Kerry saved by weakest link?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 1:21pm

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

[Plum]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 1:40pm

Those Kerry critics weren't even there with him, were they? What a sad little world we live in. But at least one of them had the decency to apologize.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 1:44pm

mr. elliott, you are the weakest link. goodbye.

realistically, though, unless they can get the tv stations to not air the ads, which they are trying to do (freedom of speech issues anyone? anyone? no? ok) the damage will be done by the ads. you can have as many retractions in the press as you want, but those images are what people will remember.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 1:45pm

Then, Kerry should sue to have them removed--they are slander.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 1:49pm

depends on the specific wording of the ads, jrb. i think they'd be smart enough not to let their words fall under any legal definition of slander. the book, he can go after 'em for libel almost assuredly. as far as the ads, they probably have lawyers looking at them right now, but i'd think that they'd have filed a slander suit with an injunction to stop the ads already if they thought they had a case.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 1:52pm

I think it is said that the claims in the commercial include lies--claiming that Kerry lied about how he got his medals. The rest is unfair (claiming they don't see him as a fit leader, when they didn't actually serve under him--or even near him I believe) but gets into the area of opinion.

Trust me--if any ads are lies about Kerry or Bush, I hope they are removed. And, if the ad fits in the same way as F9/11, then I accept it as fair.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 1:54pm

And the thing is, you don't even need to lie to disparage Bush's military record.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 1:55pm

wait have you seen the ad, jrb? i mean you're not attacking something that you have not seen are ya?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 1:57pm

I have seen it--I just don't recall the what exactly is incorrect and what is merely "opinion".

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 8/6/04 at 3:35pm

This was the low-blow in the campaign so far. But fear not, Karl Rove is still in charge, so expect more to come.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/7/04 at 4:05pm

ok, so now, elloitt has retracted the retraction with a new affadivit affirming that he was wildly misquoted in the article in which he retracted his statements.

i'm gonna swear out an affadvit affirming that this is gonna be the most fun campaign season in modern memory! and then i'll immediately sit for an interview in which i deny it, and then issue a statement denying my denial.

until then though there's this gem from the post...no, sillies, the washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46913-2004Aug6.html

Updated On: 8/7/04 at 04:05 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/8/04 at 7:44pm

This is a sleazy enterprise, and yes, the damage has been done; images are indelible. But when I step back, I have to say ... Kerry's team invited this by using the Viet Nam experience as the defining image at the convention. Crossing the river in the boat was like Mission Accomplished Lite. More strained, highly posed video opps that played as a studied contrivance. Then, I remember thinking the moment he saluted and "reported for duty" that this strategy would bite him on the ass. The point about his real svc vs. W's rich boy evasions was made long ago. To give a nod -- Max Cleland was most effective -- was one thing. But for Kerry to start off his speech embracing each of the swift boat folk and then saluting--well, it's overkill. And re-fighting Viet Nam isn't part of the American psyche, even as an Iraq parallel, particularly since Kerry and Edwards voted for Iraq and keep stumbling to explain why.

I am a loyal Democrat, rabid to see Bush and company gone ... but fear this team made a tactical error in presenting Kerry as the Uber Vet whose (distant) past ensures we will stand tall(er). As one letter in the NY Times said, he's trying to have it both ways--he said Viet Nam was a debacle, and we erred being there. So when he says "...I defended my country" in Viet Nam, isn't that alone a contradiction? Enough of this butch my gun is bigger than your gun crap. As Iraq continues to implode, and the mere presence of guns fails to bring peace or stability every day... we need to focus on far more complex solutions to terrorism. Yes, "nuanced" thinking. This idea that a "war president" will simply stamp out everybody in the world who doesn't like us is an empty, simplistic approach that ain't cutting it.

Updated On: 8/8/04 at 07:44 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/8/04 at 7:54pm

well, auggie, what about a president who can call upon the power of his god who as we all know "is bigger" (thanks jerry boykin) to smite those who would stand in opposition to our, dare i say it, empire?