John Kerry military service controversy

Their campaign against Kerry's presidential bid received widespread publicity,[1] but was later discredited and gave rise to the neologism "swiftboating", to describe an unfair or untrue political attack.

Kerry crew members have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations, calling them "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).

In addition to questioning the merit of many of Kerry's service awards, SBVT decried his post-Vietnam anti-war activity and disputed the truthfulness of his subsequent testimony about the conduct of the American military as demonstrated in that war.

Sailors—no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin—were starting to bleed, a lot.According to the Los Angeles Times: Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound's severity—and specified only that injuries had to be suffered "in action against an enemy".A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry's Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel received Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin.

They assert that the injury was too minor to merit a citation because the only treatment Kerry received, after the removal of a piece of shrapnel from his arm, was bacitracin (an antibiotic) and a bandage, and he returned to service immediately.

"[23] In August 2004, however, Schachte stated that he was the senior officer on Kerry's skimmer that night, with one enlisted man also on board, that he popped a flare after detecting movement, and opened fire.

[44] In addition, SBVT claimed that the after action report for the incident was sent from the Coast Guard cutter where Kerry had received medical treatment, the USCGC Spencer.

In his 1969 performance evaluation, Elliott wrote "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG [Lieutenant Junior Grade] Kerry was unsurpassed.

"[48] During Kerry's 1996 Senate re-election campaign, when there was criticism of his Silver Star, Elliott responded: "The fact that he chased armed enemies down is not something to be looked down on.

[51] The story prompted Elliott to release a second affidavit, in August 2004, in which he stated, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.

[16] Another eyewitness, William Rood, a former Chicago Tribune editor, in a 2004 article gave an account that supports Kerry's version of the events of that day.

In his (secondhand) book account, O'Neill implied that Kerry chased down a lone "teenager in a loincloth clutching a grenade launcher which may or may not have been loaded," without coming under enemy fire himself.

In contrast, Rood stated that there were multiple attackers, there was heavy hostile fire, and the guerrilla Kerry shot was "a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the Viet Cong usually wore" armed with a "loaded B-40 rocket launcher".

He also notes that, at the time, Hoffman praised all three Swift boat commanders and called the tactics developed "a shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that they "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers.

Return fire was also intense, according to Vo Van Tam, who was then a local Viet Cong commander: "I led Ba Thanh's comrades, the whole unit, to fight back.

[60] No individual who was present that day has disputed Kerry's version of events, nor suggested that he did not earn the Silver Star, and some said accounts given in Unfit for Command were incorrect.

[61] Some critics questioned the reason for the existence of three versions of the Silver Star citation with variations in the wording, the first being signed by Vice Admiral Zumwalt, as Commander, U.S.

[65]Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Undersecretary of the Navy at the time, stated "We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the secretary.

[20] During that encounter, Kerry said he was shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge Cambodians, while the President had told the American people that U.S. military personnel were not in Cambodia.

According to the Boston Globe biography of Kerry, he later recalled that after the Christmas Eve incident, he began to develop a deep mistrust of U.S. government pronouncements.

James Wasser, who was on PCF-44 on that December mission, while saying that he believed they were "very, very close" to Cambodia, did not recall actually crossing over; he also stated that it was very hard to tell their exact position in the border area.

Meehan also said that Kerry did covertly cross over into Cambodia to drop off special operations forces on a later occasion, but that there was no paperwork for such missions and he could not supply dates.

In an interview with the London Daily Telegraph, Brinkley stated that Kerry had gone into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions, dropping off U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Army Green Berets, and CIA operatives.

The Navy was required to withhold an additional 31 pages of personnel records because a release authorization was not provided, but referred the requester to Kerry's website which contained documents exempted from disclosure.

[79] Kerry was attacked by SBVT and some media entities for not authorizing independent public access to his privacy protected service records.

Route, the Navy Inspector General, completed a review of Kerry's combat medals, initiated at the request of Judicial Watch.

Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time.

For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.On September 23, 2004, Judicial Watch appealed on the basis that "no specific documentary examples were cited or offered as exhibits" in the Navy Inspector General's letter of reply.

[64]In an October 5, 2004 letter to Judicial Watch, Secretary England deferred to the Navy Inspector General's authority as the investigating officer, and declined to initiate a separate review.

[87] Since the 2004 election, the term "swiftboating" (or "swift boating") has become a common expression for a campaign attacking opponents by questioning their credibility and patriotism in a dishonest manner.