Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

Bronze Star

Point of interest: Larry Thurlow, one of the more vocal SBVT critics of Kerry's Bronze Star was himself awarded a Bronze Star for the same engagement. [1] Update, it appears possible that Thurlow perjured himself in his sworn affidavit about the Bronze Star incident. [2] At the least, his testimony is certainly inconsistent with official records.

not perjury

There is no basis for a perjury charge here. Thurlow has not changed or contradicted his own testimony -- his only statements consistently deny that there was enemy fire.

As for the "inconsistency with official records", it has been Thurlow's contention that the language about hostile fire in the records is drawn from on a report Kerry himself filed, and that such language is mistaken. If so, to say that Thurlow's testimony disagrees with official records is hardly saying more than that he disagrees with Kerry. (Unfortunately, no one seems able to determine for certain who wrote the report.)

According to Thurlow, no hostile fire occurred. Then why did he accept a Bronze Star that specifically states "courage under enemy fire"?

Thurlow responds that he did not know/realize that "enemy fire" was the basis. From the WaPo article,

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

BruceJohnson 18:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, Thurlow attacks Kerry for receiving the same award he did, under the same circumstances? But he throws in a completely unsubstantiated claim for which he admittedly has no proof whatsoever that Kerry lied about hostile fire, which at any rate according to Thurlow was not the basis for the medal. In the meantime, it comes out that Thurlow's own petty officer was the official witness to the citation for Thurlow's medal. Of course, it's only perjury if he's lying (it's a sworn affidavit).Wolfman 18:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"But he throws in a completely unsubstantiated claim for which he admittedly has no proof whatsoever that Kerry lied about hostile fire" appears to be both a mischaracterization of the evidence available (sworn testimony by multiple eyewitnesses) or, perhaps, an under-appreciation of the weight that sworn eyewitness testimony enjoys under law. I'm not a lawyer and would appreciate anyone with legal expertise clarifying the legal import or stature of sworn eyewitness testimony. JakeInJoisey 17:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was no sworn testimony whatsoever against hostile fire, let alone by multiple eye-witnesses.

Kudos

I'd just like to offer a bit of kudos to those that have contributed to this article; I saw one of the ads and decided to look it up on wikipedia to try and learn some more about the group and what was going on. Nice job on a very well-written, succinct, and NPOV article about a volatile subject. Tim 16:21, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have made some corrections 08.12.04

Please comment here before deleting or changing my edits of today. Rex071404 15:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like how no one has made any mention of Steve Gardner, who did serve on John Kerry's swift boat.

Cambodia

I've cut the following paragraph for the moment:

Kerry spokesmen have denied the charges contained in pre-publication releases of SBVT's forthcoming Unfit for Command. One chapter questions Kerry's statement that he was sent on an illegal, secret mission to Cambodia in December of 1968. In response, the Kerry campaign and Kerry's official biographer, Douglas Brinkley, issued revised statements about the timing and nature of Kerry trips into and near Cambodia.[3]

The link does not make clear what "revisions" have been made. The implication here seems to be that Kerry is backtracking, so the article ought to make clear exactly how that is the case. Or, it ought to link to an article that makes it clear. I surmise from the article that maybe Kerry previously stated he was inside Cambodia but now he says he was on the border? It's not entirely clear to me from the link. I would fix it rather than cut it, but I have no idea what the situation is (having been news-deprived for a week). Also, has Kerry denied all charges, or just this one? If more, what exactly are the other charges he has denied? Anyone up to date on the news want to take a stab at cleaning this up a bit for re-insertion?Wolfman 16:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Links

Perhaps the following links will help?

Kerry's earlier statements about his "Christmas in (near?)Cambodia":Kranish bio [4]Senate testimony[5]

New statements by Kerry campaign (including references to earlier ones)[6][7][8]

Brinkley's statement/correction (the original link listed in the cut paragraph, but is clearly a revision in light of the links just listed):[9]

Thanks. I read each of the links. My understanding from these is that SBVT alleges that Kerry never entered Cambodia. Kerry had previously stated he was in Cambodia on Christmas, December 25. Kerry now states that, in fact, he was in Cambodia in either January or February rather than December. Is this a fair synopsis, or am I missing something?Wolfman 21:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SBVT's book does not question whether Kerry was ever in Cambodia. They specifically question the "Christmas in Cambodia" claim. (The chapter is available on the web,[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188250/posts] so I suppose I should dig it up and add a link to it.)

Josh Marshall

Rex justified his deletion of this factual information by writing, 'Leave Marshall link it (though I question it's relevance) but delete name of group due to false implication - no evidence SBVT are "friends" of Bush - too POV)'. Yes, Marshall has a POV. For Wikipedia to say that all these SBVT types are friends of Bush who are doing a politically motivated smear job of Kerry would be POV. It would also be POV for Wikipedia to take the opposite stance and say that they're all genuinely motivated by a search for the "Truth". The NPOV approach is to report these various views and criticisms impartially. If we were to suppress Marshall's commentary because there's no evidence that they're "friends" of Bush, we'd also have to refer to the organization simply as SBVT, because there's no evidence that they're actually "for Truth". Instead, however, we can leave in the full name "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", along with the text of Marshall's satire, because the context (notably, the attribution in each case) makes clear that we're reporting views, not endorsing them. JamesMLane 20:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In my view, it might be appropriate to have a short section of opinion on SBVT — including links to both pro & con views. As is often pointed out, Wiki does report opinion. In my view, the original placement of the Marshall line was a little out of context— even though I'm the one who linked it originally. Earlier, I went ahead and cut the dry remnants of the JM reference along with a Coulter reference. If people think it would be beneficial, I could add those two back (maybe along with a couple others) under an Opinion heading.Wolfman 21:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Controversies would be a better heading -- but either way, SBVT is an inherently controversial organization. It was formed for the purpose of getting involved in a hotly contested election. Of course it will have its supporters and its detractors. I'm inclined to think that the notable opinions about SBVT, pro and con, should be reported. JamesMLane 06:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I cut Marshall yesterday. He makes the same point Kerry does, so it was a bit redundant.Wolfman 00:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Warner defends Kerry on Silver Star

[10] goes to issue of whether Elliott is sole source of info on the award.

Partisan Links

FreeRepublic, Instapundit, and their ilk are not acceptable references in the factual part of this article. Neither would be DemocraticUnderground or Atrios. These are all avowedly partisan sources. They are acceptable in the Controversy section, provided they are presented as sources of opinion, not fact.Wolfman 16:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, PLEASE note that the links to the two cites you excluded were NOT to any partisan commentary, but simply to PRIMARY materials they happen to include on their sites. One is simply a PHOTOGRAPH of the Congressional Record (so people can read it for themselves and not have to trust potentially biased transcriptions). The other was simply the republishing of a chapter of Unfit for Command. If you wish to substitute link to the same texts from some other site, that's fine with me. But shouldn't we provide some sort of link to these materials when available?

Incidentally, would the exclusion of partisan links in the "articles" section? Several of these are opinion pieces with a clear partisan position (in this case, mostly from the left).

Alright, I admit I just saw red when I clicked into FreeRepublic. Nonetheless, these are simply not appropriate sources for primary material for wikipedia. It suggests an association with those partisan sites; even though not true, a casual reader is likely to infer it. If it's on freerepublic, presumably it's also available elsewhere (unless it's a copyvio).

I agree with you about the "articles" section; I was just noticing that myself. One solution would be an external links section under Controversies. But for now, I've cut the two articles that are written by a columnist (and were to a subscription site anyway)

"Smear Boat Veterans for Bush" — Published May 4, 2004 by Salon.
"The Vietnam investor behind the "Swift Boat Vets" attack" — Published May 14, 2004 by Salon.

Wolfman 17:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

527 argument important

Eliminating any discussion of 527's from the "contoversy" section makes the presentation totally one-sided. Essentially, this section now presents a thoroughly pro-Kerry stance. The fact is that Kerry vociferously attacks one small 527 that opposes him, while many large ones have been attacking Bush for months. Critics of Kerry point this out--and it IS part of the controversy.

Also, this section lists links between SBVT and various Republicans, especially of those who helped fund the ad. This is a central argument Democrats are using to try to discredit SBVT, and so, whether they are right or wrong, it is fair to mention. But this is clearly a very one-sided argument. Those on the other side point out that the anti-Bush groups have numerous Democratic links, are heavily financed by Kerry supporters(e.g., billionaire George Soros), and have spent millions vs. the tiny initial ad-spend of SBVT. So, why is the criticism from Kerry's side repeated extensively, but the rebuttal cannot be?

Is there a MoveOn article? That might be a nice place to point out Democratic links to them. This is an article about SBVT, not MoveOn, and not the campaign in general. I do agree that it would be appropriate to point out in the 'Republican links' paragraph that SBVT is a 527 with no official ties. - Wolfman\

Thanks --I'll do that

It's simple, really. If you want to point out that both sides have made criticisms of 527 Groups - Kerry criticizing SBVT, the GOP decrying 527s in general and the Bush administration calling for all unregulated ads to stop (which includes the 527s) - then do that on that particular article. - khaosworks 20:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. Certainly, any extensive discussion of the 527 controversy should be found elsewhere. But since the Kerry campaign's criticisms focus on alleged violation of 527-regulations, a brief mention of the controversy (and its two sides) seems warranted

At any rate, since this section is supposed to be about "opinion",the fact that one thinks a particular side's argument is flawed -- a "straw man", for instance-- should not necessarily preclude its being mentioned. Many on the right see major flaws in the arguments of Kerry's position, but these are not being excluded.

Wikipedia is not a dictaphone. Quoting at length a response to a charge that no one has ever made is sheer nonsense. - Wolfman

Don't really know what you are referring to. But note that the anti-SBVT charges are quoted at some length.

The "straw man" in question was a lengthy quote from O'Neill asserting that Bush had no legal authority to stop them. Well, of course he doesn't, and no one ever said he did. People have called on Bush to condemn the ads, not to ban them. If Bush disavowed them, SBVT would be left gasping for media air.

A general reflection. This article started out much like that on disinfopedia --with a very strong (pro-Kerry, anti-Bush) POV. It has since made considerable progress toward being a balanced article, representing what BOTH sides are saying and doing. But I fear some recent edits may be moving us in the opposite direction.

If this article was "2004 presidential campaign", you'd have a point. But this article is about a single organization, and discussion of other organizations is irrelevant. Gamaliel 19:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree. As it now stands the "opinion" section of this article manages to include a series of charges by critics (basically, the Kerry campaign), but has ruled out ANY of the responses that O'Neill and others have made that would allow one to better assess whether the Democratic charges (esp. their claims about supposedly illegitimate "links") have any merit, or at least to understand this specific controversy. The article implies that, in this controversy, pro-Kerry forces are making charges, but no one is responding to them (even that there is no response that could be made!)

Of course, not everything said in the campaign is germane, and I'm not suggesting every tangent be discussed here at length. But there is, in fact, a back and forth going on between SBVT (and its supporters) and its opponents. The article does not reflect this. And how can be legitimate to extensively cite and quote the charges the latter are making and tell us NOTHING of how SBVT, et.al. are seeking to rebut the accusations?? (Note that the main section of this article does cite both SBVT criticisms and the responses that have been made to them. A balanced presentation of the Opinion/Controversy would also seem in order --that is, what both sides are saying should be noted.)

Arguing "you do it too" is not a rebuttal, it's a diversion. No one is trying to supress an actual rebuttal.

First Purple Heart

Letson claims that he treated Kerry and J.C. Carreon was a Hospitalman First Class and his assistant. This is entirely relevant if the charge is being made that Letson did not sign the form himself.

The opinion of Hibbard that his evaluation of Kerry, which he marked "unobserved" in 14 of 18 categories, was marginal, as it least as valid as the opinion of a Wikipedia author who opines that it is positive.

Hibbard gave the highest possible evaluation in all categories marked but one. In the remaining category, he gave the second highest rating. The "unobserved" were so marked because Kerry was new. The written evaluation is an indisputable fact. It is not POV to characterize it is as "positive". Hibbard's commentary about this evaluation 30+ years after the fact is just cheaptalk. The wikipedias job is not to give an exhaustive summary of everything that ever comes out of Hibbard's mouth. It is to give a reasonable and balanced synopis or summary of the important facts.

Likewise with Letson. We reported the known relevant facts. a) He claims to have treated Kerry. b) Someone else (a medic) is listed as providing treatment on the official report. c) Letson was the only physician at the base. Now there are a million other details we could add (most of them highly unfavorable to Letson's veracity and Hibbard's for that matter). But, these are the essential facts. If you want to get into a blow by blow of every miniscule bit of cheaptalk with no evidence we can do that. But, it will be a pretty pointless article.

Wolfman 01:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A couple examples, just to show you what I mean about drowning in blow-by-blow.

Hibbard repeatedly identify Kerry's wound that he vividly remembered as being on his forearm. It was above the elbow.
When asked for any evidence Letson replied "You'll just have to take my word for it".
On your including Bush's statement denying involvement for a second time in 4 sentences. On the same day that the Bush-Cheney campaign repeatedly denied coordinating attacks with the anti-Kerry group "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," the Bush-Cheney campaign in Florida was caught promoting a rally in Gainesville for the group.

Now, none of this is really essential detail, and neither is the stuff you wanted in. If we start going that route, it will just end up in endless revert fights. That doesn't mean I'm going to oppose anything you want to include. I have no problem with something factual, relevant, and important to the essence of the article. What I do object to is essentially pointless details intended to promote a POV.Wolfman 01:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is incomplete and inaccurate to point out alleged inconsistencies in the statements of the principals involved but not to include their explanations of those inconsistencies. It is clearly POV to call an evaluation "positive" when it is 78% blank and is best characterized as "neutral." My version is as good as yours, so why not just let Hibbard's statement in there? You can even date it to 2004.

You, and many critics of SVBT have observed that "J.C. Carreon" and not Letson signed the form. Again, why be so quick to point out inconsistencies but not explanations for them? We could include the factual statement that if J.C. Carreon treated Kerry's wound, then Kerry was not treated by a "medical officer" and so is not eligible for the Purple Heart under your paraphrasing of the regulations. Why is identifying Carreon as the medic and Letson as the doctor acceptable, along with quoting Letson's original charge, while it somehow crosses a line to include a single sentence describing Letson's claim that Carreon often did the paperwork?

The only pointless article is one that makes itself favorable to one side in the interest of "brevity."--AN15 01:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scope of article

A timid comment from an early contributor who quickly chickened out: I really admire the effort everyone has put into this, and I think it's overall amazingly balanced for such a touchy subject, but... I'm tempted to say the whole thing should be pared back drastically at this point. When I wrote the original super-skimpy version, I specifically wanted to avoid having it be at all like the Disinfopedia article, and avoid dragging in all the specific arguments. I may still have started it on that track by including the part about ties to Republicans; still, at least that part has more of a bearing on who/what the group is, which seems relevant to an encyclopedia. If we keep struggling to (neutrally) summarize everything SBVT and Kerry say, then we're in the position of adjusting nearly every day to new quotes in the press that keep changing the focus of the argument... which, to me, is a clear sign that we've gone beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. I would cautiously include quotes like those from McCain, Bush, and Kerry at the end, but drop things like the Josh Marshall bit which really don't convey anything other than "people feel strongly". And, although I really am impressed with the writing, I'm uncomfortable with the entire existence of the "Allegations" section; I just think that way lies madness. —Hob←Talk 01:46, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

This I agree with. My view is that an article of any length on this subject cannot be "unbiased," so it's best to include responses when allegations are made. Certainly I don't expect much from those who are quick to do things like make accusations of perjury. Remove everything but a factual description of the group and include a large links section. AN15 01:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) ... Wolfman snarkily replies: nor do I expect much of those who accuse Kerry of atrocities, like you did as an anon ip last night (assumed by phrase 'my version' above).

Incorrect. I added that one of SBVT's allegations is that Kerry committed atrocities. This is a chapter in Unfit for Command. This is an article about SBVT, rightAN15 02:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The SBVT also provides eyewitness testimony of atrocities that Kerry may have committed while in command, including the negligent killing of a father and child. Adding the word may doesn't really render this phrasing NPOV.Wolfman 02:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There was no attempt on your part to rephrase the sentence. You've made this article entirely about Kerry's awards when a large part of SBVT has been challenging his anti-war activities, and yes, they also have statements of people who say they were with Kerry during civilian homicides. AN15 02:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with you Hob. The problem is that the John Kerry article was absolutely getting shut down with bickering over SBVT allegations. And Rex, God bless him, wasn't going to be satisfied until the discussion over the medals was longer than the rest of the article. So, the folks working on JK made a strategic decision to dump most of the detail over here; so that page wouldn't get bogged down in SBVT bickering.

That's why I speak so ominously above about detail creep. I've seen it; it ain't pretty. Every time someone inserts some non-essential detail that promotes POV, two get inserted going the other way. And it just becomes a horrible mess. I reckon that's your point too; once you go down this road, it's hard to stop. But, we had to liberate the John Kerry page, and this seemed like a nice sacrificial victim.

I strongly oppose adding any more detail unless it is really essential. And, I would support removing detail. Let FactCheck & disinfopedia handle it as far as i'm concerned.Wolfman 01:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rassman not a Kerry crewmate

Early in the article, Jim Rassman is incorrectly identified as a Kerry "crewmate". In fact, he was a Special Forces officer, with them for a few days. Can't quite figure out how to re-edit the sentence he is embedded with to correct that. Could someone work on this? Thanks! -BruceJohnson

New Ad

SBVT has released a second ad [11]. Anyone want to write this one up? Initial reactions: while it is true that Kerry did say these things, to be fair, the context was his presentation of the findings of the Winter Soldier Investigation. He never claimed to have personal knowledge of any of these atrocities. Whether this was a betrayal depends on your point of view. -khaosworks 07:11, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we should give it a week. There are surely going to be press articles checking facts on this, reactions by Kerry, etc. So, why not let the dust settle a few days before trying to write it?Wolfman 16:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rood

I'm adding some stuff about William Rood, because it contradicts SBVT claims, and is therefore relevant to this article. -S V 07:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the amount of work done in the write-up, but that level of detail, particularly since it simply reiterates the Chicago Tribune article, is disproportionate and not really needed. Rood's defense of Kerry is already mentioned earlier in the article, and a link is provided to the Tribune article. --khaosworks 08:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree (with both statements)- you might have sought to reintegrate at least some of that material into the article, in the appropriate slot. Or you could have been creative, and moved it to its own article, maybe under the name William Rood. You seem to be relatively new here, and there is a typical tendency for newbies to think statically about articles and article development in general. There is no limit on space; if it merits inclusion, it should be included. Lastly, the article in question belongs to a membership site, and whenever possible we try to link to open alternatives, or use excerpts. Since the material is copyright, we cannot copy it wholesale, but we can quote from it. I would have been more than happy to see a responsible editorial trimming of what I included, but you will find that outright deletionism is not a valid substitute for editorship. Thanks, and nice work on TARDIS BTW.-S V 18:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. We're all just trying to make a better article here, of course. But my basic question is - how does this amount of detail help? What it boils down to is that Rood's account supports Kerry and contradicts the others. The article doesn't go into as much detail (right down to excerpting) from the opposite side. Perhaps you could move the details to its own entry. -khaosworks 18:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You might have already figured this out on your own, but excerpts can be a good thing, the more explicit the information, the better people can be informed, to better decide for themselves what to think. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my mind there is a distinction between the accounts of officers who were not actually there, as compared to the account of one who actually was. In the context of this extreme disparity in credibility, its quite appropriate to elevate the observation of political motive to the top of the article. -S V 21:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a step to restore at least some of the information, I've attempted to summarize the essential points in Rood's account that responds to specific SBVT charges. -khaosworks 19:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

cutting too much?

I'm a little concerned that we're cutting too much. We are getting bogged down in detail, but I think it's important that we document fully the claims of this group. In other articles I've said that we're under no obligation to examine every charge and counter charge, and this is true. However, this is an article about a group whose entire existence is dedicated to making charges, and even if they are easily dismissed on factual grounds, I think it's important that we note that. Gamaliel 18:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but we should also keep in mind that encyclopedia articles are not designed to be completely comprehensive, we should keep to the essentials, and external references are also supposed to be used. We should try to keep a happy median between the two extremes. What should be gone into detail is evidence that is not simply a he-said-he-said (which can go on forever), but stuff that can help us examine the veracity of such claims. -khaosworks 18:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course. I don't think we really disagree on any of this, it's just a matter of nitpicking on where we draw the line. Gamaliel 20:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Its also important to note that wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia; while we want to limit article length to reasonable levels, there is no reason to seek the omission of material, as it can all be categorised under appropriate subordinate articles. To branch into new articles is more useful than detrimental, and the resistance by some who seek to omit information, under pretenses of preserving space, are more detrimental and useful. See also m:Academic Standards Disease -S V 21:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not a matter of space. Space is cheap. It's a matter of the reader being able to wade through information. I agree that important information should be included. That's what good editors do; they highlight the important facts by weeding out extraneous detail to produce a readable whole. Reporting every little undocumented and unsupported blow in an argument of this complexity is just too much. That said, I absolutely agree with you that Rood's eyewitness testimony deserves some space, especially since none of the critics were eyewitnesses.Wolfman 22:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to add: once again, I don't disagree. My intent in removing the rather large number of excerpts was not for reasons of space, but of relevance and to a certain extent balance. That being said, I have been persuaded that Rood's account deserves more going into, and have attempted to do so by editing and condensing it down to the salient points without going into so much detail that we are in danger of losing the wood for the trees. -khaosworks 22:53, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoned and thoughtful comments. -S V 22:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who is KJW?

I'm curious. Has anyone come across anything that would indicate a possible candidate for the author of those reports? Or are the initials perhaps of some minor clerk certifying or typing up these reports? Gamaliel 20:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the New York Times article listed in the main article [12]:

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author.

-khaosworks 20:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A summary

I propose adding this summary material, preferably to the top, but otherwise where people see fit.-S V 22:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kerry has charged that the true purpose of the SBVT group is to reanimate the bitterly divisive political climate of the Vietnam War; to deliberately inflame current US nationalism in opposition to his candidacy. Accoss political affiliations, the SBVT group's line of attack against specific aspects of Kerry's wartime conduct is widely understood to be a proxy attack on his general anti-war activism; among a number of nationalist conservatives and veterans, anti-war activism carries negative connotations.

---

It seems to me that Kerry's response in the first sentence might be more suitable for the Controversy section. The second sentence seems to me less clear. They certainly are going after the anti-war stuff (see second ad). But I really think they are trying to do him like they did Al Gore with the "serial exagerator" smears. It's really an assault on his character more than his anti-war activities per se. Even Republican Sen Pat Roberts said about it "we ought to get out of the character assassination business." [13] Wolfman 00:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bronze Star - damage report?

The text now reads "According to a damage report, Thurlow's boat received three bullet holes that day; he now claims at least one bullet hole was from action the previous day." Any links or citations someone can provide for that? (SBVT claims there were NO bullet holes.)

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

A report on "battle damage" to Thurlow's boat mentions "three 30 cal bullet holes about super structure." According to Thurlow, at least one of the bullet holes was the result of action the previous day, when he ran into another Vietcong ambush.

and from http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=5&hp

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."

-khaosworks 04:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I must not have stated my question clearly. I am aware of the NY Times article. But is there anywhere we can actually see the "damage report" they base their statement on?

(Incidentally, I think this article would benefit from more "primary sources" where they are available. Unfortunately, I found that the only site posting a photographed version of the Congressional Record pages on which Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" was a partisan opinion site that several authors of this articles will not allow any links to. . well, what are we to do? Would that organs like WaPo and NYT would provide this primary material!)

-BruceJohnson 15:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The report has not been published as far as I am aware. I agree that primary sources are always beneficial. Unfortunately the on-line Congressional Record only goes back to 1994, but fortunately the wording of Kerry's speech on the senate floor is not disputed. If you could find the full text of the speech, you could always put it up on Wikisource. I may do that if I get around to looking at copies of the CR for unrelated research. -khaosworks 15:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Update: I found the hard copy as well as the Lexis-Nexis one (which was harder to track down as the page numbers for some reason don't seem to correlate). I've copied and formatted the entire speech he made into a Wikisource file. -khaosworks 23:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One more link on the B Star. I think the evidence is already pretty overwhelming, but jotting this down for reference just in case it becomes pertinent in the future. Droz's widow backs up Kerry on both B & S Stars. Says Droz told her details of both before he was killed in action. [14] Wolfman 19:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

527 issue

O.K. I'm getting frustrated on this one. If you read through the "Controversy" section you find that a long list of "Republican ties" is cited as a complaint against SBVT. Later, it becomes clear why the ties might be relevant -- it is a key part of the Kerry campaign's charge that the Bush-Cheney campaign is illegally co-ordinating activities with SBVT. The word "527" does not appear here, but the charge being raised is precisely that it is breaking rules governing 527-groups.

So, if it's legitimate to rehearse (at some length) the charges against SBVT (on 527 grounds!!), how can one possibly make fair note of GOP responses to these charges and avoid the issue??! You seem to be saying it's fine to raise Kerry's 527-related accusations, but not to list any answers, because they are '527-related'. In that case, we ought to either remove the whole discussion of "ties and co-ordination" (specifically 527 issues!), or allow at least a brief response. BruceJohnson 18:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is about SBVT specifically. How SBVT may or may not be breaking 527 rules is relevant to the SBVT article because it's about what SBVT actions. The issue of 527s in general is not relevant to the SBVT article because its not about SBVT actions. Gamaliel 18:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If there's national controversy about ads put out by SBVT (which there is--its been in the news and on talk radio all week), responded to by the Presidential candidates themselves, it's important to explain Bush's non-response to Kerry's implied calls to do something, on the basis of what is possible for Bush to do, or on what similar things similar groups has done to Bush. So a description of 527s seems the briefest way to address the issues involved. 216.119.131.253

The issue is NOT 527's. The issue is the allegations of SBVT. There are hundreds of 527's on both sides. The Oregon Baker's Association has a 527. As to what is possible, it is possible for Bush to disavow the SBVT ads. Kerry very specifically repudiated MoveOn ads attacking Bush's war records. Bush's nonsense about banning 527's is not a rebuttal, it's a diversion, and it's also an assault on the First Amendment. The President of the US is seriously proposing that we legally ban political speech by groups not directly affiliated with a political party. Absolutely astonishing. But, still irrelevant to an article about SBVT.Wolfman 06:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's worse even than that. Even groups directly affiliated with political parties are 527s. For example, the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committe, the Kerry/Edwards Campaign and the Bush/Cheney campaign are all 527s. What the President of US seems to be "seriously proposing" is that we legally ban all political speech, including the activities of his party and his own own election campaign. But of course, he's not really proposing that. He's just blowing smoke to create a diversion. The real issue with 527s isn't whether they should be allowed to operate, but whether there should be transparency regarding their funding. In that regard, I think there has actually been some improvement thanks to recent legislation, which is why it's easier to know who is funding SBVT. --Sheldon Rampton 16:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to say something about Bush and get to the 527 issue later. Bush said soft money political speech should be "regulated" not banned. And that attack ads should be ended. [15] It's not nonsense, it doesn't necessarily "assault" the First Amendment any more than campaign-finance reform itself does, and there's no reason to be "astonished" at something that isn't horrible to begin with. Please avoid making these kinds of inflammatory remarks to try to buttress your points. 216.119.131.253

"Five twenty-sevens - I think these ought to be outlawed" -- GW Bush (today). So, Bush believes that, as a practical matter, no one but billionares, corporations, and political parties should have the right to media access for political speech. How else are ordinary people supposed to access the rather expensive mass media, except to pool money? This is exactly what 527's are for. Yes, I find this ASTONISHING. Wolfman 05:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The real issue is not whether there is illegal co-ordination. I think Rove is generally clever enough to stay on the right side of that. The issue is whether this is really just a front group for Republicans. It's a group funded by well-known Republican donors whose leading members have long-standing Republican ties. That's fine, but they pretend to be non-partisan. That's the major controversy; and it would still be a major controversy if there were no legal questions at all. Wolfman 19:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

O'Neill, who is not a Republican (as well as some of his fellow Swiftees) probably asked some of the contacts he made through Chuck Colson, as to who could fund and manage them. It's not surprising if they would turn out to be Republicans. 216.119.131.253

Well, besides clerking for Rehnquist and being a protege of Colson, the Houston Chronicle reports that he voted in the 1998 Republican primary, and FEC records show he donated over $14,000 to Republican candidates in the last few years. Yep, this guy is definitely a Democrat. Wolfman 06:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The good news is you won the argument. The bad news is you won it against yourself. Nobody is saying O'Neill is a Democrat (actually that's not true. A Google search of "'John O'Neill is a Democrat' Swift Boat" turned up one result.) It's very common for independents to vote in primaries in one of the major political parties. The Houston Chronicle also said "O'Neill said his largest political contributions have been to Democrats, including Houston Mayor Bill White" ($10,000) [16]. Ann Coulter reports O'Neill "can be heard on the Nixon tapes – unaware that he was being taped – telling Nixon that he came from a family of Democrats and voted for Hubert Humphrey in the prior election." [17] Also "O'Neill told" Robert Novak "he is no George W. Bush partisan and probably would have supported John Edwards had he been nominated for president."[18] I hope your treatment of the subject of the party affiliation of O'Neill is not your idea of an example of the actions you have described here as "what good editors do".216.119.131.253

There's no need for that sort of snippy personal comment. Let's keep this civil please. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Voter registration rolls in Harris County, Texas, show O'Neill is, in fact, a registered Republican who has voted in every Republican primary since 1972." .... "According to Texas Lawyer magazine, O'Neill lobbied for an appointment to the federal bench by former President George H.W. Bush and cited his involvement in local GOP politics." [19] Yep, this guy is definitely an Independent.Wolfman 14:42, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An update -- an interview with White reveals: O'Neill is Bill White's personal lawyer (not terribly surprising he'd back one of his biggest clients across party lines). Also, O'Neill was campaign manager for a Republican Judge Lewis Moore. [20]

Was that so hard? (With my help) you have written a reasonably non-biased evaluation of O'Neill's politics. But of course we already knew he was involved in local GOP politics. And you took little interest in Novak's account of his support of John Edwards. Too bad, because O'Neill's friend Gerry Birnberg, Chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party (the City of Houston's County) just said in the Boston Globe today (August 25, 2004) that "he believes O'Neill when he says that he voted for Al Gore in 2000" and that O'Neill told him that he "believes George Bush is an empty suit". In the same article, O'Neill claims to have voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996. [21] But of course we can't give credit to any of that because its obvious that the "front" this veteran's group represents is using the Harris County Democratic Party and the Boston Globe as pawns in its clever scheme of total Republican domination. 216.119.131.253

Ok, you win. Fair enough, I would support adding: O'Neill claims he is not a Bush supporter because he "believes George Bush is an empty suit who is not competent to be elected president." Wolfman 17:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Kerry DID denounce the MoveOn ad criticizing Bush's record. "Kerry Denounces New Ad on Bush's Service in Guard" NY Times Aug 18. That's not relevant to this article either. Also Bush raised $24 million this year for these 527's he "thought he had gotten rid of". Also not relevant. If we're going to get forced into this irrelevant sideshow, it's not going to be pretty. Wolfman 07:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And yet, if we're not going to get into this, why quote Kerry asking for Bush to denounce the ad in the first place? It makes it seem that Bush didn't respond to this at all - which, he just did; albeit in a very qualified manner. How about this, to be inserted just after the line where Kerry says that Bush is standing by:

Bush issued a statement calling for all 527 group advertisements to be halted, but stopped short of actually condemning SBVT or its specific allegations. [22]]

-khaosworks 15:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kerry asked Bush to denounce an SBVT ad. That is quite specifically an SBVT issue. 527 ads in general are not an SBVT issue. It's quite simple. If you want to add that Bush called for the ban of 527 ads, and thus depart from the scope of the article, it is in my view necessary, npov, and fair to lend the call context such as Bush's extensive fund raising for such groups, Kerry's willingness to simply denounce the anti-Bush ad; and the self-evident 1st amendment issues which make the Bush's call quite disingenuous. Yet, all those are campaign issues, not SBVT issues; they simply don't belong — I believe they should be put in the 527 article or the 2004 campaign article. If the 527 stuff goes in, I will add such npov context. I do, however, strongly oppose the inclusion.Wolfman 16:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm hardly a Bush apologist, but the difficulty I have is that, by those criteria, Bush's statement is an SBVT issue because he does mention SBVT in his asking for all 527 ads - "That means that (Swift Boat) ad and every other ad." - to be stopped. I acknowledge that the line is very fine, but I think we should find a way of including this concisely in the interests of a complete picture, lest the reader go away thinking that Bush never said anything at all, which is not accurate. In answer to the other matters:

It would be pertinent to include Kerry's condemnation of the attack ads on Bush only if Bush's request for Kerry to do so was included. It isn't, so the response is unnecessary.
Although the statement is disingenuous considering the fundraising he has done for those groups, there are no First Amendment issues because Bush is making no law nor proposing one prohibiting or abridging the right to free speech, simply calling for the ads to be stopped.

-khaosworks 16:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Part of Bush's specific response when asked about SBVT has been to ask Kerry to denounce the MoveOn ad. That's just as much part of his response as the 527 bit; Kerry did denounce it. Neither response is relevant. It's as if a reporter asked why Bush won't denounce the SBVT and bush replied "Well, SBVT members benefited from my tax cut, we need more tax cuts". Doesn't mean tax cuts should go in the article.
"Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves. There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of those". -G.W. Bush Ok, maybe that's not technically a call for banning; but it certainly is designed to leave that impression: we ought to get rid of it, and I thought I already had legally banned them. Wolfman 16:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Secondhand testimony in ad

(Oregon) Alfred French, 58, a senior deputy district attorney, appeared in the recent ad by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and said: "I served with John Kerry. . . . He is lying about his record." French also signed a legal affadavit attesting to the claim.

But French, in an interview with The Oregonian newspaper last week, said he was relying on the accounts of three other veterans when he said Kerry lied.

"I was not a witness to these events but my friends were," said French, who was awarded two Bronze Stars during the war.

... That acknowledgement fueled Monday's protest, where the veterans contended French is unfit to serve as a prosecutor after swearing to facts that he never personally witnessed.

... "Mr. French signed an affidavidt defaming John Kerry's military service and then he admitted that he had no first hand knowledge of what he swore to," Stewart said. "To lie in a sworn affidavit goes beyond political smear, it is cause for this assistant district attorney to resign, and resign now." [23].

To be fair, what he said is not technically a lie unless he knows himself that it is untrue. To assert a fact from secondhand sources simply means that his assertions are hearsay and (generally) worthless in an evidentiary sense. Swearing to an affidavit is usually phrased as attesting that the contents are true to to best of one's knowledge. If he had said, for example, that "Kerry is telling the truth about his record," and relying for that assertion on the same three other veterans, it would be the same. -khaosworks 07:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ABCNews link [24], seems to have sworn to it being "within my personal knowledge". Khaosworks, you've got some professional background here, it's certainly misleading, but would that phrase legally rule out secondhand material?Wolfman 23:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes. Personal knowledge means first hand. If that's not true, that's perjurious -khaosworks 00:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[Added] I just read the article - should have done that. The swearing also includes personal "belief." That covers him. -khaosworks 00:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, just to be clear those are not my words; it's a quote. My main point is that the ad features men speaking secondhand, but clearly giving the impression it's firsthand information. I still don't think the second ad is ripe for writing yet, but just put the link & info here for future reference. Wolfman 07:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another possible example of hearsay represented as eyewitness testimony. Steve Gardner. Just jotting it down here for reference. [25] Wolfman 18:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This mention of Alfred French (whom I just heard now on the late tv news may be facing a Bar hearing for signing this affidavit based on hearsay) links this matter to one even more infamous & truly bizarre: French is the lead prosecutor in the Ward Weaver III case, perhaps the most unbelievable criminal case in the Portland area for several decades. (I've been meaning to contribute an article to Wikipedia about it, but anyone who has not been following this case would think I was writing bad fiction.) -- llywrch 06:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Registration Required Links

Copied from my talk page.

Hi. I removed the LA Times editorial link from the above article. The LA Times page requires regitration. See Wikipedia:External links - try to avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications. I'm sure there are plenty of editorials which convey the same message and do not require registration. --Tagishsimon

Hmm. A huge fraction of the links in this story are to free registration sites like NY Times and Washington Post. That's simply who is doing the reporting on this story. Checking the Wikipedia policy page you listed, I'm not clear if there's a distinction between a reference link embedded in an article and a further reading link at the bottom. The LA Times editorial is uniquely significant in that it is, to my knowledge, the only major newspaper which has flat-out called the Swift Vet charges false. Would it be in accord with Wiki policy to quote the LA Times editorial in the "Controversy" section and provide a reference link? And if not, what are we to do about all the other free-reg reference links; must they be removed? Wolfman 19:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't have the energy for a campaign against all link to registration-only sites (and so to that extent, apologies for singling out that link), but I do wish they'd disappear from the wiki, since they're useless to me - I won't register. I'm not sure I agree the LST is the only editorial to take the stance it did [1] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1289576,00.html); perhaps the only one in the US, but I doubt even that. I guess if you want to put it back, you're welcome ... you could append a (registration required) warning so that people's time is not wasted; and while you're on the page, add it to other know registration required links. --Tagishsimon

We have an awful lot of registration links, NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Salon, LA Times. I personally have no problem with this, as free registration takes about 10 seconds and lasts pretty much forever. There is also bugmenot.com, for those who for some reason oppose registration. (Salon is pay-or-watch-ads). Tagishsimon suggest adding a (registration required) disclaimer by the links, which I did in the further reading section. However, it seems to me that adding that in the text would really disrupt the story visually, and most registration opponents probably recognize those links as registration sites anyway. Personally, I would rather have a good, tight article using the best references than worry about this overly much. But, the issue was raised, so I'm putting it up here for comment. Wolfman 19:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My take on it would be to leave it as is. If there is a non-registration link for the article, then we should use it by preference, but if the only one available is at a registration-required site, then we really have no choice but to use it; leave it without a citation; indicate that is is a registration-required site; quote extensively from the article. I personally don't like either of the last two options as it produces clutter: the last more than the first. Leaving it without a citation (especially since this is a controversial article) is not acceptable. So, I'd suggest just leaving it. As you say, those who don't like registration probably realize that those sites are registration-required sites anyway. -khaosworks 20:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How leaving the links, but adding the dates (and, when available, page numbers) of the articles after the links, so people who are really against registration can still look up the references at the library if they so choose? (That would also make it easier to see the chronology of the news coverage at a glance without clicking through every link.) ←Hob]] 20:42, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

All these sites seem to include the date in the link anyway. The page number generally wouldn't be known, since these aren't the print edition.Wolfman 21:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the links do "include the date" in the sense that you can hover over the link, peruse the URL and often see the date encoded somewhere within (not the case with Reuters and MSNBC, though)... but that's really cumbersome, and I think it would be nice, especially with such a fast-moving subject, to have our own article show the dates of the sources - at least in the "News Articles" section, if not in all the little numbered links throughout. ←Hob 22:51, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

All the other issues aside, I don't see how we can 'not' link to the most reliable and important sources of information and quotes. What is the alternative? Having an edit war everytime someone objects to "unsourced" quote #37? Linking to inadequate accounts at the Shelbyville Times website? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 21:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion: links directly to NY Times & MSNBC be deprecated. (1) MSNBC links are sometimes unstable and are usually secondhand copies of original sources. I removed a link to MSNBC yesterday because the story at that link had changed to a completely different story. (2) NY Times apparently archives stories past a certain date, and charges money for them. Most NY Times articles have alternate sources at free papers through their wire service. Preferably, a well-established alternate link would be provided. Wikipedia in general should take a hard look at this issue. There's no telling which sites will one day start charging for old archived articles.Wolfman 18:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Supposed "refutation" of Thurlow

I was just about to make the change Wolfman did. We can (and do) say that Thurlow's current position is inconsistent with his medal citation. It's POV to say that his position is refuted by the citation, though. The citation is an official record but it could still be wrong. That Thurlow now (30+ years later) claims for the first time that it is indeed wrong goes to his credibility but it's for the reader to weigh the facts. JamesMLane 16:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NYT misreading? how to handle ?

Recently added to the "Bronze Star" section -- "Later intelligence reports confirm the presence of hostile forces, with six Viet Cong casualties from the incident."

This accurately states a point made in a NYT article (which is appropriately sourced). Unfortunately, the NYT itself never gives its source for this statement! Readers are left to track it down themselves (if they can) or take the article at its word.

Well, I didn't do the latter. And here is what I discovered: The NYT statement comes from the Command History for Coastal Division 11, posted on Kerry's campaign site [26] (you'll find it on page 8 of the pdf):

March 13, 1969: PCF's 3, 51, 43, 93 and 94 with MSF RF/PF troops conducted SEA LORDS operations in Bay Hop river and Dong Cong canal. A mine detonated under PCF 3 and units were taken under small arms fire several times during the operation. Friendly casualties were 8 USN WIA and 1 MSF KIA. Units destroyed 30 sampans and 5 structures and captured 16 booby trap grenades. Later intelligence reports indicated 1 VC KIA and 5 VC WIA.

Please note that this summary of the day's activities includes events preceding the widely discussed on-river events. It mentions other personnel the Swift Boats transported in order to conduct "SEA LORDS operations", and includes their activities and injuries, in particular, the death of one, and the destruction (in a raid) of 30 sampans and 5 structures, etc. So how can the Times skip over all of these statements, and simply assume that the Vietcong mentioned were killed and injured by fire from the Swift Boats and not in the SEA LORDS raid?

Practical issue for this article -- the document above is showing up on some blogs, but no regular "news sources" are paying any attention to it, so how do we handle it?

It seems we should we can at least add the summary itself and the link to it. But how best to point out that the summary's reference to 'how' the Vietcong were killed and injured that day is not as straightforward as the Times implies. BruceJohnson 18:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're assuming that the NY Times took this phrase from this source, with no further checking. I'd suggest you email the author of the article and ask -- I find that the email heading Fact-Checking usually ensures it gets read and responded to. Since we are not primary researchers, we have to assume major journalists have it right, unless there is direct evidence to the contrary.
The flow of the report seems to me to logically indicate that casualties were from this action.
By all means, provide a link to the report to supplement the NY Times link. Wolfman 19:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ginsberg: "top outside lawyer"?

"Top outside lawyer" reeks of journalese speak. Does someone have a clear idea of Ginsberg's role in Bush's campaign and can put it in the article?