William Rood, Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
This comes out in tomorrow's Chicago Tribune.

Link but you have to register to view :(

Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong
Tribune editor breaks long silence on Kerry record; fought in disputed battle

By Tim Jones
Tribune national correspondent
Published August 21, 2004

The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war record.

William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during that 1969 mission, said Kerry came under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were "overblown" untrue.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in Sunday's Tribune.

Rood's recollection of what happened on that day at the southern tip of South Vietnam was backed by key military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star he earned in the battle and a glowing after-action report written by the Navy captain who commanded his and Kerry's task force, who is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

Rood's previously untold story and the documents shed new light on a key historical event that has taken center stage in an extraordinary political and media firestorm generated by a group calling itself the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Allegations in the book, co-authored by one of the leaders of the group, accuse Kerry of being a coward who fabricated wartime events and used comrades for his "insatiable appetite for medals." The allegations have fueled a nearly two-week-long TV ad campaign against the Democratic nominee. Talk radio and cable news channels have feasted on the story.

Animosity from some veterans toward Kerry goes back more than 30 years, when Kerry returned from Vietnam to take a leadership role in the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Anger reached a boiling point with Kerry's presidential nomination and his own highlighting of his service during the war, a centerpiece of his campaign strategy against President Bush, who spent the war stateside in the Air National Guard in Texas and Alabama.

Many know of ads

A poll released Friday by the National Annenberg Election Survey reported that more than half the country has heard about or seen TV ads attacking Kerry's war record, a remarkable impact for ads that have appeared in only a handful of states.

Kerry strongly disputes the allegations. Last week he called on the White House to denounce the TV ads and accused Bush of relying on the Vietnam veterans "to do his dirty work." On Thursday, Kerry challenged Bush to a debate on their respective war records. Democrats point to unresolved questions about whether Bush in fact served all the time he was credited with serving in Alabama.

The Bush campaign has denied any association with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but so far has refused to condemn the book and the group's TV ads. A report in Friday's New York Times disclosed connections between the anti-Kerry vets and the Bush family, Bush's chief political aide Karl Rove and several high-ranking Texas Republicans. Some of the recent accounts from veterans critical of Kerry have been contradicted by their own earlier statements, the Times reported.

Rood's account also sharply contradicts the version currently put forth by the anti-Kerry veterans. Rood, 61, wrote that Kerry had personally contacted him and other crew members in recent days asking that they go public with their accounts of what happened on that day.

Rood said that, ever since the war, he had "wanted to put it all behind us?the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. ? I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service?even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune."

"I can't pretend those calls [from Kerry] had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this," Rood said. "What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it."

Rood declined requests from a Tribune reporter to be interviewed for this article. Rood wrote that he could testify only to the February 1969 mission and not to any of the other battlefield decorations challenged by Kerry's critics?a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts?because Rood was not an eyewitness to those engagements.

Ambush scenario

In February 1969, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade commanding PCF-23, one of the three 50-foot aluminum swift boats that carried troops up the Dong Cung, a tributary of the Bay Hap River. Kerry commanded another boat, PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz, who was killed in action six weeks later, commanded PCF-43. Ambushes from Viet Cong fighters were common because the noise from boats, powered by twin diesel engines, practically invited gunfire. Ambushes, Rood said, "were a virtual certainty."

Before this day's mission, though, Kerry, the tactical commander of the mission, discussed with Rood and Droz a change in response to the anticipated ambushes: If possible, turn into the fire once it is identified and attack the ambushers, Rood recalled Kerry saying. The boats followed that new tactic with great success, Rood said, and the mission was highly praised.

In the book "Unfit for Command," Kerry's critics maintained otherwise. The book's authors, John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, wrote that Kerry's attack on the Viet Cong ambush displayed "stupidity, not courage." The book was published by Regnery, a conservative publisher that has brought into print many books critical of Democratic politicians and policies.

"The only explanation for what Kerry did is the same justification that characterizes his entire short Vietnam adventure: the pursuit of medals and ribbons," wrote Corsi and O'Neill. Later in the war, O'Neill commanded the same Swift boat Kerry had led. O'Neill is now a leader of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In the book, O'Neill and Corsi said Kerry chased down a "young Viet Cong in a loincloth ? clutching a grenade launcher which may or may not have been loaded."

Rood recalled the fleeing Viet Cong was "a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore." There were other attackers as well, he said, and his boat and Kerry's boat took significant fire.

After the attack, the task force commanding officer, then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, sent a message of congratulations to the three swift boats, saying their charge of the ambushers was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious [method] of dealing with small numbers of ambushers," Rood said.

In the official after-action message, obtained by the Tribune, Hoffmann wrote that the tactics developed and executed by Kerry, Rood and Droz were "immensely effictive [sic]" and that "this operation did unreparable [sic] damage to the enemy in this area."

"Well done," Hoffmann concluded in his message.

Change of story

But more than three decades later, Hoffmann, now a retired rear admiral, has changed his story. Today he is one of Kerry's most vocal critics, saying the attacks against the ambushers 35 years ago call into question Kerry's judgment and show his tendency to be impulsive.

Rood challenges that criticism, recalling that the direction for the actions they took on the river that day came from the highest ranks of the Navy command in Vietnam.

"What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders," Rood said.

Asked for his response to Rood's account, O'Neill argued that the former swift boat skipper's version of events is not substantially different from what appeared in his book. The account of the Feb. 28 attack draws heavily on reporting from The Boston Globe, O'Neill said.

He said the congratulatory note from Hoffmann was based on the belief that Kerry was under heavy fire from the Viet Cong. But O'Neill claimed that "didn't happen." Had Hoffmann known the true circumstances of events that day, O'Neill said, he would not have issued the congratulatory note. Attempts to reach Hoffmann for comment were unsuccessful.

In his eyewitness account, Rood describes coming under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong on the riverbank during two separate ambushes of his boat and Kerry's boat.

Praise for the mission led by Kerry came from Navy commanders who far outranked Hoffmann. Rood won a Bronze Star for his actions on that day. The Bronze Star citation from the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, singled out the tactic used by the boats and said the Viet Cong were "caught completely off guard."

Longtime debate

The war about the war between O'Neill and Kerry has raged for more than three decades. O'Neill, who became a lawyer in Houston after returning from Vietnam, was recruited by the Nixon administration in 1971 to serve as a political counterweight to Kerry, who by then had left the military and was a vocal critic of the war.

The two debated the war on the Dick Cavett television show in 1971, with O'Neill accusing Kerry of the "attempted murder of the reputations of 2½ million" Vietnam veterans.

Rood acknowledged in his first-person account that there could always be errors in recollection, especially with the passage of more than three decades. His Bronze Star citation, he said, misidentifies the river where the main action occurred.

That mistake, he said, is a "cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no final authority on something that happened so long ago?not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there.

"But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong," Rood wrote. "While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."
 

Runner20

Senior member
May 31, 2004
478
0
0
There are 15 swift boaters who support Kerry and 250 swift boaters who are opposed to Kerry, so who should we believe?
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: Runner20
There are 15 swift boaters who support Kerry and 250 swift boaters who are opposed to Kerry, so who should we believe?

Most of those opposed to Kerry didn't even serve during the same time. There are several instances of the ones that DID serve with kerry and who are against kerry are contradicting themselves (thurlow, o'neil, etc.). And all of the men who served on kerry's boat support kerry.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Runner20
There are 15 swift boaters who support Kerry and 250 swift boaters who are opposed to Kerry, so who should we believe?

Of course, that is a completely misleading "fact," in that the 15 men you refer to were actually on his boat, whereas most of the 250 never even worked in the same place, at the same time as Sen Kerry. Rood's article, in tandem with the military documentation of what happened, makes it plain many of the 250 are lying. They are clearly (and, IMO, justifiably) angry with Sen Kerry for his postwar comments (which I consider noble and right), so now they are jumping on a chance to smear him. I think it's disgraceful, and these men are being used as political pawns.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Runner20
There are 15 swift boaters who support Kerry and 250 swift boaters who are opposed to Kerry, so who should we believe?

How many times are you going to post that one, single, solitary false statement as a retort for everything? I mean, c'mon, you are waaaay behind the curve now.
 

Runner20

Senior member
May 31, 2004
478
0
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Runner20
There are 15 swift boaters who support Kerry and 250 swift boaters who are opposed to Kerry, so who should we believe?

How many times are you going to post that one, single, solitary false statement as a retort for everything? I mean, c'mon, you are waaaay behind the curve now.

Anyway, Kerry is a war hero. But he is unfit to lead this country. Thats how I look at it.

A man who one day supports the war, then next day he doesnt. He has said many times before Bush got elected that Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force, so I guess hes lieing.

Whats new?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Runner20
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Runner20
There are 15 swift boaters who support Kerry and 250 swift boaters who are opposed to Kerry, so who should we believe?

How many times are you going to post that one, single, solitary false statement as a retort for everything? I mean, c'mon, you are waaaay behind the curve now.

Anyway, Kerry is a war hero. But he is unfit to lead this country. Thats how I look at it.

A man who one day supports the war, then next day he doesnt. He has said many times before Bush got elected that Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force, so I guess hes lieing.

Whats new?

This is all you have to offer? Please piss in someone else thread.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Runner20

Anyway, Kerry is a war hero. But he is unfit to lead this country. Thats how I look at it.

A man who one day supports the war, then next day he doesnt. He has said many times before Bush got elected that Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force, so I guess hes lieing.

Whats new?

You're obviously buying into the misleading hype promoted by Karl Rove et al. There's a big difference between saying "Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force," (or even voting for a resolution authorizing the use of force under certain circumstances) and agreeing to an offensive attack against a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to the US. Similarly, there's a difference between not signing a massive military appropriations bill that did not provide any info on where the scores of billions of dollars would go, and not supporting the troops.

I think it's disappointing that the American public is receptive to overly-simplistic, misleading claims about Kerry being a "flip-flopper," when they can be substantially defused with even casual research. It's really playing to the lowest common denominator, yet it has been reasonably effective. Sometimes I don't know what to make of this country of ours . . .
 

Runner20

Senior member
May 31, 2004
478
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Runner20

Anyway, Kerry is a war hero. But he is unfit to lead this country. Thats how I look at it.

A man who one day supports the war, then next day he doesnt. He has said many times before Bush got elected that Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force, so I guess hes lieing.

Whats new?

You're obviously buying into the misleading hype promoted by Karl Rove et al. There's a big difference between saying "Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force," (or even voting for a resolution authorizing the use of force under certain circumstances) and agreeing to an offensive attack against a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to the US. Similarly, there's a difference between not signing a massive military appropriations bill that did not provide any info on where the scores of billions of dollars would go, and not supporting the troops.

I think it's disappointing that the American public is receptive to overly-simplistic, misleading claims about Kerry being a "flip-flopper," when they can be substantially defused with even casual research. It's really playing to the lowest common denominator, yet it has been reasonably effective. Sometimes I don't know what to make of this country of ours . . .

Just because more Americans trust Bush and not Kerry, doesnt make them simplistic or sheepish.

And Kerry is a flip-flopper.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Runner20

Anyway, Kerry is a war hero. But he is unfit to lead this country. Thats how I look at it.

A man who one day supports the war, then next day he doesnt. He has said many times before Bush got elected that Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force, so I guess hes lieing.

Whats new?

You're obviously buying into the misleading hype promoted by Karl Rove et al. There's a big difference between saying "Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force," (or even voting for a resolution authorizing the use of force under certain circumstances) and agreeing to an offensive attack against a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to the US. Similarly, there's a difference between not signing a massive military appropriations bill that did not provide any info on where the scores of billions of dollars would go, and not supporting the troops.

I think it's disappointing that the American public is receptive to overly-simplistic, misleading claims about Kerry being a "flip-flopper," when they can be substantially defused with even casual research. It's really playing to the lowest common denominator, yet it has been reasonably effective. Sometimes I don't know what to make of this country of ours . . .

So true Don. People believe what they want to believe because they are unwilling to do the leg work to discover the real truth. This poster sounds like some of the friends I had growing up whose daddy's were Republicans so they were Republicans. He sounds like he is parroting what his Dad tells him is going on in this country and in the world.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Runner20
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Runner20

Anyway, Kerry is a war hero. But he is unfit to lead this country. Thats how I look at it.

A man who one day supports the war, then next day he doesnt. He has said many times before Bush got elected that Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force, so I guess hes lieing.

Whats new?

You're obviously buying into the misleading hype promoted by Karl Rove et al. There's a big difference between saying "Iraq was a threat and we may have to use force," (or even voting for a resolution authorizing the use of force under certain circumstances) and agreeing to an offensive attack against a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to the US. Similarly, there's a difference between not signing a massive military appropriations bill that did not provide any info on where the scores of billions of dollars would go, and not supporting the troops.

I think it's disappointing that the American public is receptive to overly-simplistic, misleading claims about Kerry being a "flip-flopper," when they can be substantially defused with even casual research. It's really playing to the lowest common denominator, yet it has been reasonably effective. Sometimes I don't know what to make of this country of ours . . .

Just because more Americans trust Bush and not Kerry, doesnt make them simplistic or sheepish.

And Kerry is a flip-flopper.


LOL. Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop!! You're spouting catch phrases without any sort of argument behind them. Kerry has explained over and over and over and over what his thinking was behind Iraq. The Congressional record explains it as well. Since obviously, you've never read or thought about reading either one, you have nothing to offer to this thread.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Runner20

Just because more Americans trust Bush and not Kerry, doesnt make them simplistic or sheepish.

And Kerry is a flip-flopper.
Wow do you have a thought of your own or are you just going to be a good Republican Fluffer? .
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Runner20

Just because more Americans trust Bush and not Kerry, doesnt make them simplistic or sheepish.

And Kerry is a flip-flopper.

a) I don't know that more Americans trust Bush than Kerry - the polls are a hybrid.

b) When I implied people were "simplistic" (your choice of words), I meant they had been successfully misled about Sen Kerry's record, which is not that of a flip-flopper. I regard that concept as fundamentally a lie, sponsored by the Bush campaign.

c) He's no more a "flip-flopper" than any other member of Congress, and it's ironic to me that he is simultaneously accused of being a "flip-flopper" while the Bush pundits observe the consistent liberalism of his voting record - which is it? Ironically, VP Cheney voted to eliminate dozens of weapons systems as a member of Congress, yet now the Bush campaign is attacking Sen Kerry for doing the same thing.
 

rextilleon

Member
Feb 19, 2004
156
0
0
I think we should believe those who served with Kerry. The Swift Boat Vetrerans should be ashamed of themselves--but then again O'neill is a viper and was one of Charles Colsons hit men.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
I have determined that pertinent names and connections have no meaning to Runner20. He's probably very young and impressionable (like I was at his age) and has yet to open his eyes fully.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I have determined that pertinent names and connections have no meaning to Runner20. He's probably very young and impressionable (like I was at his age) and has yet to open his eyes fully.

Tru dat.
 

Runner20

Senior member
May 31, 2004
478
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I have determined that pertinent names and connections have no meaning to Runner20. He's probably very young and impressionable (like I was at his age) and has yet to open his eyes fully.

Tru dat.

Maybe if you stopped watching CNN, reading NYTIMES.com and listening to NPR, maybe your eyes would open as well.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Runner20

Maybe if you stopped watching CNN, reading NYTIMES.com and listening to NPR, maybe your eyes would open as well.

LOL - how old are you, anyway? No fair lying . . .
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Runner20
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I have determined that pertinent names and connections have no meaning to Runner20. He's probably very young and impressionable (like I was at his age) and has yet to open his eyes fully.

Tru dat.

Maybe if you stopped watching CNN, reading NYTIMES.com and listening to NPR, maybe your eyes would open as well.

Maybe I should read lifenews.com, listen to Rush and watch Hannity on Fox? :laugh:
 

Ogi

Member
Jul 16, 2004
112
0
0
whos the flip flopper?

bush said in 2000 that "i don't belive our troops should be used for what's called nation building.".

he also said "if we go around the world saying we do it this way, so should you, we would be an arrogant nation and be hated" (wow he was much smarter back then)

bush has cut funding on every program he has started (including Department of Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, the list goes on and on.).

what issue are you talking about kerry flip flopping?

i didn't realize that changing your mind as new evidence came into play was a bad thing, infact it's a skill that GOOD decision makers have, ... however stuborn ones don't change their minds...hence being stuborn.

so if you want a stuborn president that has poor decision making skills, go vote for bush!

otherwise if you want someone that is showing good decision making skills, vote for kerry.

i sudgest you do one of the above

1) quit posting crap off michaelsavage.com or wherever you get your "news" from.
2) do a lot of reading and make some relavant posts
3) make the right decision and vote for kerry ;)

Ogi
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Ogi
whos the flip flopper?

bush said in 2000 that "i don't belive our troops should be used for what's called nation building.".

he also said "if we go around the world saying we do it this way, so should you, we would be an arrogant nation and be hated" (wow he was much smarter back then)

bush has cut funding on every program he has started (including Department of Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, the list goes on and on.).

what issue are you talking about kerry flip flopping?

i didn't realize that changing your mind as new evidence came into play was a bad thing, infact it's a skill that GOOD decision makers have, ... however stuborn ones don't change their minds...hence being stuborn.

so if you want a stuborn president that has poor decision making skills, go vote for bush!

otherwise if you want someone that is showing good decision making skills, vote for kerry.

i sudgest you do one of the above

1) quit posting crap off michaelsavage.com or wherever you get your "news" from.
2) do a lot of reading and make some relavant posts
3) make the right decision and vote for kerry ;)

Ogi

Nice post, Ogi.
 

Ogi

Member
Jul 16, 2004
112
0
0
having been to every continent except south america (if you include panama in south america, i have been to that continent too) INCLUDING antarctica, i can safely say the NY times is the worlds most respected newspaper. In communist countries you can find todays edition there, even in 3rd world eastern european countries you can find todays version there.

the only "liberal media" out there is 1) NPR, 2) Howard Stern. Also may I note that CNN is the largest news network in the world. What evidence do you have of calling them liberal?

Ogi