This page was last updated on August 28, 2004.

The editorial entitled “True lies” of August 24^th makes it clear the Times knows something about the subject.  The editorial itself is a perfect example.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Truth is always the first victim in politics.

[RWC] And in editorials.

“That’s why it is important to understand that in this year’s presidential election, just because someone isn’t lying doesn’t necessarily mean they are telling the truth.

“Take the anti-Kerry ad by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans who have aired a television advertisement attacking Kerry’s war record.”

[RWC] SBVT has done more than air now two ads.  60+ of them contributed to the book Unfit for Command, the source of info for the ads.  As of this writing, Unfit for Command is #1 on the Amazon.com “Hot List” and #1 on the New York Times bestseller list (issue date 9/5/04).

I suspect I’m not the only person who wonders why the Times waited until one of the smallest 527s, SBVT, produced an ad critical of John Kerry to worry.  After all, 527s like MoveOn.org have spent hundreds of times as much as SBVT on ads bashing President Bush for the better part of a year.  As of early August 2004, The Center for Public Integrity reports that 527s raised about $118 million.  “Of that total, 87% went to groups that lean Democratic.”¹  We shouldn’t forget that propaganda piece by Michael Moore either.

“Larry Thurlow, who, like Kerry, commanded a Navy Swift boat during the war, swore in an affidavit last month that Kerry was ‘not under fire’ when he rescued Lt. James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River.

“Kerry won a Bronze Star in the engagement, which the group claims is bogus.  According to The Associated Press, Thurlow is a leading member of the truth squad.

“However, Thurlow’s got a bit of a problem in regard to the action - or nonaction - that took place on that day in Vietnam.

“Using the Freedom of Information Act, The Washington Post gained access to his military records and found that they show Thurlow, like Kerry, won a Bronze Star for the same engagement.  Thurlow’s citation said he came under ‘constant small arms fire.’

“The AP reports Thurlow’s records include references to ‘enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire’ directed at all five boats in the flotilla that day.  In his Bronze Star citation, Thurlow is praised for helping a damaged Swift boat ‘despite enemy bullets flying about him.’

“Contacted for the Post story, Thurlow continues to claim they were not under fire that day.  ‘I never heard a shot,’ he said.”

[RWC] The editorial conveniently omits that Mr. Thurlow did not write the citation accompanying his Bronze Star.  Indeed, he did not even write an action report for the incident.  Thurlow did not know he had been recommended for the medal until after he left the Navy.  It is Thurlow’s belief the wording of the citation was the result of Kerry’s action report, though no one has produced proof.

From both James Rassmann and Kerry himself we know there are problems with Kerry’s action report.  In the action report, Kerry asserts he received a mine fragment in the butt when another Swift boat hit a mine.  When asked about the incident, Rassmann indicated he believed Kerry got the injury earlier in the day when both of them attempted to blow up a rice cache with hand grenades and Kerry didn’t get behind cover fast enough.  In a recent telephone interview, Rassmann said, “If he got fragments in the buttocks due to the mine, that is new information to me.”²  In an authorized biography, Tour of Duty, Kerry says “I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions.”³  Further, members of SBVT recall Kerry’s boat and the boat hit by the mine were on opposite sides of the river.

I don’t criticize Rassmann for his recollection about incoming fire; I wasn’t there.  All I know is that the vast majority of sailors involved in the incident have a different recollection, and the lack of bullet wounds and bullet damage to the boats tends to support the SBVT version.

“Rassmann, Kerry and his crew tell a different tale.  Kerry has described how his boat came under fire from the river banks [sic] after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. Swift boat.  Kerry and members of his crew say the firing continued as Kerry leaned over to fish out Rassman [sic], who was blown overboard in another explosion.

“Rassman [sic], who happens to be a Republican, backs the Kerry version of events.  The AP reports he has said he has vivid memories of enemies firing at him from both banks.”

[RWC] Regarding “vivid memories,” didn’t the Kerry campaign recently admit “seared” memories of Christmas in Cambodia were erroneous?

I’m no military expert, and I certainly wasn’t there, but if the boats were under heavy small arms fire, why were none of the sailors hit with bullets and why did none of the boats have bullet damage from that incident?  Were the Viet Cong such terrible marksmen they could not hit five boats essentially “dead in the water” during rescue operations?

Here’s a possible explanation of the differing Rassmann and SBVT accounts.  After the mine exploded, the SBVT indicate the sailors instinctively began firing at both shores to suppress potential incoming fire.  They ceased firing when they determined there was no incoming fire.  If I had been thrown into the water after a mine explosion and heard gunfire, I would probably assume there was enemy fire.  Perhaps that’s what happened to Mr. Rassmann.

The editorial makes sure we know Mr. Rassmann is a Republican, but omits that the SBVT includes independents, Republicans, AND Democrats.

“The ad and the disputed events surrounding it are a microcosm of the content of the campaign ads that will be washing over us until Election Day - selective memories, cherry-picked facts, out-of-context votes and statements and right-up-to-the-edge-of-a-lie truths.

“If you want to be an informed voter, check out these ads using FactCheck.org on the Web.  It’s a nonpartisan site operated by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

“FactCheck.org looks into these political true lies, leaving it up to you to decide.”

[RWC] FactCheck.org is OK, but don’t rely on any single source.

1. Reformers slam FEC for failing to restrain independent groups; Julia Malone, Cox News Service; The Palm Beach Post; August 19, 2004.

2. Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry; Michael Kranish; The Boston Globe; August 6, 2004.

3. Tour of Duty; Douglas Brinkley; William Morrow; January 1, 2004.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.