To all who stumble across these responses. The author opposing my point of view brings little substance to the arguments. If one were to evaluate his sources, it would be obvious that they are in line with his comments….FAR FROM CREDIBLE! 80% of the sources used to refute my arguments are regurgitated from Blogs, opinion columns, and right wing websites. I believe there are only two sources throughout the entire repute that are sourced to credible news agencies, and one from a Pulitzer prize winning organization. I would guess that 90 % of the claims made can be refuted by the non-partisan factcheck.org (yes, the same one Dick Cheney plugged!)

-----,

You are welcome to read my comments and sources, as I will try to keep them focused, please pass this on to ----.

Note, this was written quickly and has not been checked for spelling or grammatical errors. All errors are my own.

-----,

I read the essay and can only say the following: People will choose to believe that which gives them comfort (I couldn’t agree more!!!!).

Matthew is obviously a bright individual and, if this essay is actually his work, clearly cares about what he's saying. (----, try not to discredit me…Of course I wrote the paper…my name is all over it.) Ultimately you can't really respond to such an essay; it's pointless to bible bash. However, there are a few things that he does either gloss over or ignore that weaken his thesis.

The election of a president is ultimately about character. John Kerry has clearly demonstrated over the last thirty five years that he is not a man of character.

With regard to Kerry’s patriotic service: I will ignore any arguments regarding valor, or intent and present simple facts. It is useless to discuss motivation. But it is informative to discuss facts.

If your ideas are facts from conflicting eye witnesses, this is shaky.

Fact #1: John Kerry has repeatedly claimed that he spent Christmas of 1968 illegally transporting special forces operations groups into Cambodia. This particular claim was made in Senate conferences regarding the illegality of the Vietnam War as well as to serve as a bludgeon to criticize the actions of the Reagan administration in the 1980's. It is also false. According to his own diary as quoted in his biography John Kerry spent Christmas of 1968 far from Cambodia "dreaming of sugarplums." Kerry's campaign has acknowledged this fact. Reference here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005483

(notice this is an opinion column)

Response #1 of everything you have written this is the only one I will have trouble factually refuting. However, this whole argument can be understood by listening to a 1971 tape from O’Neil[1] who reported that he himself, while talking to President Nixon, was sent on swift boat missions along the Cambodian border. If O’Neil was sent on these missions, then so could have Kerry. Why his journal conflicts with his testimony, again, is hard for me to understand. However, I admire that you are so concerned with Military people who say they are one place, and yet can’t prove it. I think it is a widely accepted fact that Bush went AWOL for 6 months from his National Guard duty. Kerry might have been missing for one night, but if this really is an issue for you, then the Bush absence should be dominating. Oh, by the way, Bush refuses to release his military records concerning this as well. Of the six months, all anybody can find is a dentist check up, and absolutely no pay stubs. I am sure Kerry would be willing to release his, when Bush does as well (Kerry is pretty safe with this one).

Comment #1: If George Bush had claimed that during his time in the National Guard he had performed combat missions over Cuba what would the Democratic response to this lie have been? Would it make him unfit for command?

I especially like what was written in the NY Times (liberal! I can hear you say) “the people at the RNC know that their designated hero is a man who never in his life took a risk or made a sacrifice for his country, and that they are impugning the patriotism of men who have.” Nobody would believe Bush because he will never place himself in that position.

I am amazed at the hatred I feel when reading comments about Kerry’s Vietnam record. Was it not Kerry who raised his hand and volunteered to go at the President’s call? And where was Bush…scrambling for his political connections to bump him to the top of a national guard list a thousand of individuals long to keep him home.

Fact #2: John Kerry's Purple Hearts may not be deserved. The first purple heart was awarded for a wound sustained on Dec 2, 1967 and was a self sustained wound that required no significant medical attention. Indeed, Kerry's own journal entry on the 11th of the same month indicates that he had not yet come under enemy fire. The democrats have acknowledged it was self-inflicted. Similar circumstances surround his third purple heart.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39889

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp

Collecting purple hearts was a big deal since acquiring three bought you a ticket home. The democratic left claims that this has been debunked since the military records that document his injury were not signed by the doctor that is claiming to have treated Kerry. This is true. They were signed by a medical orderly that work under the supervision of the doctor and filled out the paper-work. Military records have confirmed this testimony but the Kerry camp keeps repeating the lie.

This should explain exactly how Kerry got the medals.[2] Oh and as far as the military records that have “have confirmed this testimony” that you speak of, they are attached to that link. You can read the actual records (oh yes, we have these...and oh yes, they refute what you have said.) I really like how you tried to cover the fact that the claiming doctor was never on the medical records. What proof do you have then, that Kerry is lying, except by a couple of the swift boat vets, who are notorious for changing their story? (And don’t say because Sean Hannity said so).

Comment #2: John Kerry has refused to release the military records that would clear this up. Or maybe they would show that the paperwork for some of these awards was submitted, as rumored, by Kerry himself. Not to mention a reported negative fitness report in which Kerry is supposedly reprimanded for being overly aggressive in shooting civilians and burning down villages. Again, just rumor, but one that could be cleared up by an honest release of his full military record.

Rumors are not facts, let’s stick to the facts. And once again, Kerry will release his when Bush releases his.

Fact #3: John Kerry lambastes Bush and Cheney because they did not go to Vietnam. While saying his service uniquely qualifies him.

In 1992 he said the following:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071592/posts

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

According to Kerry, protesting the war was as honorable a service as actual service. So why should Bush’s National Guard Service, and Cheney’s deferrals be any less so?

First off, I really would like to see your documentation when Kerry blasts Bush for not serving honorably in the National Guard. As far as I know, this has never happened. Kerry has left Bush’s Military Guard record well alone. Also, Cheney’s five deferments are a bit different then Clinton’s one. I would also like to state that Kerry didn’t even start challenging Cheney’s deferments until all the crap was said about him at the RNC. Kerry has worked hard to keep his message positive, but the RNC is the straw that broke the camels back. Also, protesting in general is not an “honorable service” as you state. It is a way to get your message across, but how do protesters serve? I think even Kerry will admit this.

Fact #4: Kerry's silver star was awarded for shooting a fleeing Vietnamese in the back. There are three conflicting citations for this award. There are even worse problems with his "Silver Star with a Combat V" medal. No such award exists.

Boy this is a cheap shot. Perhaps we should read the account by the only other living officer actually at the scene (not only did the swift boat veterans for truth not serve alongside Kerry, many of them did not even know him in Vietnam.). William Rood broke his 35 year silence to publish his first and last statements concerning this incident here.[3]

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/09/02&ID=Ar01702

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14774

(What in the world is “The New York Daily Sun and Front Page Mag?” These sources are once again suspect!)

The Navy has opened a formal investigation into this.

You want to know how this turns out?

The Navy's chief investigator concluded that procedures were followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy memo.

Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group.

Fact #5: Vietnam service medal.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf

In Feb 2000 John Kerry requested a correction to his service record, deleting his Vietnam service medal and adding a Vietnam service medal with four stars - at most his medal would have one star. The medal for serving in Vietnam, the star for the additional campaign he participated in.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/09/02&ID=Ar01702

(-----, you realize you cited an opinion column. I notice how you do not have a strong source for this claim. Also, your own source calls this “a trifle”.)

Comment #4 (from the above link): In 1996 chief admiral of the Navy, Jeremy Michael Boorda, committed suicide over questions raised about his right to wear a Combat V by Newsweek magazine in 1996. Boorda stated in his suicide note to his sailors that the questions raised about those he wore caused him to take his life. And that was only a Bronze Star, not the Navy’s third highest decoration. At the time, Mr. Kerry told the Boston Globe that Boorda’s conduct was “sufficient to question [Boorda’s] leadership position.…If you wind up being less than what you’re pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you.” Mr. Kerry, does your exaggeration and obfuscation of your valor and record bring your leadership into question?

Comment #5: If George Bush's record listed awards he did not earn, and an award that did not even exist, what would be the response?

Once again this would never be a concern with George W. Bush…Maybe his father, but not W.

Comment #6: Practice what you preach, Mr. Kerry.

Fact #6: There are lot's more facts that show John Kerry's service in Vietnam was not a glorious fit of patriotism that qualifies him to lead. Quite the contrary, it was probably a calculated step on his way to power. Matthew mentions the Swift Boat Veterans and claims they have been discredited. This is not true. Ask for source documentation. Better yet, watch the commercials they are producing. How can Kerry’s own words be lies?

http://swift4.he.net/~swift4/index.php?topic=Ads

(Did you really site swift boat vets for truth? You must really be desperate for sources to back what you say!!!!)

John Kerry and his “reporting for duty[4]” platform have placed his service in Vietnam as the lynchpin of his qualification for the presidency. It is clear the pin is weak if not broken.

Matthew comments that the accusations against Kerry have been de-bunked by the Media. Not only is this false, the Media are clearly willing to lie and distort facts in order to advance Kerry’s agenda and injure Bush.

You know, your distorted “media’s out to get Bush” attitude is dismal at best. It’s easy to play the victim when all the facts are stacked against you.)

http://instapundit.com/archives/017600.php

http://instapundit.com/archives/017268.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007712.php

Once again I will give you the link that pretty much debunks the first 3 pages you have written: (and once again, do you realize who you are sourcing? One of these sources is a Web Log!)

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

On Taxes: Bush's tax cut do not just benefit the rich. In fact the rich pay a larger share than ever.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0408/27/a09-255537.htm

If you read my paper, you will understand that I agree with all of this. What I said is that the Tax burdon has shifted more to the middle class, which is different then who pays the most actual taxes. (you can go onto the Congressional Budget Organization---the authority on this matter to check my claim). Supply side economics is bad math, and recently 10 economic Nobel Prize winners have endorsed Kerry for his economic plans.[5]

The remainder of the essay is basically a laundry list of things Kerry has done or plans to do. More gun control[6], more government intervention, more government programs, more taxes so the rich can pay for them. (Roll back the tax cuts…I guess if you want to say more taxes, I cant argue…I will make a point that in the history of the US, no president has ever cut taxes during a war). Never mind that diminishing the incentive to work is never a good policy (I couldn’t agree more! We sure were productive in the 90’s with the tax policy the way it was).

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to vote boils down to the degree to which one candidate reflects your values and how trustworthy you think they are.

John Kerry does not reflect my values. I don’t trust him. His record screams of a self-serving individual that is willing to do or say anything to advance his own agenda. If the Kerry campaign were subjected to the same level of rigor and honesty required of the republicans, the contest would already be over (Boy, you are really wrong with this point).

Consider the above regarding Vietnam. Consider his Left-of-Ted-Kennedy voting record in the Senate. (do you have any examples for me when he was “Left –of-Ted-Kennedy”? Probably not.) Consider the fact that he has refused to release his and his wife’s tax records, (he released his, not his wife’s…lets try to keep this factual.) refused to release his medical records[7] (read this), and refused to release his military records (Although we know the days that George Bush saw the base dentist in Alabama, and know that he was treated for hemorrhoids…Interesting you would throw this in here…its like you were trying to defuse and argument before it comes up. The truth is that from March to October Bush was missing. The dentist and doctors visits? That would be the following January. Once again it’s tough when you arguing against the facts…. Consider the fact that only four of his shipmates from Vietnam will stand with him and every commanding officer won’t (Boy you are way wrong on this one…every person alive today that served on his boat stand with him. The DNC showcased 8 of them. You know what, I have attached an article at the end of this paper that refutes all of this once again…I am attaching it because it is older then 30 days and is now archived[i]) Consider that he threatened lawsuits against a legally operated organization funded by veterans in order to shut down negative commercials (including threatening to sue TV stations and the publisher of a negative book), and called on George Bush (so did your Republican boy, John McCain) to call off their attacks when he has received thousand times more help from similar groups that are explicitly aligned with him[8] (contrary to the law) (--unless freedom of speech is contrary to the law, you are incorrect with this. Also, no greater ties have been found connecting 527’s, then the SBVT to George Bush).

http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2004/08/22/527s_in_perspective.php

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_9_2_04_1000.html

(Are you quoting another web log here? You should just start your own Blog, that way you won’t have to go very far for your sources)

Consider that the democratic left of this country has nothing to offer but hate.

You know, it’s really interesting you would make this statement. My essay was extremely positive, and your rebuttal was extremely negative—with horrendous sources I might add. And your overwhelming hate for the Democratic Party --- especially the last paragraph of this paper—demonstrates your pure ignorance.)

(you know what…at this point I am finished rebutting. It is pointless, futile, and a waste of my time. Like your Bible Bash comment, this is exactly what this is turning out to be. Anyway, I am guessing you live in Utah, and your vote doesn’t matter anyway…Its so nice living in a swing stateJ).

Consider they value free speech and expression for themselves, but no one else[9]. Consider that this is the party that would have law abiding citizens remain defenseless in their own homes, but argues that a 13 year old girl should be able to obtain an abortion without parental notification.

Consider that this is the party that thinks that at twenty weeks of pregnancy a woman should be able to go to a doctor, have her cervix dilated, have her infant’s legs and torso removed and then have the baby’s skull punctured so the brains can be sucked out, allowing the skull to be crushed, so the infant can be removed with minimal trauma. (trauma to who?)

Consider that the people that back Kerry are morally bankrupt and to a large extent hate people, like you and me, that would raise their families in harmony with Christian principles.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200409\NAT20040902b.html

http://gweilodiaries.com/archives2/000754.html#000754

http://www.protestwarrior.com/videos/crashing_the_protests.php

http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13455&c=106

Consider that this is the party whose supporters lionize men such as Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, Lenin, Stalin, and Marx, and place moral equivalence on a U.S. soldier and the acts of a suicide bomber.

http://www.brainterminal.com/topics/video.html

Consider that these people are willing to tell and retell lies in order to advance their cause.

http://www.brainterminal.com/video/nyc-2004-03-20/windowsmedia-hq.php - my favorite.

Consider that the people that back Kerry believe in a sick form of moral relativism that cannot be accepted. Even Matthew is afflicted,

It should be noted that Iraq’s takeover of Kuwait was fairly peaceful (much like Poland or the Sudetenland, neh? – Oh, and the Jews got on those trains without resisting, remember.) with only a couple hundred Kuwaitis being killed in the aggression (what’s a couple hundred Kuwaitis?[10]). In contrast, once the US led coalition became involved, over 350 coalition members lost their lives as well as 25,000 – 75,000 Iraqis (See appendix)[11]. (Better to have left the Kuwaitis in bondage than allow additional death.)

Emphasis and red comments are mine.

So, Matthew, is freedom and the decisions of a country to be based on a perverse quid pro quo of human life? Since any intervention will cause the loss of life does that make every intervention impossible? Why are the deaths of the Kuwaitis not worth responding to, and why are the deaths or Iraqi aggressors morally equivalent? What is the magic number that makes intervention in the preservation of freedom acceptable? The logical extension of this argument is that no intervention against violence should ever be undertaken. Clearly this is false. Clearly it’s morally perverse unless you think people should be allowed to be raped and tortured. Please, let’s remember that this is no longer occurring in Iraq.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068571/

If you’d like video from Saddam and his son Uday of people being murdered, tortured, thrown off buildings and blown up I have some and can send it to you. Remember, Kerry voted to authorize this war and then refused to fund it. He called the coalition that helped us the “coalition of the coerced and bribed[12],” despite the fact that over forty countries have joined and many have lost their own sons and daughters. And yet he claims that Bush has not treated our allies properly (or does he just mean the French?).

Finally, Kerry is a flip flopper. Changing position is a good thing when you find that you were wrong. Having an opinion and changing it for political expediency shows a lack of moral direction. In my opinion now is not the time for our president to display weakness. Changing back and forth repeatedly displays weakness. Recall that in the Clinton years Kerry was pro war, anti-Saddam. Prior to the invasion of Iraq he was pro-war and voted accordingly. When Howard Dean was stealing the democratic momentum on an anti war platform, Kerry became anti-war. Now that he has to win the presidency he is pro war again and has stated that even now he would have voted to authorize the war even if he knew that there would be no WMD and that there would be continued fighting.

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

This is not a principled change in position. This is flip-flopping pure and simple.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC082304.wmv

http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/

On the other hand, voting for Bush gives us people that believe like this man.

http://www.gopconvention.com/cgi-data/speeches/files/ie65ay1zuai2r6ttb19uj6s2y6q7930j.shtml

George Bush is not perfect. I dislike his desire to amend the constitution. I dislike his borrow and spend policy. I dislike his desire to expand the role of government. I dislike the consistent erosion of civil liberties. But given a chance to choose, the choice is clear (for me).

Beyond the people, the Democratic Party is not the future – it is an angry hateful past.

I think I’ve said enough.

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42716-2004Aug28.html. On CNN's "News- night" last Tuesday reporter Joe Johns played a tape of a 1971 conversation between O'Neill and then President Richard Nixon in which O'Neill says: "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water." Nixon asks: "In a Swift boat?" "Yes, sir," answered O'Neill.

[2] http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

[3] Rood, William B. Personal Biography. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0408220342aug22,1,2523679.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[4] http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-29-kerryfinalmain_x.htm

[5] http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/25/news/economy/kerry_economists.reut/index.htm

[6] Even JAMA has concluded that gun control laws do not impact crime or suicide rates http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf . However, it has been shown that one of the best ways to reduce violent crime rates is to encourage gun ownership, especially concealed carry laws http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

[7] http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3789

[8] What would the reaction have been if the Bush campaign had sent threatening letters to movies theatres regarding Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 451” which is patently loaded with lies and falsehood?

[9] http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28015.htm

[10] I have always marveled at the sheer lack of respect that the liberal left can display. This line is truly embarrassing. I wonder if he’s really thought this one through. I hope not.

[11] Just another perfect example of how the democrats, consistent with Zell Miller’s convention speech, view the U.S.A. as the problem. Our actions to liberate a people that had been overrun against their will is more repugnant than the invasion itself. We were the bad guys in their minds. This is not a group I would lend my name to, for their philosophy is ultimately the worst form of slow nihilism. In a similar vein, you can view Captain Moroni’s, “Title of Liberty,” as a clear stand against the precepts and nihilism that we see so clearly in the liberal left. In short, there are things worth dying for – freedom the foremost. From a further religious standpoint, it is clear that God Himself views individual liberty as the ultimate good and worthy of very high costs to preserve it: Jesus died on the cross for personal liberty; God lost a third of the host of heaven – if permitting the eternal damnation of one’s own children is worth the cause of liberty maybe mortal death is worth it too. http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

[12] http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20687439.html

---

[i] Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad

August 20, 2004

By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that

he had lied about his Vietnam service record to win medals

and build a political career, Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign.

His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of

how the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for

Truth has catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign.

How the group came into existence is a story of how

veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans.

Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web

of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas

political figures and President Bush's chief political

aide, Karl Rove.

Records show that the group received the bulk of its

initial financing from two men with ties to the president

and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint

John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and

the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war

medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift

Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had

lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe

in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group,

flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand

up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight,

declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation

of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."

The Admiral Calls

It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry

was wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a call at his Massachusetts home from his old commander in Vietnam, Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the new biography of the man who would be president.

Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the war

from a base in Cam Ranh Bay and advocated a

search-and-destroy campaign against the Vietcong - the kind

of tactic Mr. Kerry criticized when he was a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971. Shortly after leaving the Navy in 1978, he was issued a letter of censure for exercising undue influence on cases in the military justice system.

Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr. Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders whose military approach had led to the deaths of countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" - the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw

it, straight.

"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us

into it," Mr. Lonsdale said.

Mr. Hoffmann's phone calls led them to Texas and to John E. O'Neill, who at one point commanded the same Swift boat in Vietnam, and whose mission against him dated to 1971, when he had been recruited by the Nixon administration to debate Mr. Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show."

Mr. O'Neill, who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry in numerous television appearances Thursday, had spent the 33 years since he debated Mr. Kerry building a successful law practice in Houston, intermingling with some of the state's most powerful Republicans and building an impressive client list. Among the companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard, the energy firm founded by the current lieutenant governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, a central player in the Texas redistricting plan that has positioned state Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall.

Mr. O'Neill said during one of several interviews that he

had come to know two of his biggest donors, Harlan Crow and

Bob J. Perry, through longtime social and business

contacts.

Mr. Perry, who has given $200,000 to the group, is the top donor to Republicans in the state, according to Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan group that tracks political donations. He donated $46,000 to President Bush's campaigns for governor in 1994 and 1998. In the 2002 election, the group said, he donated nearly $4 million to Texas candidates and political committees.

Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's top political aide, recently said

through a spokeswoman that he and Mr. Perry were longtime friends, though he said they had not spoken for at least a year. Mr. Rove and Mr. Perry have been associates since at least 1986, when they both worked on the gubernatorial campaign of Bill Clements.

Mr. O'Neill said he had known Mr. Perry for 30 years. "I've represented many of his friends,'' Mr. O'Neill said. Mr. Perry did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. O'Neill said he had also known Mr. Crow for 30 years, through mutual friends. Mr. Crow, the seventh-largest donor to Republicans in the state according to the Texans for Public Justice, has donated nowhere near as much money as Mr. Perry to the Swift boat group. His family owns one of the largest diversified commercial real estate companies in the nation, the Trammell Crow Company, and has given money to Mr. Bush and his father throughout their careers. He is listed as a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation.

One of his law partners, Margaret Wilson, became Mr. Bush's general counsel when he was governor of Texas and followed him to the White House as deputy counsel for the Department of Commerce, according to her biography on the law firm's Web site.

Another partner, Tex Lezar, ran on the Republican ticket

with Mr. Bush in 1994, as lieutenant governor. They were

two years apart at Yale, and Mr. Lezar worked for the

attorney general's office in the Reagan administration. Mr. Lezar, who died last year, was married to Merrie Spaeth, a powerful public relations executive who has helped coordinate the efforts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group that ran $2 million worth of ads attacking Senator John McCain's environmental record and lauding Mr. Bush's in crucial states during their fierce primary battle. The group, calling itself Republicans for Clean Air, was founded by a prominent Texas supporter of Mr. Bush, Sam Wyly.

Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the Reagan White House, where the president's aides had enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984. She says she is also a close friend of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a client of Mr. Rove's. Ms. Spaeth said in an interview that the one time she had ever spoken to Mr. Rove was when Ms. Hutchison was running for the Texas treasurer's office in 1990.

When asked if she had ever visited the White House during

Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth initially said that she had

been there only once, in 2002, when Kenneth Starr gave her

a personal tour. But this week Ms. Spaeth acknowledged that

she had spent an hour in the Old Executive Office Building, part of the White House complex, in the spring of 2003, giving Mr. Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen Friedman, public speaking advice. Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

"Is the White House directing this?" Ms. Spaeth said of

the organization. "Absolutely not.''

Another participant is the political advertising agency

that made the group's television commercial: Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, based in Alexandria, Va. The agency worked for Senator McCain in 2000 and for Mr. Bush's father in 1988, when it created the "tank" advertisement mocking Mr. Dukakis. A spokesman for the Swift boat veterans said the organization decided to hire the agency after a member saw one of its partners speaking on television.

About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas in

April to share outrage and plot their campaign against Mr. Kerry, she and others said. Mr. Lonsdale, who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned as "an indoctrination session."

What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry

began to harden.

"That was an awakening experience," Ms. Spaeth said. "Not

just for me, but for many of them who had not heard each other's stories."

The group decided to hire a private investigator to

investigate Mr. Brinkley's account of the war - to find

"some neutral way of actually questioning people involved

in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.

But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral to

some.

Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry,

said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.

"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life."

By May, the group had the money that Mr. O'Neill had

collected as well as additional veterans rallied by Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hoffmann and others. The expanded group gathered in Washington to record the veterans' stories for a television commercial.

Each veteran's statement was written down as an affidavit

and sent to him to sign and have notarized. But the

validity of those affidavits soon came into question.

Mr. Elliott, who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver Star,

had signed one affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was not

forthright" in the statements that had led to the award.

Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe quoted him as saying that

he felt he should not have signed the affidavit. He then

signed a second affidavit that reaffirmed his first, which

the Swift Boat Veterans gave to reporters. Mr. Elliott has refused to speak publicly since then.

The Questions

The book outlining the veterans' charges, "Unfit for

Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry," has

also come under fire. It is published by Regnery, a conservative company that has published numerous books critical of Democrats, and written by Mr. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified on the book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged that he has been a contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a right-wing Web site. He said he regretted those comments.

The group's arguments have foundered on other

contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr. Louis

Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I know John

Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I

treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute

the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left

elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was

minor and self-inflicted.

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he

had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll

have to take my word for it."

The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte

Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he

had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was

injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr.

Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been

with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they

cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a

spokesman for the group said he would not comment.

The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat came

under heavy fire from shore during a mission in February

1969. According to Navy records, he turned the boat to

charge the Vietcong position. An enemy solider sprang from

the shore about 10 feet in front of the boat. Mr. Kerry

leaped onto the shore, chased the soldier behind a small

hut and killed him, seizing a B-40 rocket launcher with a

round in the chamber.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr. Kerry killed as a solitary wounded teenager "in a loincloth," who may or may not have been armed. They say the charge to the beach was planned the night before and, citing a report from one crew member on a different boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed about who would win which medals.

The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led

to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts.

"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were

reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."

According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a

group of Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river when

several mines detonated, disabling one boat and knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared

during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign.

But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that

while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was

what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly

heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's lying."

"If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added,

"that's how it was."

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own

reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author.

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it

received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and

later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not

recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Standing Their Ground

As serious questions about its

claims have arisen, the group has remained steadfast and adaptable.

This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

The group said it would introduce a new advertisement

against Mr. Kerry on Friday. What drives the veterans, they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their affidavits and their television commercial focus mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to describe what happened in Vietnam when he returned and became an antiwar activist. And they are offended, they say, by the gall of his running for president as a hero of that war.

"I went to university and was called a baby killer and a murderer because of guys like Kerry and what he was saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the first advertisement, accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star. "Not once did I participate in the atrocities he said were happening."

As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry

went home and lost the war for us.

"He called us rapers and killers and that's not true," he continued. "If he expects our loyalty, we should expect loyalty from him."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?ex=1094031642&ei=1&en=dd79f2edbf7e1a49