.html

71.134.237.3 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is still available here. I'll update the link if needs be. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Kerry military service controversy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment: In reading, the name O'Neill seems to pop out of nowhere. It's not clear who he is, which side he's on and what function he has in this whole thing. 209.118.28.19 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Erwin

Last edited at 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2