|
|
|
|
8/22/04 Kerry Defender Misses the Mark William B. Rood was with John F. Kerry on February 28, 1969, on a Vietnamese river, when U.S. Navy swift boats carrying ground troops confronted a pair of Viet Cong ambushes. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star by his superiors as a result of the reports that were filed about events that day, which are now being disputed by members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), a group formed to attack Kerry publicly for what they allege are a string of distortions and fabrications falsely making Kerry out to have been a war hero. Rood has published in the Chicago Tribune a declaration in defense of Kerry against what he characterizes as "stories [he knows] to be untrue". John O'Neill, the author of the book detailing the stories of the SBVT against Kerry, has said that Rood's account is not substantially different from that published in the book. Soothseeker has examined both accounts and found that O'Neill is largely correct. Rood's account fails to refute the main points of criticism forwarded by the SBVT. The wording of the citation supporting the award of the Silver Star puts a high value on Kerry's heroism that day. The SBVT witnesses claim the actual events of that day do not justify the wording of the citation, as follows: The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission According to SBVT witnesses, the swift boat commanders had agreed prior to these events that when they were attacked by ambush from the shore they would respond by turning their boats toward the attack, and beaching their boats to engage the enemy. When they came under attack from the shore that day, they did turn toward the attack, but in the firefight only one boat went ashore, and it was not Kerry's boat. Kerry's and another went upstream while the ground troops on the beached boat defeated the enemy and captured a weapons' cache. According to the SBVT, he came under attack by a rocket propelled grenade from another ambush, and the remaining two boats then went ashore as planned. The SBVT identify one Viet Cong fighter who immediately fled. Kerry disembarked with one crew member and pursued him behind a "hooch" where Kerry shot him in the back. The SBVT identify the Viet Cong as a teen-ager clad only in a loin cloth, armed only with a rocket launcher, and having been wounded as he fled the shore. According to SBVT witnesses, there was no exchange of fire during the moments after Kerry went ashore and when he killed the fleeing Viet Cong. Rood's version of events differs only in small points from what the SBVT reported. He did not recall the Viet Cong Kerry shot as having been clad only in a loincloth, or that he was as youthful as the other witnesses reported. He did not, however, claim that those recollections on the part of other witnesses were false. The only point on which Rood claims the other witnesses have misrepresented the truth of that moment was in the number of attacking Viet Cong who fled from the immediate confrontation. He says that two individuals vacated their "spider holes" on the bank when the two boats approached. So Rood agrees that Kerry was not under fire when he went ashore or pursued the enemy, and doesn't directly dispute the claim that the Viet Cong fighter Kerry killed was wounded and fleeing when he shot him in the back. The SBVT claim that the actions of Kerry, beaching his boat while the single enemy fighter flees for his life, chasing that wounded enemy down and killing him would not in their view warrant the description of "extraordinary daring and personal courage." Rood's version, with two fleeing enemy and no fire to contend with, does not make Kerry's actions seem any more heroic than the SBVT version of events. Rood says there was fire at some point after the second ambush and counterattack, both from the opposite shore and from the tree line on the same side of the river. He does not mention these engagements in connection with the first assault by Kerry's boat or the subsequent events in which Kerry played a prominent role. The only heavy firefight in the course of these events, under either interpretation, took place when the first boat beached and disgorged its ground troops, which defeated a detachment of the enemy that stayed and fought in vain to hold its position. None of those personnel were awarded the Silver Star, according to the SBVT accounts (and no one has so far disputed that point). Rood may wish he could say something to defend Kerry, but the way he has presented his recollection of events does more to confirm than to refute the SBVT criticism. He adds his recollection of a couple of details, but the larger picture painted by the SBVT, who are, by virtue of their service in similar situations, qualified to comment on the degree of heroism it took for Kerry to disembark and kill one fleeing enemy fighter who could not defend himself against a short-range attack (being armed only with a rocket launcher), stands as a plausible version of events. Kerry did not face heavy enemy fire on that occasion. He did nothing personally that any of the other commanders would not have done. He certainly did not singlehandedly guarantee the success of both engagements, as the citation implies. It is hardly surprising that the officer who wrote the citation, Commander George Elliott, has said he would not have written it if he had known the truth. If this is the best defense witness Kerry can produce to defend himself against the allegations of the SBVT, he will convince no one that his record is true and unblemished other than the liberal lapdogs in the media like Juan Williams who categorize everyone who ever had dinner with anyone who accepted a donation from a Republican as ipso facto a liar. Modified: 09/10/2004 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|