Sliming Kerry

I won't rehash the details of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, which can be found here and all over the blogosphere.

I will direct you to digby's informative post about John O'Neill, the man behind SBVT. In short, O'Neill has had a hard-on for Kerry since Vietnam and helped Nixon and Colson combat Kerry's claims about the war.

I'll also relate the gist of a debate I just saw on "Inside Politics" with the horrendous Judy Woodruff, between Jim Rassman, the guy Kerry pulled out of the water back in '69, and Larry Thurlow, one the SBVT crew claiming Kerry wasn't so heroic on that day.

Thurlow said there were six boats going up the river, 3 on one side of the river, 3 on the other. He said Kerry's boat was in the lead on the right side of the river, and that his boat was last in line on the left side of the river.

Let me stop right there -- this guy is claiming to be an eyewitness, and he was as far as he could possibly be from Kerry's boat. His vantage point could not have been worse on that day.

In any event, he said a mine disabled the lead boat on his side of the river. He said Kerry's boat sped away from the area immediately and that the other four boats in the river went to the aid of the disabled boat.

Rassman then recounted his side of the tale. He said Kerry's boat turned toward the disabled boat immediately.

He said the gunner on the bow of Kerry's boat "got his gun knocked out," though he doesn't say what, exactly, knocked the gun out. He was carrying another gun up to the bow when something hit the boat -- again, he does not say what that something was -- and knocked him into the water.

Thurlow responds by saying there was no mine detected (I presume he means around Kerry's boat, because there was clearly a mine around the lead boat in his column) and that he heard no blast on Kerry's side of the river.

Again, this is the recollection, 35 years later, from somebody who was as far from Kerry's boat as he could be.

Anyhow, he said the boats on Thurlow's side of the river fired into their riverbank, in case there was an ambush associated with the mine that blew up his lead boat. He said it was "soon apparent" there was no ambush, so the other boats went to the aid of the disabled boat.

Actually, he says here that only one other boat -- the middle boat on his side of the river -- went to the aid of the disabled boat, plucking 2 crew members of that boat out of the river. Earlier, according to my notes, he'd said all other boats, aside from Kerry's, had gone to the aid of that boat. I'm not sure if the discrepancy is in my notes or in his statement. I'll have to check the transcript, when it's available.

He said that very same boat, which had plucked the 2 seamen out of the water, then went to the aid of Rassman -- which raises another couple of questions: if the other boats were not helping these rescue efforts, what were they doing? And how long did it take to pull these two men out of the water and then turn to go pick up Rassman?

In any event, Thurlow said Kerry's boat then picked up Rassman, and that they were under no fire from either bank of the river.

Rassman responds that the water was being strafed with enemy rounds, which forced him to dive 5 or 6 times before Kerry came back and picked him up.

Thurlow responds, surprisingly, that he too "ended up in the water that day," though he doesn't explain how he ended up there, and Judy Woodruff, predictably, does not follow up to ask.

Thurlow says that he received no fire during his time in the drink, that his boat picked him up, and it was "business as usual."

He then repeats his first claim, that all the other boats but Kerry's were working to help the disabled boat. He says none of them had any bullet holes or any signs of taking enemy fire, and that he saw no rounds hitting the water.

That about did it for the factual recounts. Rassman replies that Thurlow has had the opportunity to set the record straight for 35 years and wonders why he hasn't done so until now. He adds that Kerry did not tell this story to the Navy, that Rassman himself told it, and he accuses Thurlow of being disingenuous and having partisan motivation.

Thurlow responds that the after-action report was written by Kerry, and that he's challenging the story now because Kerry is running for the highest office in the land. He also claims that he has avoided politics since the war and that he's simply trying to set the record straight, in light of Kerry's "fantastic stories" about that day.

Woodruff helpfully eggs Thurlow on, taking note of how moved he is to suddenly drop his decades of neutrality to fight for the truth. Thanks, Judy.

He also throws in -- not to be partisan or anything -- that he'd "hate" for Kerry to be Commander in Chief of his grandchildren.

Rassman says he'd want his kids to be commanded by Kerry, and then he falls back on the fact that McCain called the charges dishonest and dishonorable.

It's left at that.

Will this story have legs? I'm not sure. It might, especially if it keeps getting press -- Woodruff said she was sure they'd be discussing this much, much more "in the weeks and months to come."

Damn this liberal media!

The other question is: does this story matter? Of course not. Kerry's service to his country is doubted by no one and is demonstrably more heroic than Bush's during the same time period. Remember, this was the incident in which Kerry got his third Purple Heart. Had this incident never taken place, Kerry would still have had two of them, along with a silver star.

And the rest of the men that were on Kerry's swift boat -- the men with a front-row seat to the action -- have backed this story up for the past 35 years.

I'm watching Donna Brazile argue this issue with Tucker Carlson right now. She seems like she's drunk or drugged. Her arguments are outrageously weak. Sigh. As Bob Somerby says, this is a great way to lose an election.

Update: The LA Times write-up includes the Kerry campaign's charge -- which I've never heard anyplace else -- that two of the SBVT crew had actually gone to Kerry's aid in the 1996 election. Who are those two?

Update II: Note to self: Google more often. DCBlues at Daily Kos did, and came up with this American History article that tells a decidedly different story than Thurlow's, and in exquisite detail. Here is the explanation for how Thurlow ended up in the drink and what the other boats were doing -- trying to survive amid a hail of bullets, apparently.

It also notes that Thurlow, too, ended up with a bronze star for his actions that day, something he didn't mention in the debate. Could it be that, if he admits he earned a bronze star that day, he'd also have to admit that some actual combat had taken place?

The story was written by Douglas Brinkley. The problem with it is that the only source seems to be Kerry. But it would be interesting to see the paperwork by which Thurlow got his star.