Kerry lied about his Vietnam heroics

Swift Boat Vets for Truth aren’t taking the Kerry/Edwards lawsuit threats lying down. They’ve assembled a damning response to Kerry’s charges, which you can see at Captain’s Quarters. You should read it and make up your own mind, as I’ve done.

Swift Boat Vets for Truth aren’t taking the Kerry/Edwards lawsuit threats lying down. They’ve assembled a damning response to Kerry’s charges, which you can see at Captain’s Quarters. You should read it and make up your own mind, as I’ve done.

11 thoughts on “Kerry lied about his Vietnam heroics”

  1. I think your readers would be well-served by going to my blog (http://mumonno.blogspot.com ) where I’ve cultivated a pretty extensive bunch of links that have debunked this already.

    In particular, everything by or related by Thurlow in that document is suspect, because if Thurlow is right here, then, ipso facto Thurlow was lying when he got his Bronze Star in the same action!

    In addition, “Dr. Letson,” as is well known, was not the physician who first attended to Kerry.

    As I noted below, in the course of going after Kerry, these guys seem to be libeling non-public figures, who, on discovery, might just be able to target the pockets of a wealthy GoP Texas developer.

    I think if these smear-mongers continue, it’s a) going to blow up in their face, and b) the media will run away from this like they would a leper.

    And then there’s what Cokie said on Bill Maher’s show (the depth of her understanding underscoring her irrelevance, but just might indicate the shallowness of the media): Any mention of Swift Boat is actually a plus for Kerry, because it can’t be done without saying Kerry was in Vietnam as compared to Bush “may have been” AWOL.

  2. I don’t find ad hominem arguments persuasive. The Swifites have 240 eye witnesses on their side, and Kerry has 8 guys on his payroll. In addition, the Swifties support their claims in part with quotes from Kerry’s book, and you can’t invalidate them without invalidating him.

    I give points for beating the draft, so to me AWOL is a plus, just like running off to England was for another Vietnam-era politico.

  3. Why does “John K.” put “Dr. Letson” in quotation marks? Is he implying that he’s not really a doctor, or that his name is not really Letson? I’m no lawyer, but I suspect that either of those could be liberlous. And doesn’t Dr. Letson say that he treated Kerry while someone else (a corpsman, I think) filled out and signed the paperwork? If medical personnel work in teams, and they do, then the fact that Letson didn’t sign the paperwork doesn’t prove that he didn’t treat Kerry, does it?

  5. “The Swifites have 240 eye witnesses on their side, and Kerry has 8 guys on his payroll.” – is an example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad numerum, compounded with the fact that many members of this Republican-driven smear were not, in fact, eyewitnesses (e.g., “Dr. Letson”.) Moreover, it would be nice if claims like “8 guys on his payroll” were documented; I’ve seen no proof of that.

    Moreover, it’s not clear what “ad hominem” arguments are being referenced here. It is an established fact that Thurlow got a medal for the same operation, reported the same way, as Kerry. To say he lied at least one time, therefore, must also be taken as fact.

    Finally there’s the guy who’s already retracted his story, and the “investigator,” Joe Conason mentioned who has already been found to be “sexing up” things.

    Face it: this is a net minus for George W. Bush, and we’re grateful you keep focusing on it.

    Now, what about the fact that Bush seems to have gone AWOL 30 years ago and on Sept. 11, 2001?

  6. You need to keep with current events, dude; nobody has retracted their story – the Boston Globe falsely reported that somebody had, but he refuted that report last week.

    Kerry sat in stunned silence and inaction for at least 40 minutes on Sept. 11, so this story about “what he would have done” is a load of crap.

  7. John K. should also answer direct questions. Again I ask, why does he continue to put “Dr. Letson” in quotation marks? Is he implying that he?s not really a doctor, or that his name is not really Letson? So far as I can tell, neither is true. And how does the fact that Letson didn’t sign a particular piece of paper prove or even imply that Letson “was not the physician who first attended to Kerry”, still less that he was not even among the “eyewitness”?

  8. Why do I put “Dr. Letson” in quotation marks?

    Look, so much of this story has been debunked already, how do we even know there is a “Dr. Letson?”

    We sure as heck know that “Dr. Letson” wasn’t the guy who actually first attended to Kerry; we know that the guys behind this are a bunch of smear mongers.

    We can therefore assume that “Dr. Letson” wasn’t actually practicing medicine when he did this Kerry smear; so why not put his name in quotes?

    Besides, I’ve got a Ph.D. myself; I’ve earned the right to put the names of other highly degreed folks in quotes, such as “Dr.” Jerome Corsi.

  9. We do NOT know that Letson wasn’t the guy who first attended Kerry. As has been pointed out over and over, including by me on this thread, medical personnel routinely work in teams and the fact that someone else signed the paperwork does NOT prove that Letson didn’t treat him, much less that he wasn’t even present, as you said above. Is your “doctorate” in Education, or Home Economics? Or are you just a troll?

  10. Dr. Weevil’s right, “Dr. Kowalski” – we know that Dr. Letson didn’t sign the injury report, but there’s no reason to believe he didn’t treat Flopsy.

    You’re over-generalizing from a limited set of data once again, dude, and that’s poor form.

  11. Nobody but “Dr. Letson” remembers, and we have no reason to believe him.

    In fact, given his associates, why would anyone?

Comments are closed.