Fisking Rassmann's WSJ op-ed

From his op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Vietnam veteran Jim Rassmann, who spoke eloquently for Sen. Kerry at the Democratic National Convention, now argues passionately against the SwiftVets who believe Sen. Kerry is unfit to be Commander in Chief:

This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

I see.  None of the 250+ SwiftVets understand that bond.  You and the small handful of other vets who travel from campaign appearance to campaign appearance with Sen. Kerry do, however — exclusively.  Those 250+ guys were just kind of standing around in Vietnam, and didn't really form any bonds, care about their wounded, care about their fellows who died.  They don't understand.   You and the veterans who do support Sen. Kerry have a monopoly on decency.  Right.

Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam.

Again, I see.  Your own quality time spent with John Kerry in Vietnam should instead be persuasive to us.  And you tell us how much time that was, quite candidly: 

I was not part of John Kerry's command. I was a Special Forces officer who happened to be on his boat at that time.

In fairness, you also say that you "worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire."  But you suggest that we should discount to zero, however, the views of the gunner from Kerry's own boat; everyone else on the boat "served with Kerry," as, apparently, did you, Mr. Rassmunn.  But not that guy! 

And we should likewise ignore the views of John Kerry's fellow officers-in-charge of the swift boats that accompanied him on the same day you say he earned his Bronze Star.  Precisely one out of twenty-three of the OICs in Coastal Division 11 who served fought worked ummm, did whatever they did at the same time Kerry was in Coastal Division 11 — the officers who actually lived with him, who trained and briefed with him, and whose boats accompanied Kerry's own on the other missions he undertook during his four-month in-country tour (which they, and most of us, might consider "serving with" him) — now supports Sen. Kerry.  However, you, Mr. Rassmann — who abhor "smears" — apparently value their service, their word, and their opinions, at zero.  They, you say, "should hang their heads in shame."

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor.

Ah!  Okay, from these two sentences, we learn precisely how well you knew John Kerry in Vietnam, and how strongly indebted you felt to him at the time, and how closely you've followed his career ever after.  You neither knew of his medal when it was awarded, nor followed up what had happened with your own medal recommendation, nor paid sufficient attention to any of Kerry's multiple election campaigns over the last 30+ years (including the entirety of his presidential campaign before January 2004) to hear of his Bronze Star.  John Kerry made national headlines for throwing his/someone's medals/ribbons over a Capitol fence, but it never occurred to you to wonder if one of those medals/ribbons came from saving your life.  You couldn't be bothered — we can only presume because of your "passion for orchids."  Yes, sir, clearly you are the man to whom America should turn now for a comprehensive assessment of John Kerry's military career!

Mr. Rassmann, in the unlikely event that you're reading this:  I do honor your service, just as I do John Kerry's (however much or little it was).  I don't doubt that you're genuinely grateful to him — as no doubt was Licorice the Unlucky Hamster, whom he also saved from a watery death many years later.  (All snark aside, Mr. Rassmann, I don't seriously mean to compare you to a hamster.  Snark is as intrinsic to fisking as bullets are to combat, but no one would suggest that snark be taken as seriously as bullets or combat, least of all me.)

But those of us who are trying to sort out the differences between your version of events and those of the SwiftVets who were also there on-scene at the time, like Larry Thurlow, are still wondering about the answer to the very specific question that Mr. Thurlow put to you — for which you offered no answer — during your and his recent joint interview on CNN: 

If you were under heavy fire at that moment, why is it that neither Lt. Kerry's boat — nor any of the other boats whose crews were engaged in rescuing two other Americans who were wounded and put into the water by an exploding mine — had any bullet holes after the fight?

It's a really, really simple question, sir.  Now, I'm genuinely glad that you and the others survived.  And one must make allowances for the "fog of war."  Perhaps from your viewpoint in and under the water, you thought the precautionary, suppressive automatic weapons fire toward the left bank that Mr. Thurlow described as being laid down by the swift boats was, instead, aimed at you.  Certainly the mine or mines that exploded proved that all the boats in the area were in genuine danger.  But "heavy fire" from "both banks of the river"?  Heavy fire that couldn't manage to put one bullet hole into even one out of five boats?

--------------

Update (Tues Aug 10 @ 11am):  The WSJ, at least in its online edition, spells the gentleman's name as "Rassmann," but I see it elsewhere as "Rassman," which strikes me as more likely correct.  I've edited this post accordingly.  And thanks to Power Line for the links!  Those guys are so on top of this whole kerfluffle!  And all I can say is wow! about Captain Ed's take on Rassmann, which clued me in on some other rather peculiar details of his story.

Update (Tues Aug 10 @ 2:45pm):  No, I didn't miss Mr. Rassmann's references to "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" in his op-ed's title and throughout its text.  I imagined that it gave him (or his ghostwriters) a giggle and maybe slipped past the WSJ editorial staff, who generally are less giggly.  I decided not to mention it, but I did think about it when I was wondering whether or not to cut my own reference to Licorice the Unlucky Hamster as being too snarky — and decided to keep it, with the parenthetical disclaimer afterwards.

Update (Mon Aug 16 @ 12:50am):  Seems like it's "Rassmann" after all, so I've duly changed the gentleman's name back.