Swift Vets and POWs for Truth: Difference between revisions

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group formed in 2004 to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential campaign. "Swift Boat" refers to the class of boat on which Kerry and SBVT's members served in the Vietnam War. The group is devoted to questioning his war record, particularly with regard to the merit of his medals and the veracity of his testimony about the Vietnam war.

Membership

File:Unfit.jpg

In the September 2004 book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, SBVT spokesmen criticized Kerry's war record.

Founding members of the group include Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (retired), a former commander of Swift boat forces; Houston attorney John O'Neill, the officer who had replaced Kerry as commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 in 1969 and who appeared opposite Kerry in a televised 1971 debate between them on The Dick Cavett Show; and 13 other named veterans. Many current SBVT members are officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These include Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam, some 250 signed the group's statement against Kerry. The statement claimed that Kerry had not been forthcoming about his military and medical records, and demanded that he make them public. In response, Kerry posted a collection of these military records to his campaign site. [1] [2] SBVT maintains that Kerry still has not fully disclosed his records. [3]

Of all Kerry's crewmates, only Stephen Gardner is a member of SBVT. All the other living members of Kerry's crew support his presidential bid and frequently campaign with him. The men who served on Kerry's boat dispute SBVT's various allegations: "pure fabrication" (Jim Rassman), "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky). [4] [5] [6] [7]

Media Activities

First Television Advertisement

SBVT first went public with a May 4, 2004 press conference to declare its opposition to Kerry. When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to purchase television advertisements. On August 5, 2004, SBVT began airing a one minute television spot[8] in three hotly contested states in the ongoing presidential election. The ad, entitled "Any Questions?", is a collage of short clips of thirteen SBVT members, many who state they "served with John Kerry" or had direct contact with Kerry during his service in Vietnam. The veterans appearing in the ad say John Kerry was dishonest, unreliable, unfit to lead, and had dishonored his country and fellow veterans. Van O'Dell, one of the SBVT members appearing in the ad, claims Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." [[9]] None of the men in the advertisement served on the same swift boat as John Kerry, but some served on swift boats that patrolled and fought in the same group as Kerry's six-man boat. The ad also featured some of Kerry's superiors.

The first ad was effective in that in generated tremendous media attention and debate for the group and its cause. The Kerry campaign counteracted the ad with testimony from its own veterans who served with John Kerry and supported his presidential bid. As it became clearer that the SBVT ads were having some impact with voters, the Kerry campaign used more aggressive strategies to counteract the group's attack on Kerry's war record, including pronouncements from John Kerry that the SBVT was a front group for the Bush campaign. For more information on these allegations and other controversial aspects of SBVT, see "Controversy" below.

Second Television Advertisement

On 20 August, 2004, SBVT released a second television advertisement (transcript)(video)featuring a portion of Kerry's April 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee based on the Winter Soldier Investigation. The investigation had been carried out by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), of which Kerry was a member, and used the testimonies of over a hundred soldiers and civilians that spoke of atrocities carried out by US forces in Vietnam. Kerry's Senate testimony presented a summary of these men's testimonies; he did not, however, claim any personal knowledge of these atrocities. The SBVT advertisement alternated clips of Kerry's summary of this testimony (transcript) (audio) with statements from Vietnam veterans, particularly POW's, who stated that Kerry's "accusations" had demoralized and "betrayed" soldiers in Vietnam.

Third Television Advertisement

A third television advertisement began airing on August 26, 2004, attacking Kerry's past statements that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968 (see "Cambodia Mission" below). The advertisement features Stephen Gardner stating, "We were never in Cambodia on a secret mission, ever."(video)(transcript) Gardner was part of Kerry's crew from November, 1968 to January 23, 1968.

Book

SBVT founder and spokesman John O'Neill wrote Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry with co-author Jerome Corsi. The August 2004 book criticized Kerry's judgment in battle, his truthfulness, his entitlement to certain medals, and his later anti-War activities. The book is based in part on interviews with some 60 Swift Boat vets who served in Kerry's division. Several members of Kerry's crew state that O'Neill failed to interview them; some who were interviewed assert that O'Neill edited their statements to strip out material favorable to Kerry. [10] Neither author has any firsthand knowlege of Kerry's service. O'Neill served on the Swift Boats only after Kerry left; Corsi never served in Vietnam.

Allegations and Evidence

First Purple Heart

John Kerry obtained his first Purple Heart in recognition of an injury he received on December 2 1968. Along with two subsequent Purple Hearts, this award was the basis of Kerry's request for a "Thrice Wounded" reassignment, which allowed him to leave Vietnam after serving only four months.

The SBVT asserts that Kerry did not qualify to receive this Purple Heart because his wound was insignificant and was not the result of enemy action, but was caused by shrapnel from his own mishandling of a grenade launcher. They claim that after his request for a citation was rejected by his commanding officer on these grounds, Kerry later obtained one by misrepresenting the facts of the incident.

Grant Hibbard, Kerry's former commander, recalled that he refused Kerry's request for a Purple Heart because he had learned from the others in the crew that there was no hostile fire. He considered the injury nothing really more than a scratch. The only medical treatment Kerry received was bacitracin and a bandage, after which he returned to service immediately. [11]

The criteria for the Purple Heart specify citation for any injury received during combat requiring treatment by a medical officer. Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment." [12]

An article in the Boston Globe described the circumstances in which Purple Hearts were given to wounded soldiers in Vietnam:

'There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel; some of those might have been M-40 grenades,' said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. 'The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception.' [13]

In Douglas Brinkley's book Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, Brinkley notes that Purple Hearts were given out frequently:

As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors — no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin — were starting to bleed, a lot.

In the SBVT advertisement, Dr. Lewis Letson asserted "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury," but did not specify what the alleged lie was. Kerry's medical records list a medic, J. C. Carreon, as the "person administering treatment" for this wound. Dr. Letson's name does not appear on the record, but he claims that it was common for medics to sign the paperwork even though Letson would treat the patient. However, the claim cannot be verified as Carreon died in 1992.

On the night in question, Kerry's skimmer opened fire on suspected guerillas on the shore. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. Accounts differ over the crew aboard the skimmer and the source of Kerry's injury. No after-action report for this incident is known to exist.

SBVT's claims about the incident are primarily based on an account by William Schachte who has stated he was in command Kerry's skimmer that night. Schachte asserted that there was no hostile return fire and that Kerry was wounded by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself. [14] SBVT member Larry Thurlow has stated that, at the time of the incident, Steve Gardner gave him an eyewitness account of Kerry's wound. [15] However, Gardner himself has stated he was not aboard the skimmer that night. [16]

Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon, dispute Schachte's account. Zaldonis has stated that "Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three." Both Runyon and Zaladonis believe, but are not completely certain, that the skimmer received return hostile fire; Runyon commented, "It was the scariest night of my life." Runyon also stated that he is "100 percent certain" that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher. [17] [18]

SBVT also points to the narration of a subsequent event in Tour of Duty (pp. 188-189). Brinkley opens the account of a four-day cruise by telling us how "Kerry —who had just turned 25 on December 11, 1968— was a fine leader of his men". He goes on to quote Kerry's reflections in his notebook: "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky." SBVT argues that this journal entry shows that the incident could not have involved enemy fire. [19] Others argue that Kerry was referring to ambushes, a common misfortune for Swift Boats which Kerry had not yet suffered.

Bronze Star

Kerry's Bronze Star has been criticized by former Swift Boat commander Larry Thurlow. During the incident leading to the medal, Thurlow was in overall command of a five-boat fleet including Kerry's. In 2004 Thurlow, along with two other SBVT members, alleged that Kerry's citation for bravery under fire is false because neither Kerry's boat nor any of the others was under hostile fire. In a sworn affidavit about the incident, Thurlow testified, "I never heard a shot." [20]

Several witnesses insist that there was hostile fire during the incident. Jim Rassman, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river...When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water." Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Dan Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river." Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach... Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river." [21]

Although it is not mentioned in Unfit for Command, Thurlow himself was awarded a Bronze Star for his actions during the same incident. Thurlow's citation includes several phrases indicating hostile fire such as "despite enemy bullets flying about him" and "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire", and speaks of fire directed at "all units" of the five-boat fleet. [22] Thurlow's medal recommendation, signed by Elliott, used the phrasing "under constant enemy small arms fire." Robert Lambert, Thurlow's chief petty officer, won his own Bronze Star for "courage under fire" for pulling Thurlow out of the water. Lambert still insists that the boats were receiving fire from the enemy. [23]

Thurlow claims that his Bronze Star citation (given to him after he had left the military) is in error and says that he lost the citation twenty years before, but does not explain why he did not question the error when first presented with it. He and others in SBVT claim that Kerry wrote the after-action report upon which all the citations were based. However, Lambert's medal citation contains considerable detail about the incident which would not have been visible to Kerry given his position across the river at the time. [24] The report is initialed "KJW", who SBVT claims is Kerry. However, Kerry's initials are "JFK", and SBVT cites no reason why Kerry would have included a "W". These same initials "KJW" appear on other reports about events in which Kerry did not participate. [25] A Navy official stated to the New York Times that the initials referred, not to the author of the report, but to the headquarters staffer who received it. [26]

Several documents beyond the medal citations indicate hostile fire during the action. The weekly report from Task Force 115 twice refers to the incident as "an enemy initiated firefight". [27] According to a damage report, Thurlow's boat received three bullet holes that day; he now claims at least one bullet hole was from action the previous day. Also, later intelligence reports confirm the presence of hostile forces, with six Viet Cong casualties from the incident. [28]

Silver Star

Kerry's Silver Star medal has been called into question by George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer and a SBVT member. Elliott's stated position on the award changed during the course of the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Kerry's medal citation indicates that he charged into an ambush, killing an enemy preparing to launch a rocket. In his 1969 performance evaluation, Elliot wrote "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG [Lieutenant Junior Grade] Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA [Killed in Action]. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach." [29]

During Kerry's 1996 re-election campaign, Elliott responded to criticism of the medal, "The fact that he chased armed enemies down is not something to be looked down on." [30] In June 2003, Elliott was quoted as saying the award was "well deserved" and that he had "no regrets or second thoughts at all about that." [31]

More recently, however, Elliott has signed two affidavits that criticize the award. The first, in July 2004, stated in part, "When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occurred in Vietnam..." After the release of this first affidavit, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe quoted Elliott saying, "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here...I knew it was wrong...In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." [32] Elliott contended that Kranish had substantially misquoted him, but the Globe stood by its account, calling the disputed quotes "absolutely accurate". [33]

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." [34]. The second affidavit made what Elliott called an "immaterial clarification", in that he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the shooting. Rather, his initial statement that Kerry had been dishonest was based on unspecified sources and a passage contributed by Kranish to a biography of Kerry.

William Rood, now a Chicago Tribune editor, recently gave an account that supports Kerry's version of the events of that day. Rood was commander of PCF-23, which was one of the two Swift Boats that accompanied Kerry's PCF-94.

Rood discounted several specific charges made by SBVT about the incident. In his (second-hand) 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 guerilla 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". Also, O'Neill called Kerry's tactic of charging the beach "stupidity, not courage." Similarly, Hoffman characterized Kerry's actions as reckless and impulsive. However, Rood stated that Kerry's tactic of charging the beach was discussed and mutually agreed with the other boat commanders beforehand. He also notes that, at the time, Hoffman praised all three 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." [35] O'Neill responded that Rood's criticism was "extremely unfair" and stated that Rood's account of events is not substantially different from what appeared in his book, for which Rood had declined an interview. [36]

Commenting on the Silver Star issue, Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Under Secretary 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...I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition." [37]

Cambodia Mission

One chapter of SBVT's forthcoming Unfit for Command questions Kerry's repeated statement that he was sent on an illegal, secret mission into Cambodia during Christmas December 25, 1968.[38] On March 27, 1986, Kerry made a speech to the Senate that included the following passage:

Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there: the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared—seared—in me.

In a 1979 article in the Boston Herald, Kerry identified the president in question as Richard Nixon, though he was actually President-elect at the time. Kerry indicated that this event was a turning point for him, causing him to distrust the United States government, and spurring his opposition to the war upon his return from Vietnam.[39]

None of Kerry's crewmates has confirmed ever being sent to Cambodia. Some have, however, stated that they may at some point have entered Cambodia without knowing it. James Wasser, who was on PCF-44 on that December mission, while saying that he believes they were "very, very close" to Cambodia, does not recall actually crossing over. Wasser acknowledged uncertainty, stating "I don't know exactly where we were. I didn't have the chart," and "It is very hard to tell. There are no signs."

Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign responded to SBVT's charges with a statement that Kerry was referring to a period when Nixon had been president-elect and before he was inaugurated. Meehan went on to state that Kerry had been "deep in enemy waters" between Vietnam and Cambodia and that his boat came under fire at the Cambodian border. 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. [40]

Based on examination of Kerry's journals and logbook, historian Douglas Brinkley placed the missions soon after Christmas. In an interview with the London Daily Telegraph, Brinkley stated "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off U.S. Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." Brinkley added, "He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off." [41] [42]

In the book, O'Neill argued that a Swift Boat commander would have been "seriously disciplined or court-martialed" for crossing the Cambodian border. The book also asserts that border was impassible — posted with a large warning sign and patrolled by several PBR's precisely to prevent such crossings. [43] Critics point out the inconsistency between this description and O'Neill's own claims documented in a conversation with President Nixon in 1971. O'Neill: "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water." Nixon: "In a swift boat?" O'Neill: Yes, sir." [44] [45]

Controversy

Truthfulness

A major part of the SBVT controversy centers around what some believe is inconsistent and misleading testimony. Among the first to question SBVT's veracity was Republican Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter and a Vietnam veteran, who stated "I condemn the [SBVT] ad, it is dishonest and dishonorable, I think it is very, very wrong."[46] Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated "on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies." [47] ABC News's The Note opined "the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry's medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false."[48] A Los Angeles Times editorial stated "Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false." [49]

An August 28 Time magazine poll surveyed public credence in the SBVT advertisements among those who viewed them. The poll showed that about one-third of viewers believed there is at least "some truth" to the allegations. Among swing-voters, only about one-fourth felt there was any truth to the ads. [50]

SBVT's Non-Partisan Status

Connections with Republicans

SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group both in the legal sense and in spirit. But critics have alleged partisanship, pointing out that several prominent individuals who assisted the SBVT also had close ties to the Republican Party. For example, SBVT's chief financiers, according to the group's last quarterly IRS filing, are Houston builder Bob J. Perry and the Crow family, both major Republican donors from Texas. Perry is a long time Bush supporter who has donated $200,000 to fund the SBVT ads. [51] [52] SBVT's media representative, Merrie Spaeth, was a Reagan administration press officer and an advisor to Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment. Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar, ran for Texas lieutenant governor on George W. Bush's ticket in 1994. John E. O'Neill — the primary author of Unfit for Command and a key player in the formation of SBVT — donated over $14,000 to Republican candidates, was a partner in Lezar's law firm, and co-operated with the Nixon White House in opposing Kerry in 1971. [53] Chris LaCivita, director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002, works as a private contractor providing media advice for SBVT. [54] The SBVT postal address was registered to Susan Arceneaux, treasurer of the Majority Leader's Fund, a PAC closely tied to the archconservative former Congressional leader Dick Armey. [55]

These ties, along with others (see below), have led to accusations that SBVT is a front group for Republicans and has caused SBVT to take considerable heat from some observers in the popular press. Slate's editor Jacob Weisberg, wrote that SBVT is part of the "right-wing slime machine."[56]

Connections with the Bush campaign

The Bush campaign became part of the general SBVT controversy when Senator John McCain condemned the first SBVT ad, and said, "I hope that the president will also condemn it." The Bush campaign would not specifically condemn the SBVT ads, but they did state that "we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."[57] To this, Kerry replied, "Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."[58] Later, Kerry charged that SBVT is "a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know — he wants them to do his dirty work." [59]

Critics and the Kerry campaign point to several specific connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign that they contend are improper. The Kerry campaign asserted that Bush campaign headquarters in Florida distributed fliers promoting SBVT events, a charge the Bush campaign denies.[60] Ken Cordier, former vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney (in 2000) and volunteer member of the Bush campaign veterans steering committee, appeared in the second SBVT advertisement. The Bush campaign asked him to resign and stated they had been unaware of his SBVT involvement. [61]

On August 25, 2004, Benjamin Ginsberg, lead counsel to the Bush campaign on campaign finance law, also resigned after it was learned that the SBVT was one of his clients. Ginsberg stated that he was withdrawing to avoid being a distraction to the campaign. He declared that he had acted "in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal,"[62] arguing that it was not uncommon or illegal for lawyers to represent campaigns or political parties while also representing 527 groups. He also maintained that he did not disclose to the Bush campaign that he was simultaneously representing the SBVT group. After leaving the Bush campaign, Ginsberg retained his status as counsel to the SBVT.

FEC Complaints

On, August 20, 2004, Senator Kerry's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that the advertisements promoted by SBVT were inaccurate and illegally coordinated with Republicans and the Bush-Cheney campaign. Under federal election law, the SBVT is designated as a nonpartisan 527 group and is barred from coordinating with political campaigns. The complaint, citing the "ties" noted above, claims a "web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures, and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove". [63] [64]

The Bush campaign contests the strength and significance of the ties and asserts there is no co-ordination between SBVT and the campaign. Editorial opinion on the evidence for co-ordination varies. ABC News's The Note stated, "There is no evidence that the Bush campaign is orchestrating the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."[65] In contrast, the New York Times characterized the SBVT attacks as "orchestrated by negative-campaign specialists deep in the heart of the Texas Republican machine."[66]

Three nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog groups —Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Center for Responsive Politics — have also jointly filed an independent complaint with the FEC. The complaint alleges that SBVT's sources of funding are in violation of federal election law. [67]

No official verdict concerning the legality of the SVBT activities is expected until after the election when a decision will be issued by the FEC.

Withheld documents

Both sides of the debate have withheld documentation that might settle questions about some of SBVT's accusations. The Kerry campaign has refused to release the Senator's journals (citing an agreement with historian Douglas Brinkley, author of Tour of Duty, for exclusive access) or authorize a full release of his Navy records. Likewise, the boat log for the second boat Kerry commanded (also in Brinkley's possession) has not been made public. On the other side, a journal by another of the Swift Boat commanders and the relevant Navy records of some of the SBVT members involved in specific allegations have not been released.

The White House refused to release records detailing any Bush administration contacts with prominent individuals associated with SBVT. The denied Freedom of Information Act request was filed on August 24 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. [68]

External links

News Articles about SBVT

• "Can Voters See Through Sham Ads?" Aug. 6 — CBSNews.com
• "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry; Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire" Aug. 18 — Washington Post
• "Kerry comrades have credibility on their side" Aug. 20 — Boston Globe
• "Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad" Aug 20. — New York Times
• "Vietnam Vet Says Has No Proof for Claim Kerry Lied" Aug. 22 — Yahoo News / Reuters
• "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete" Aug. 22 — Washington Post
• "Swift Boat Writer Lied on Cambodia Claim" Aug 25. — Yahoo News / Associated Press

First-Hand Accounts

• "This Is What I Saw That Day" by William Rood, Chicago Tribune, August 22, 2004
• "A Veteran for Truth" - Telluride Daily Planet Letter to the Editor by Swift Boat veteran Jim Russell

Other

• SBVT website
• Disinfopedia article about SBVT
• Web of Connections - Chart of SBVT and ties to Bush campaign [PDF]
• FactCheck.org's analysis of Swift Boat Veteran attack advertisements
• "Who is Jerome Corsi, co-author of Swift Boat Vets attack book?" — Investigation by Media Matters for America
• "Unfit For Command" fan website
• "Smear by veterans may hurt Bush" Thomas Oliphant column in the Boston Globe
• "These Charges Are False ..." editorial of the Los Angeles Times (free registration required)