As a disabled veteran, I am insulted to read trash like this. While my military background keeps me aboard the conservative party... it's amazing what folks will print/support during election time. I really wish everyone would focus on "issues" rather than conjuring-up campfire stories.

Like a lot of conservatives, I purchased this book when it first came out, but unlike most of them I never got around to reading it straight through until a few weeks ago. Maybe at some level I wasn't sure the book's charges would stand up so I wanted to wait a while before investing the time.

Well, it has been almost four years, and what have we learned? When the book came out, John Kerry and his supporters claimed it was full of lies which they would shortly expose. Not ONE lie has been found, not ONE charge exposed as false. The best that anyone has been able to do is to argue that in a few cases honorable people could disagree about what the evidence shows: one of Kerry's Purple Hearts might not have been a phony, one of Kerry's combat stars might have been deserved. But that is pretty much it.

Some of this could probably be cleared up if Kerry would just execute Standard Form 180, authorizing the Defense Department to release all of his military records otherwise sealed by privacy regulations. President Bush had to execute one in order to disprove all of the lunatic accusations that he had somehow not fulfilled his service obligations, but Kerry never has and presumably never will, despite repeatedly promising to do so. One of the supporters of the SBVT, T. Boone Pickens, Jr., offered Kerry a one million dollar challenge after the election if he could disprove any of their charges. Kerry took him up on it but failed to do so. (Tellingly, Kerry supporters give as their reason that Pickens put some conditions on the challenge which they label as "reneging" on the deal. You'd think that if Kerry could expose any of these charges as lies, he'd be willing to do it for free, wouldn't you?)

What emerges is a sobering portrait of a man singularly unfit to hold any office of leadership and trust, much less POTUS. After failing to avoid military service, Kerry started out rather conventionally by determining to use his military service to advance his political ambitions, hardly the first time THAT has ever happened. But his inconstancy soon began to disturb his colleagues who never knew who was going to show up on the battlefield on a given day: the reckless glory hound or the overly cautious near coward. If Kerry could have settled on one persona for the duration, his peers and his commanders could probably have made good use of him because both personality types have served in every war, but Kerry's unreliablity made him a liability they could not long tolerate.

Then upon taking the hint to leave early, Kerry (in their eyes) betrayed them all by falsely accusing them of atrocities as he switched over to the anti-war side. (Even Kerry supporters will be relieved to learn that whenever his more excitable anti-war friends proposed assassinating pro-war politicians Kerry always voted against it.)

Still, time heals all wounds eventually, and it might have been possible for Kerry to have come to some sort of understanding with his once squadron mates, then bitter foes, if he had only had the sense, not to mention the decency, not to do ANOTHER 180 and attempt to win the White House by touting his "military service". That was just one turn too many for these men, and the rest is history.

This book helped defeat John "Traitor" Kerry.

After I read this book, I donated $200 to the Shift Boat Vets.

John Kerry is a coward, liar, cheat and is certainly not a war hero.

Brian
Vietnam Vet.

I was given this book a few years ago and finally decided to go through it. The bottom line is that this book gives the other side of the story on John Kerry's story. Since Kerry decided to use his short service in Vietnam as one of the cornerstones of his campaign, it is only fitting that both sides be told regarding his service. Then, it is up to the American people to decide which John Kerry is closer to reality.

The first part of the book is mostly he said-he said regarding Kerry's service. To me, it was hard to tell which accusations about Kerry in Vietnam were accurate and which were not since memories fade over so much time passing. Kerry's rapid accumulation of medals was very suspicious however. Putting that aside, the most shocking part of the book dealt with Kerry's anti-war activities to include his meetings with Vietnamese Communists in Paris while our soldiers were fighting and dying. His behavior was just not responsible and at a minimum, seditious. There is a way to oppose war without working against your country's military efforts and assisting the enemy. Kerry did not choose that route.

I found it especially interesting how Kerry's 2004 campaign bragged about his medals, while in 1971 he threw those same medals back. I guess it all depends on what is politically expedient at the time.

Thank you to the Swift Boat Veterans for presenting the other side of the story.

As a VN vet, I've known about John Kerry for 25 years. I've known about the duplicitious behavior and creation of false stories for the Winter Soldiers testimony, more recently how he blocked the Human Rights addendum to the foreign aid appropriatons bill for Viet Nam because his wife's company does $500 million dollars in business annually in VN and taps into near slave labor conditions. what I didn't know is just what a coward and poor commander he had been while in VN. "Unfit..." is a great expose.

This book took guts to write--Not many would have the courage to speak out publically about such a powerful man. My hat's off to the writers of this book.

I'm glad I read this book before the 2004 election. I'm a Vietnam era vet, but I had forgotten many of the events covered in this book. It was eye-opening to realize that the guy most of us thought of as a traitor back then, is now pawning himself off as a war hero and presidential material. It was good to see Mr. Kerry pay for the sins of his youth.

I'm glad I read this book before the 2004 election. I'm a Vietnam era vet, but I had forgotten many of the events covered in this book. It was eye-opening to realize that the guy most of us thought of as a traitor back then, is now pawning himself off as a war hero and presidential material. It was good to see Mr. Kerry pay for the sins of his youth.

America knows characters the likes of John Kerry! No surprise here!

I know in our world there are two stories to all conditions in life but if half of this book is true then John Kerry should not be in public office. What a disgrace to all service members who served our great country. He should placed on the same list as Jane Fonda.

God Bless Swift Boat. This book was a blessing when it came out, and it truly is a testament to this "man's" character today as it was then. As Kerry, who still can't come to terms with the fact that America simply did not want his sorry excuse for a life to lead this fine country, tries to figure out how to dig himself out of the hole in which he has dug himself by stating that the men and women of our nation's Armed Services (myself included, as I am a Captain in the USMC) are uneducated nitwits "stuck in Iraq,"....well, there is nothing more relevant than this treatise to serve as an example why this piece of garbage should never have been, nor should ever be, our Commander in Chief. It is clear that his contempt of the men and women of the military runs deep, just as deep as it did when he returned from Vietnam and began holding hands with Hanoi Jane.

I take great issue with his recent comments. Above all else that this so-called "man" represents and claims to represent, the bottom line is that he is a bonafide loser. He can't get past that, nor accept it. To degrade our nation's finest in the manner he did is simply atrocious, above and beyond being outright incorrect. Sure, it was a "joke" that went wrong. Whatever you say Johnny boy. It was clear to all what you meant and, more importantly, what you actually SAID.

But, I must heartily shake your hand for one thing. The one thing you seem to have accomplished is that you single-handedly set the Dems back even further for the upcoming election, just days away. Great job. Leave it to Kerry to do such a job. You know you've done wrong when you have the likes of Billy and Hilly rushing in to beg you to apologize...yet even still, you chose not to do so publicly, but simply, coward that you are, post a little note on your website. Pathetic. Thank GOD this trash was so devastingly beaten and never had a chance. He never will. He simply cannot see what lies right beneath him, and trips over his own feet simply by being the idiot that he is. He's an arrogant, petty, stupid, whining, petulant little man, who will be resigned to the footnotes of history as nothing more than the penultimate loser of a bid to the White House.

God bless the United States of America, God Bless our troops both home and abroad, and SEMPER FI.

I think that this was an unfair attack on John Kerry. He would have been a better President than other people because he has actually scene action instead of asking his daddy to get him into the Guard and then go A.W.A.L from it.

It's rather amazing how many five star "reviewers" have so much of the same bad information to impart about John Kerry, but so little to say about the substance of this book.

Rather than recycle chatroom effluvia, I will actually review the book:

Poorly researched, poorly written. Nasty, vindictive, and dishonest from start to finish.

For example, in describing his 1971 debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, John O'Neill not only misrepresents what Kerry and Cavett said, and the audience's response, he actually misquotes HIMSELF. As the transcript (and video) of the debate is posted at O'Neill's own website, how hard would it have been to check for basic accuracy?

And why tell such easily proven lies, like claiming Kerry was booed during the debate, when the video clearly shows that he wasn't?

If you watch, you will also see O'Neill repeat a stunning lie about his own military service - his claim to have served "almost three years" in Vietnam. He made this claim several times in 1971, both in speeches and in writing. But his records show that he served no more than a total of 15 MONTHS in Vietnam, and that included his time offshore on a minesweeper. (You can see his military records yourself, linked through his profile at Wikipedia.)

More examples of lies and misrepresentations in the book? How about the part where O'Neill claims that Kerry filmed interviews of himself while in Vietnam - four years before those cameras had sound capability.

In a more egregious example, O'Neill posits, in Chapter 5 of UFC, that George Elliott wrote a Silver Star citation that did not reflect what happened that day. He is not honest enough to use the actual citation written by Elliott, but instead uses a later, edited version and then quotes things - like "numerically superior force" - that Elliott NEVER WROTE. The original citation written by Elliott PRECISELY reflects what happened that day - things he claims he was never told - as do the after action report and Zumwalt's monthly summary. (All of which can be found at SBVT's own archives.)

In this connection, O'Neill claims that Elliott had no idea there were troops on the boats that day (even though he was division commander) and that they conducted the first sweep - although Elliott's citation, the after action report, and the monthly summary SPECIFICALLY state that there were troops on the boats and that the troops conducted the first sweep. He also claims that "[t]here is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched" - but Elliott 's citation and the after action report SPECIFICALLY state that Kerry shot a fleeing VC, and the after action report says that the man was wounded.

In addition, O'Neill claims that Hoffmann and Elliott had been told Kerry had "almost single-handedly" taken out a bunker of VC - except NOTHING OF THE SORT appears in the original citation, the after action report, the monthly summary, or the news release for the incident. In fact, the after action report specifically says that "other units saturated [the] area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore" while Kerry chased the VC. And of course Elliott made it quite clear in William Rood's Bronze Star citation that he didn't think anyone did anything "almost single-handedly" that day.

Again, O'Neill writes with regard to the first action, that "most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action." (No kidding, he actually writes like that.) C'mon John, it is public information that the only American "non-PCF troops" there that day were the three Army advisors and the three UDT guys - and all were awarded medals, including two Bronze Stars for the Army advisors.

And consider this. O'Neill sneers that Kerry deserved no more than a commendation medal for his actions that day. That means that none of the half dozen or so Navy officers and crew who earned Bronze Stars - for doing no more than Kerry did - deserved their medals either. No wonder William Rood wrote in disgust, "[T]his is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. ... While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

By the way, despite O'Neill's repeated claims to Ted Koppel and others, the eyewitnesses to the second sweep - including the only member of SBVT who was actually there - have consistently stated that there was substantial enemy fire from multiple VC at the scene. Just look inside those books you were waving at the camera, John. Or better yet, ask SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, who believes that Kerry earned his medal that day, and whose eyewitness account contradicts just about everything you've said on the matter.

In fact, there is not a single person who was there that day who disputes what happened, or Kerry's medal. Again, as William Rood writes, "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."

And contrary to O'Neill's claim that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review," the record shows it was awarded after six days, and in 1996 Elliott and Lonsdale themselves insisted that all proper review procedures were followed (as did the Navy inspector general, in 2004).

Not such great research, Johnny boy.

Though maybe we should blame some of this on Jerry Corsi. When Corsi's bigotry was revealed in some of his freeper postings, O'Neill promptly claimed that Corsi was not really the coauthor, but that he acted "simply as an editor." Now that's interesting, because aside from the fact that the narrative voice sometimes bounces between first person and third person in the same sentence, and that Corsi continues to brag about coauthoring the book, good parts of Chapters 6 through 9 (at least) are virtually lifted from his screeds at anti-Kerry sites.

Just a little short in the truth department, are we John?

While we're at it, let's ask Mr. Corsi why he REMOVED the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with Gen. Giap, which hangs near Kerry's picture in the War Remnants Museum, from his webpage "documenting" the existence of the Kerry picture.

You see, John and Jerry show their readers pictures of other walls in the room from every possible angle (and even throw in a picture of Jane Fonda from a building across town), but conveniently "forget" to show you the most important wall of all...the wall upon which Kerry's picture is displayed. Hmmm, is it because Kerry's picture was displayed along with those of other visiting dignitaries such as McNamara, Warren Christopher, and yes, even ELMO ZUMWALT? New York Sun reporter Josh Gerstein says so ... run a browser search for his August 2004 article exposing this particular bit of sleaze.

Of course it is well known how many other claims in this book have been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming eyewitness testimony, Navy investigators, Navy documents, and in fact some of the accusers' own documents. (Tom Wright didn't patrol with Kerry after he "complained" about him? Not true, according to the command history. George Bates is "haunted" by the slaughter of village livestock? His own crewman claims responsibility for that. William Franke's "recollections" of Kerry? He wasn't there at the time. And O'Neill might want to get someone a little more competent to analyze those designator numbers on the March 13 spot report.)

For more point by point rebuttals of the lies contained in this book, go to Eric Rasmussen's most excellent online review, "Truth and Unfit for Command."

John O'Neill has repeatedly lied about his own service in Vietnam. In addition, he has been threatened with court sanctions for his venomous personal style, and passed over for a judgeship. Coming from the man who seconded Richard Nixon's nomination at the '72 convention, why is none of this surprising?

This book is a MUST READ. Whether you call yourself liberal, or conservative, I don't care. If you think of yourself as one who demands integrity in public servants at all levels of service, then you owe it to yourself to understand the kind of man That John Kerry really is, how frighteningly close he came to winning that election and how vigilant we voter's MUST be. The forthright accounts in this book- from numerous individuals expose John Kerry as entirely despicable and self serving.

Four of my brothers served in the US NAVY in Vietnam. Each are genuine heros of impeccable integrity. I thought of them while I read this book, and the fury I felt towards Kerry was indescribable. He has NO right to ever refer to them as 'brother's in arms'.

This kind of person is definitely NOT the sort we want or need anywhere near our White House!

John Kerry has his faults. He is probably too nuanced for the average beef and potatoes type voter. But he is heads and shoulders more knowledgeable on important issues than the guy who beat him. Often in life, the winner in retrospect should have been the loser. President Bush is going down in history as a terribly failed president since everything he touches becomes a disaster, starting with the chaos in Iraq. But back to the O'Neill book.

For those out there who actually served, you should be very angry and what O'Neill did to a fellow veteran who put his life on the line for our country. The message is clear: "serve your country if you must but if necessary I'll use your service against you should you run for high office". John McCain is another example. His own party tried to paint him as mentally unstable because of his 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton. Worse, some GOP hack with Bush nodding alongside alleged that McCain abandoned his fellow POWs. Disgusting.

If I was Kerry, I would sue O'Neill for slander. The U.S. Navy confirmed during 2004 that Kerry earned every medal. That means O'Neill and his cronies are liars. Anyone who believes O'Neill must believe the Navy is lying about Kerry - can't have it both ways.

Bottom line: O'Neill should be castigated, if not sued, for his disgusting slander of a true war hero. You don't have to like Kerry's politics to admire his service. Problem is many conservatives are so full of hate for the other side they will stop at nothing to destroy the reputation of a good man. Yes, O'Neill served his country and is a hero in his own right but what he did to Kerry was a disservice to anyone who has ever worn the uniform in time of war. The man has no shame. Mark my words, the day will come when America will turn awway from the hatemongers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and the like. These types of people prefer to divide our nation to justify a political agenda. The tide will turn, starting with the 2006 elections. Democrat or GOP, if you are a divider, out you go.

This is a good book to read if you want to follow-up on all his lie's he wrote. He can't even lie good enough to make himself look good!

I dont know how the people who wrote this book has kept from being sued. My husband was in the Vietanaum war. The men that came home alive had every reason to speak against the war. Remember at that time government drafted so whether you believed in the war or not if you were drafted you went or went to prison. Its time Americans got their noses out of stuped shows like survivors and started learning something about their country and the coruption going on in our government. A poll was taken and published on t.v. and the newspaper and said sadly Americans were so uneducated about everything concerning even laws to vote on 70 percent of the people who voted didn,t have enough education to know how to vote on a issue even if they had a particular feeling about it. For the last year I have almost devoted 24/7 to finding out the truth about lies and deception in our government and the people who have run it, and it hasn.t been a pretty picture. From Kennedy on It seems like about 70 percent of people in power have been lets say not fit for command.I,m beggining to feel like Edgar Hoover I have pulled up so many unclassified documents, I can only imagine whats in the classified. All I,m asking is for people to care enough about America to take the time to educate yourself about this wonderful country so we can put people the people in charge to represent us that we can be proud of. Had I been Kerry I would have sued the people who wrote this book. Is it my imaganition but it seems like everyone almost that Bush has associated himself with or nominated for office has been indicted for one thing or another, could Kerry have been worse? I woudn,t trust anyone connected with Bush. Before I went to the polls in 2004 I had already pulled up 5 facts that were lied about Kerry in the campaign. Last year I pulled up Fraud in 15 states on the 2004 election claiming Kerry won, Last week I pulled up a 80 page document on the fraud in the Ohio election. Am going to end for now I could do pages and pages I,m just a concerned Citizen that still believes in America and that we still do have some decent people like Kerry we only need to care enough about our country and do some decent researching before we throw just any body in charge of this wonderfull country.

Why i tried to read this....so poorly written.John O'Neill..Unfit to Write..FOX NEWS ALERT TERROR>>TEROOR>>>FEAR>>FEAR..This book is garbage.

"Poorly researched, poorly written hack piece" is the definitive review of this book. Military Brat obviously took the time and effort to seek the truth rather than seek information that may have conformed to his beliefs.

Kerry served and Kerry volunteered. He also released ALL his navy records, even when the "Swifties" proclaimed he hadn't. (Someone here actually called Kerry who was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, a traitor who should be shot before sunrise.) If that doesn't define depravity, what does?

The Swift Boat Veterans couldn't even decide who wrote their own book! O'Neill the author, called Corsi the editor, and Corsi called himself a co-author. They produced no official documentation, and they have been caught repeatedly contradicting themselves, changing their stories, creating gaps, and outright lying. Kerry's eyewitnesses weren't given one tenth the publicity from the "liberal media" that these unethical thugs were given.

The author, John O'Neill had a thirty-four year feud with John Kerry. Does anyone think he might have had an axe to grind?

Check the navy documents, and then check the Swifties' statements. Compare and you will find the truth.

Military Brat's review of the Swift Boat Veteran lies is factual and uncontestable. The Swift Boat lies were taken from Karl Rove's playbook--attack your opponent's strengths.

End of story.

Not only is O'Neill a jealous spiteful pantywaist who is actually the one exaggerating his own Vietnam accomplishments, he is also the one actually behind the majority of the five star reviews of this piece of propagdanda trash. Pathetic and juvenile. Apparently the "man" has nothing better to do with his time.

Just as Senator Bob Kerry was was cotemplating a run for the presidency back in the '90s, I can recall hearing news reports of his alleged "war atrocities". The eyewitnesses come forward and before you knew it, the story has created enough controversey for Mr. Kerrey to slowly fade from the presidential race. Thus the swift boating begins. Round One goes to the chickenhawk neacons. Fast forward a few years and the same S.O.P is employed to Max Clelland, John McCain, and John Kerry.

Forget about that Bush, Rove, Rummsfeld, Wolfiwitz, Cheney, Phife, Pearl, etc. never served ONE HOUR in a hostile environment. The important thing is what men who were 'in country" did while they were there. I think it's called deflection.

There was a time when fighting for your your country was a noble thing. Now, those who didn't serve during war have no other defense but to smear those who did.

Bottom line: John Kerry was there. Any minute of any day could have been his last. Did Dub'ya get hazardous duty pay above the skies of Texas? I think not.

It's rather amazing how many five star "reviewers" have so much of the same bad information to impart about John Kerry, but so little to say about the substance of this book.

Rather than recycle chatroom effluvia, I will actually review the book:

Poorly researched, poorly written. Nasty, vindictive, and dishonest from start to finish.

For example, in describing his 1971 debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, John O'Neill not only misrepresents what Kerry and Cavett said, and the audience's response, he actually misquotes HIMSELF. As the transcript (and video) of the debate is posted at O'Neill's own website, how hard would it have been to check for basic accuracy?

And why tell such easily proven lies, like claiming Kerry was booed during the debate, when the video clearly shows that he wasn't?

If you watch, you will also see O'Neill repeat a stunning lie about his own military service - his claim to have served "almost three years" in Vietnam. He made this claim several times in 1971, both in speeches and in writing. But his records show that he served no more than a total of 15 MONTHS in Vietnam, and that included his time offshore on a minesweeper. (You can see his military records yourself, linked through his profile at Wiki-pedia.)

More examples of lies and misrepresentations in the book? How about the part where O'Neill claims that Kerry filmed interviews of himself while in Vietnam - FOUR YEARS before those cameras had sound capability.

In a more egregious example, O'Neill posits, in Chapter 5 of UFC, that George Elliott wrote a Silver Star citation that did not reflect what happened that day. He is not honest enough to use the actual citation written by Elliott, but instead uses a later, edited version and then quotes things - like "numerically superior force" - that Elliott NEVER WROTE. The original citation written by Elliott PRECISELY reflects what happened that day - things he claims he was never told - as do the after action report and Zumwalt's monthly summary. (All of which can be found at SBVT's own archives.)

In this connection, O'Neill claims that Elliott had no idea there were troops on the boats that day (even though he was division commander) and that they conducted the first sweep - although Elliott's citation, the after action report, and the monthly summary SPECIFICALLY state that there were troops on the boats and that the troops conducted the first sweep. He also claims that "[t]here is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched" - but Elliott 's citation and the after action report SPECIFICALLY state that Kerry shot a fleeing VC, and the after action report says that the man was wounded.

In addition, O'Neill claims that Hoffmann and Elliott had been told Kerry had "almost single-handedly" taken out a bunker of VC - except NOTHING OF THE SORT appears in the original citation, the after action report, the monthly summary, or the news release for the incident. In fact, the after action report specifically says that "other units saturated [the] area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore" while Kerry chased the VC. And of course Elliott made it quite clear in William Rood's Bronze Star citation that he didn't think anyone did anything "almost single-handedly" that day.

Again, O'Neill writes with regard to the first action, that "most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action." (No kidding, he actually writes like that.) C'mon John, it is public information that there were only three American "non-PCF troops" on that sweep - the US Army advisors - and all three were awarded medals for the action, including two Bronze Stars.

And consider this. O'Neill sneers that Kerry deserved no more than a commendation medal for his actions that day. That means that none of the half dozen or so Navy officers and crew who earned Bronze Stars - for doing no more than Kerry did - deserved their medals either. No wonder William Rood wrote in disgust, "[T]his is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. ... While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

By the way, despite O'Neill's repeated claims to Ted Koppel and others, the eyewitnesses to the second sweep - including the only member of SBVT who was actually there - have consistently stated that there was substantial enemy fire from multiple VC at the scene. Just look inside those books you were waving at the camera, John. Or better yet, ask SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, who believes that Kerry earned his medal that day, and whose eyewitness account contradicts just about everything you've said on the matter.

In fact, there is not a sinlge person who was there that day who disputes what happened, or Kerry's medal. Again, as William Rood writes, "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."

And contrary to O'Neill's claim that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review," the record shows it was awarded after six days, and in 1996 Elliott and Lonsdale themselves insisted that all proper review procedures were followed (as did the Navy inspector general, in 2004).

Not such great research, Johnny boy.

Though maybe we should blame some of this on Jerry Corsi. When Corsi's bigotry was revealed in some of his freeper postings, O'Neill promptly claimed that Corsi was not really the coauthor, but that he acted "simply as an editor." Now that's interesting, because aside from the fact that the narrative voice sometimes bounces between first person and third person in the same sentence, and that Corsi continues to brag about coauthoring the book, good parts of Chapters 6 through 9 (at least) are virtually lifted from his screeds at anti-Kerry sites.

Just a little short in the truth department, are we John?

While we're at it, let's ask Mr. Corsi why he REMOVED the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with Gen. Giap, which hangs near Kerry's picture in the War Remnants Museum, from his webpage "documenting" the existence of the Kerry picture.

You see, John and Jerry show their readers pictures of other walls in the room from every possible angle (and even throw in a picture of Jane Fonda from a building across town), but conveniently "forget" to show you the most important wall of all...the wall upon which Kerry's picture is displayed. Hmmm, is it because Kerry's picture was displayed along with those of other visiting dignitaries such as McNamara, Warren Christopher, and yes, even ELMO ZUMWALT? New York Sun reporter Josh Gerstein says so ... run a browser search for his August 2004 article exposing this particular bit of sleaze.

Of course it is well known how many other claims in this book have been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming eyewitness testimony, Navy investigators, Navy documents, and in fact some of the accusers' own documents. (Tom Wright didn't patrol with Kerry after he "complained" about him? Not true, according to the command history. George Bates is "haunted" by the slaughter of village livestock? His own crewman claims responsibility for that. And O'Neill might want to get someone a little more competent to analyze those designator numbers on the March 13 spot report.)

For more point by point rebuttals of the lies contained in this book, go to Eric Rasmussen's most excellent online review, "Truth and Unfit for Command."

John O'Neill has repeatedly lied about his own service in Vietnam. In addition, he has been threatened with court sanctions at least once for his venomous personal style, and passed over for a judgeship. Coming from the man who seconded Richard Nixon's nomination at the '72 convention, why is none of this surprising?

Perhaps the subtitle of this book should be something like "With A Benedict Arnold Like This In Command, Anything May Have Happened." John Kerry is a traitor to his country, and knowingly turned his back on living POWs'& MIA's in the 1980's when he was head of a commission supposedly investigating whether any remained alive in Southeast Asia. He himself deserves to be shot as a traitor, without waiting for sunrise! It is best that those who served along with him tell the story, and expose him, showing his TRUE COLORS, as a coward.

Wonder what took him so long? Maybe he was banned for awhile for posting under so many nics here at Amazon?

You notice that despite being asked for some very simple information to support his claim, Five Stars simply repeats his lie - again !!! He's been asked for a couple of months now, though people only started counting pretty recently.

If it's so easy to find the date, source, and exact quote when Kerry supposedly made a claim about a draft in 2005, you'd think he would have come up with it by now, wouldn't you? Simple enough. But nope, he just repeats the lie. I agree that he makes a perfect shill for the likes of Liar O'Neill.

And then he goes all the way back to Jimmy Carter to put out even more bad information. And you'd think someone from Michigan would know that far from "doing poorly in the Midwest," Kerry won half the midwest states, INCLUDING Michigan. Maybe Five Stars should learn how to use Google himself, lol.


So, total nonanswers to date:

50

And counting.

If even a small fraction of this book is true, then shame on John Kerry. This book is clearly not very objective, yet if only a few of the charges made by the authors and supporters are accurate, then Mr. Kerry's service record should be dismissed as humbug. As an infantry veteran of the same conflict, I thoroughly resent the dilution of valor caused by false claimers for political gain. Or any gain, for that matter.

I agree mostly with Senator John McCain regarding a veteran's war record -- it can be very difficult to remember combat incidents with exactness, so it is usually best to not question the valor of a serviceman. The exceptions are the few incidents that smack you right in the face, such as medical military men bluntly contradicting Mr. Kerry's claims of wounds. And long before I had read "Unfit for Command" I recall hearing the utterly fantastic tale about Lt Kerry's beaching his craft and personally finishing off a rocket-launching Viet Cong. Ask any veteran, Vietnam or Iraq, about how very unlikely this could be. Enemy soldiers with rocket launchers always, always, always have a string of riflemen around them for protection against fools that try to run them down by foot. Just look at the TV footage you see in the news. Mr. Kerry is a humbug.

It's rather amazing how many five star "reviewers" have so much of the same bad information to impart about John Kerry but so little to say about the substance of this book.

Rather than recycle chatroom effluvia, I will actually review the book:

Poorly researched, poorly written. Nasty, vindictive, and dishonest from start to finish.

For example, in describing his 1971 debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, John O'Neill not only misrepresents what Kerry and Cavett said, and the audience's response, he actually misquotes HIMSELF. As the transcript of the debate is posted at his own website, how hard would it have been to check for basic accuracy?

Then, of course, O'Neill claims that Kerry filmed interviews of himself while in Vietnam - FOUR YEARS before those cameras had sound capability.

In a more egregious example, O'Neill posits, in Chapter 5 of UFC, that George Elliott wrote a Silver Star citation that did not reflect what happened that day. He is not honest enough to use the actual citation written by Elliott, but instead uses a later, edited version and then quotes things - like "numerically superior force" - that Elliott NEVER WROTE. The original citation written by Elliott PRECISELY reflects what happened that day - things he claims he was never told - as do the after action report and Zumwalt's monthly summary.

In this connection, O'Neill claims that Elliott had no idea there were troops on the boats that day (even though he was division commander) and that they conducted the first sweep - although Elliott's citation, the after action report, and the monthly summary SPECIFICALLY state that there were troops on the boats and that the troops conducted the first sweep. He also claims that "[t]here is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched" - but Elliott 's citation and the after action report SPECIFICALLY state that Kerry shot a fleeing VC, and the after action report says that the man was wounded.

In addition, O'Neill claims that Hoffmann and Elliott had been told Kerry had "almost single-handedly" taken out a bunker of VC - except NOTHING OF THE SORT appears in the original citation, the after action report, the monthly summary, or the news release for the incident. In fact, the after action report specifically says that "other units saturated [the] area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore" while Kerry chased the VC. And of course Elliott made it quite clear in William Rood's Bronze Star citation that he didn't think anyone did anything "almost single-handedly" that day.

Again, O'Neill writes with regard to the first action, that "most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action." (No kidding, he actually writes like that.) C'mon John, it is public information that there were only three American "non-PCF troops" on that sweep - the US Army advisors - and all three were awarded medals for the action, including two Bronze Stars.

And consider this. O'Neill sneers that Kerry deserved no more than a commendation medal for his actions that day. That means that not a single one of the half dozen or so Navy officers and crew who earned Bronze Stars - for doing no more than Kerry did - deserved their medals either. No wonder William Rood wrote in disgust, "[T]his is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. ... While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

By the way, despite O'Neill's repeated claims to Ted Koppel and others, the American eyewitnesses to the second sweep - including the only member of SBVT who was actually there - have consistently stated that there was substantial enemy fire from multiple VC at the scene. Just look inside those books you were waving at the camera, John. Or better yet, ask SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, who believes that Kerry earned his medal that day, and whose eyewitness account contradicts just about everything you've said on the matter.

In fact, there is not a sinlge person who was there that day who disputes what happened, or Kerry's medal. Again, as William Rood writes, "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."

And contrary to O'Neill's claim that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review," the record shows it was awarded after six days, and in 1996 Elliott and Lonsdale themselves insisted that all proper review procedures were followed (as did the Navy inspector general, in 2004).

Not such great research, Johnny boy.

Though maybe we should blame some of this on Jerry Corsi. When Corsi's bigotry was revealed in some of his freeper postings, O'Neill promptly claimed that Corsi was not really the coauthor, but that he acted "simply as an editor." Now that's interesting, because aside from the fact that the narrative voice sometimes bounces between first person and third person in the same sentence, and that Corsi continues to brag about coauthoring the book, good parts of Chapters 6 through 9 (at least) are virtually lifted from his screeds at anti-Kerry sites.

Just a little short in the truth department, are we John?

While we're at it, let's ask Mr. Corsi why he REMOVED the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with Gen. Giap, which hangs near Kerry's picture in the War Remnants Museum, from his webpage "documenting" the existence of the Kerry picture.

You see, John and Jerry show their readers pictures of other walls in the room from every possible angle (and even throw in a picture of Jane Fonda from a building across town), but conveniently "forget" to show you the most important wall of all...the wall upon which Kerry's picture is displayed. Hmmm, is it because Kerry's picture was displayed along with those of other visiting dignitaries such as McNamara, Warren Christopher, and yes, even ELMO ZUMWALT? New York Sun reporter Josh Gerstein says so ... run a browser search for his August 2004 expose of this particular bit of sleaze.

Of course it is well known how many other claims in this book have been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming eyewitness testimony, Navy investigators, Navy documents, and in fact some of the accusers' own documents. (Tom Wright didn't patrol with Kerry after he "complained" about him? Not true, according to the command history. George Bates is "haunted" by the slaughter of village livestock in Vietnam? His own crewman claims that responsibility. And O'Neill might want to get someone a little more competent to analyze those designator numbers on the March 13 spot report.)

For more point by point rebuttals of the lies contained in this book, go to Eric Rasmussen's most excellent online review, "Truth and Unfit for Command." (I am not able to link at this page, but a Google will pull up the site quite easily.)

O'Neill has repeatedly lied about his own service in Vietnam (check out his profile in Wikipedia). In addition, his venomous personal style has resulted at least once in threatened court sanctions for ethical misconduct - shortly before he was passed over for a judgeship. Coming from the man who seconded Richard Nixon's nomination at the '72 convention, why is none of this surprising?

It's rather amazing how many five star "reviewers" have so much of the same bad information to impart about John Kerry but so little to say about the substance of this book.

Rather than recycle chatroom effluvia, I will actually review the book:

Poorly researched, poorly written. Nasty, vindictive, and dishonest from start to finish.

For example, in describing his 1971 debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, John O'Neill not only misrepresents what Kerry and Cavett said, and the audience's response, he actually misquotes HIMSELF. As the transcript of the debate is posted at his own website, how hard would it have been to check for basic accuracy?

As another and more egregious example, O'Neill posits, in Chapter 5 of UFC, that George Elliott wrote a Silver Star citation that did not reflect what happened that day. He is not honest enough to use the actual citation written by Elliott, but instead uses a later, edited version and then quotes things - like "numerically superior force" - that Elliott NEVER WROTE. The original citation written by Elliott PRECISELY reflects what happened that day - things he claims he was never told - as do the after action report and Zumwalt's monthly summary.

In this connection, O'Neill claims that Elliott had no idea there were troops on the boats that day (even though he was division commander) and that they conducted the first sweep - although Elliott's citation, the after action report, and the monthly summary SPECIFICALLY state that there were troops on the boats and that the troops conducted the first sweep. He also claims that "[t]here is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched" - but Elliott 's citation and the after action report SPECIFICALLY state that Kerry shot a fleeing VC, and the after action report says that the man was wounded.

In addition, O'Neill claims that Hoffmann and Elliott had been told Kerry had "almost single-handedly" taken out a bunker of VC - except NOTHING OF THE SORT appears in the original citation, the after action report, the monthly summary, or the news release for the incident. In fact, the after action report specifically says that "other units saturated [the] area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore" while Kerry chased the VC. And of course Elliott made it quite clear in William Rood's Bronze Star citation that he didn't think anyone did anything "almost single-handedly" that day.

Again, O'Neill writes with regard to the first action, that "most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action." (No kidding, he actually writes like that.) C'mon John, it is public information that there were only three American "non-PCF troops" on that sweep - the US Army advisors - and all three were awarded medals for the action, including two Bronze Stars.

And consider this. O'Neill sneers that Kerry deserved no more than a commendation medal for his actions that day. That means that not a single one of the half dozen or so Navy officers and crew who earned Bronze Stars - for doing no more than Kerry did - deserved their medals either. No wonder William Rood wrote in disgust, "[T]his is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. ... While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

By the way, despite O'Neill's repeated claims to Ted Koppel and others, the American eyewitnesses to the second sweep - including the only member of SBVT who was actually there - have consistently stated that there was substantial enemy fire from multiple VC at the scene. Just look inside those books you were waving at the camera, John. Or better yet, ask SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, who believes that Kerry earned his medal that day, and whose eyewitness account contradicts just about everything you've said on the matter.

In fact, there is not a sinlge person who was there that day who disputes what happened, or Kerry's medal. Again, as William Rood writes, "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."

And contrary to O'Neill's claim that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review," the record shows it was awarded after six days, and in 1996 Elliott and Lonsdale themselves insisted that all proper review procedures were followed (as did the Navy inspector general, in 2004).

Not such great research, Johnny boy.

Though maybe we should blame some of this on Jerry Corsi. When Corsi's bigotry was revealed in some of his freeper postings, O'Neill promptly claimed that Corsi was not really the coauthor, but that he acted "simply as an editor." Now that's interesting, because aside from the fact that the narrative voice sometimes bounces between first person and third person in the same sentence, and that Corsi continues to brag about coauthoring the book, good parts of Chapters 6 through 9 (at least) are virtually lifted from his screeds at anti-Kerry sites.

Just a little short in the truth department, are we John?

While we're at it, let's ask Mr. Corsi why he REMOVED the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with Gen. Giap, which hangs near Kerry's picture in the War Remnants Museum, from his webpage "documenting" the existence of the Kerry picture.

You see, John and Jerry show their readers pictures of other walls in the room from every possible angle (and even throw in a picture of Jane Fonda from a building across town), but conveniently "forget" to show you the most important wall of all...the wall upon which Kerry's picture is displayed. Hmmm, is it because Kerry's picture was displayed along with those of other visiting dignitaries such as McNamara, Warren Christopher, and yes, even ELMO ZUMWALT? New York Sun reporter Josh Gerstein says so ... run a browser search for his August 2004 expose of this particular bit of sleaze.

Of course it is well known how many other claims in this book have been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming eyewitness testimony, Navy investigators, Navy documents, and in fact some of the accusers' own documents. (Tom Wright didn't patrol with Kerry after he "complained" about him? Not true, according to the command history. George Bates is "haunted" by the slaughter of village livestock in Vietnam? His own crewman claims that responsibility. And O'Neill might want to get someone a little more competent to analyze those designator numbers on the March 13 spot report.)

For more point by point rebuttals of the lies contained in this book, go to Eric Rasmussen's most excellent online review, "Truth and Unfit for Command." (I am not able to link at this page, but a Google will pull up the site quite easily.)

O'Neill has repeatedly lied about his own service in Vietnam. In addition, his venomous personal style has resulted at least once in threatened court sanctions for ethical misconduct - shortly before he was passed over for a judgeship. Coming from the man who seconded Richard Nixon's nomination at the '72 convention, why is none of this surprising?

It's rather amazing how many five star "reviewers" have so much of the same bad information to impart about John Kerry but so little to say about the substance of this book.

Rather than recycle chatroom effluvia, I will actually review the book:

Poorly researched, poorly written. Nasty, vindictive, and dishonest from start to finish.

For example, in describing his 1971 debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, John O'Neill not only misrepresents what Kerry and Cavett said, and the audience's response, he actually misquotes HIMSELF. As the transcript of the debate is posted at his own website, how hard would it have been to check for basic accuracy?

As another and more egregious example, O'Neill posits, in Chapter 5 of UFC, that George Elliott wrote a Silver Star citation that did not reflect what happened that day. He is not honest enough to use the actual citation written by Elliott, but instead uses a later, edited version and then quotes things - like "numerically superior force" - that Elliott NEVER WROTE. The original citation written by Elliott PRECISELY reflects what happened that day - things he claims he was never told - as do the after action report and Zumwalt's monthly summary.

In this connection, O'Neill claims that Elliott had no idea there were troops on the boats that day (even though he was division commander) and that they conducted the first sweep - although Elliott's citation, the after action report, and the monthly summary SPECIFICALLY state that there were troops on the boats and that the troops conducted the first sweep. He also claims that "[t]here is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched" - but Elliott 's citation and the after action report SPECIFICALLY state that Kerry shot a fleeing VC, and the after action report says that the man was wounded.

In addition, O'Neill claims that Hoffmann and Elliott had been told Kerry had "almost single-handedly" taken out a bunker of VC - except NOTHING OF THE SORT appears in the original citation, the after action report, the monthly summary, or the news release for the incident. In fact, the after action report specifically says that "other units saturated [the] area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore" while Kerry chased the VC. And of course Elliott made it quite clear in William Rood's Bronze Star citation that he didn't think anyone did anything "almost single-handedly" that day.

Again, O'Neill writes with regard to the first action, that "most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action." (No kidding, he actually writes like that.) C'mon John, it is public information that there were only three American "non-PCF troops" on that sweep - the US Army advisors - and all three were awarded medals for the action, including two Bronze Stars.

And consider this. O'Neill sneers that Kerry deserved no more than a commendation medal for his actions that day. That means that not a single one of the half dozen or so Navy officers and crew who earned Bronze Stars - for doing no more than Kerry did - deserved their medals either. No wonder William Rood wrote in disgust, "[T]his is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. ... While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

By the way, despite O'Neill's repeated claims to Ted Koppel and others, the American eyewitnesses to the second sweep - including the only member of SBVT who was actually there - have consistently stated that there was substantial enemy fire from multiple VC at the scene. Just look inside those books you were waving at the camera, John. Or better yet, ask SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, who believes that Kerry earned his medal that day, and whose eyewitness account contradicts just about everything you've said on the matter.

In fact, there is not a sinlge person who was there that day who disputes what happened, or Kerry's medal. Again, as William Rood writes, "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."

And contrary to O'Neill's claim that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review," the record shows it was awarded after six days, and in 1996 Elliott and Lonsdale themselves insisted that all proper review procedures were followed (as did the Navy inspector general, in 2004).

Not such great research, Johnny boy.

Though maybe we should blame some of this on Jerry Corsi. When Corsi's bigotry was revealed in some of his freeper postings, O'Neill promptly claimed that Corsi was not really the coauthor, but that he acted "simply as an editor." Now that's interesting, because aside from the fact that the narrative voice sometimes bounces between first person and third person in the same sentence, and that Corsi continues to brag about coauthoring the book, good parts of Chapters 6 through 9 (at least) are virtually lifted from his screeds at anti-Kerry sites.

Just a little short in the truth department, are we John?

While we're at it, let's ask Mr. Corsi why he REMOVED the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with Gen. Giap, which hangs near Kerry's picture in the War Remnants Museum, from his webpage "documenting" the existence of the Kerry picture.

You see, John and Jerry show their readers pictures of every other wall in the room from every possible angle (and even throw in a picture of Jane Fonda from a building across town), but conveniently "forget" to show you the most important wall of all...the wall upon which Kerry's picture is displayed. Hmmm, is it because Kerry's picture was displayed along with those of other visiting dignitaries such as McNamara, Warren Christopher, and yes, even ELMO ZUMWALT? New York Sun reporter Josh Gerstein says so ... run a browser search for his August 2004 expose of this particular bit of sleaze.

Of course it is well known how many other claims in this book have been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming eyewitness testimony, Navy investigators, Navy documents, and in fact some of the accusers' own documents. (Tom Wright didn't patrol with Kerry after he "complained" about him? Not true, according to the command history. George Bates is "haunted" by the slaughter of village livestock in Vietnam? His own crewman claims that responsibility. And O'Neill might want to get someone a little more competent to analyze those designator numbers on the March 13 spot report.)

For more point by point rebuttals of the lies contained in this book, go to Eric Rasmussen's most excellent online review, "Truth and Unfit for Command." (I am not able to link at this page, but a Google will pull up the site quite easily.)

O'Neill has repeatedly lied about his own service in Vietnam. In addition, his venomous personal style has resulted at least once in threatened court sanctions for ethical misconduct - shortly before he was passed over for a judgeship. Coming from the man who seconded Richard Nixon's nomination at the '72 convention, why is none of this surprising?

If you're looking for another politics of personal destruction hate America book that accepts rightwing Talibans like Nixon and Bush while doing a disservice to our troops and the country, then by all means read this book and keep peeing in your pants while O'Neill, another KKKONservative ELITIST, supports dragging our country into unholy wars. You KKKONservatives have done an excellent job of socializing poverty and terrorism to that of a NAZI/COMMUNIST level. Keep it up !

It's rather amazing how many five star "reviewers" have so much of the same bad information to impart about John Kerry but so little to say about the substance of this book.

Rather than recycle chatroom effluvia, I will actually review the book:

Poorly researched, poorly written. Nasty, vindictive, and dishonest from start to finish.

For example, in describing his 1971 debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, John O'Neill not only misrepresents what Kerry and Cavett said, and the audience's response, he actually misquotes HIMSELF. As the transcript of the debate is posted at his own website, how hard would it have been to check for basic accuracy?

As another and more egregious example, O'Neill posits, in Chapter 5 of UFC, that George Elliott wrote a Silver Star citation that did not reflect what happened that day. He is not honest enough to use the actual citation written by Elliott, but instead uses a later, edited version and then quotes things - like "numerically superior force" - that Elliott NEVER WROTE. The original citation written by Elliott PRECISELY reflects what happened that day - things he claims he was never told - as do the after action report and Zumwalt's monthly summary.

In this connection, O'Neill claims that Elliott had no idea there were troops on the boats that day (even though he was division commander) and that they conducted the first sweep - although Elliott's citation, the after action report, and the monthly summary SPECIFICALLY state that there were troops on the boats and that the troops conducted the first sweep. He also claims that "[t]here is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched" - but Elliott 's citation and the after action report SPECIFICALLY state that Kerry shot a fleeing VC, and the after action report says that the man was wounded.

In addition, O'Neill claims that Hoffmann and Elliott had been told Kerry had "almost single-handedly" taken out a bunker of VC - except NOTHING OF THE SORT appears in the original citation, the after action report, the monthly summary, or the news release for the incident. In fact, the after action report specifically says that "other units saturated [the] area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore" while Kerry chased the VC. And of course Elliott made it quite clear in William Rood's Bronze Star citation that he didn't think anyone did anything "almost single-handedly" that day.

Again, O'Neill writes with regard to the first action, that "most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action." (No kidding, he actually writes like that.) C'mon John, it is public information that there were only three American "non-PCF troops" on that sweep - the US Army advisors - and all three were awarded medals for the action, including two Bronze Stars.

And consider this. O'Neill sneers that Kerry deserved no more than a commendation medal for his actions that day. That means that not a single one of the half dozen or so Navy officers and crew who earned Bronze Stars - for doing no more than Kerry did - deserved their medals either. No wonder William Rood wrote in disgust, "[T]his is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. ... While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

By the way, despite O'Neill's repeated claims to Ted Koppel and others, the American eyewitnesses to the second sweep - including the only member of SBVT who was actually there - have consistently stated that there was substantial enemy fire from multiple VC at the scene. Just look inside those books you were waving at the camera, John. Or better yet, ask SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, who believes that Kerry earned his medal that day, and whose eyewitness account contradicts just about everything you've said on the matter.

In fact, there is not a sinlge person who was there that day who disputes what happened, or Kerry's medal. Again, as William Rood writes, "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."

And contrary to O'Neill's claim that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review," the record shows it was awarded after six days, and in 1996 Elliott and Lonsdale themselves insisted that all proper review procedures were followed (as did the Navy inspector general, in 2004).

Not such great research, Johnny boy.

Though maybe we should blame some of this on Jerry Corsi. When Corsi's bigotry was revealed in some of his freeper postings, O'Neill promptly claimed that Corsi was not really the coauthor, but that he acted "simply as an editor." Now that's interesting, because aside from the fact that the narrative voice sometimes bounces between first person and third person in the same sentence, and that Corsi continues to brag about coauthoring the book, good parts of Chapters 6 through 9 (at least) are virtually lifted from his screeds at anti-Kerry sites.

Just a little short in the truth department, are we John?

While we're at it, let's ask Mr. Corsi why he REMOVED the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with Gen. Giap, which hangs near Kerry's picture in the War Remnants Museum, from his webpage "documenting" the existence of the Kerry picture.

You see, John and Jerry show their readers pictures of every other wall in the room from every possible angle (and even throw in a picture of Jane Fonda from a building across town), but conveniently "forget" to show you the most important wall of all...the wall upon which Kerry's picture is displayed. Hmmm, is it because Kerry's picture was displayed along with those of other visiting dignitaries such as McNamara, Warren Christopher, and yes, even ELMO ZUMWALT? New York Sun reporter Josh Gerstein says so ... run a browser search for his August 2004 expose of this particular bit of sleaze.

Of course it is well known how many other claims in this book have been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming eyewitness testimony, Navy investigators, Navy documents, and in fact some of the accusers' own documents. (Tom Wright didn't patrol with Kerry after he "complained" about him? Not true, according to the command history. George Bates is "haunted" by the slaughter of village livestock in Vietnam? His own crewman claims that responsibility. And O'Neill might want to get someone a little more competent to analyze those designator numbers on the March 13 spot report.)

For more point by point rebuttals of the lies contained in this book, go to Eric Rasmussen's most excellent online review, "Truth and Unfit for Command." (I am not able to link at this page, but a Google will pull up the site quite easily.)

O'Neill has repeatedly lied about his own service in Vietnam. In addition, his venomous personal style has resulted at least once in threatened court sanctions for ethical misconduct - shortly before he was passed over for a judgeship. Coming from the man who seconded Richard Nixon's nomination at the '72 convention, why is none of this surprising?

It's rather amazing how many five star "reviewers" have so much of the same bad information to impart about John Kerry but so little to say about the substance of this book.

Rather than recycle chatroom effluvia, I will actually review the book:

Poorly researched, poorly written. Nasty, vindictive, and dishonest from start to finish.

For example, in describing his 1971 debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, John O'Neill not only misrepresents what Kerry and Cavett said, and the audience's response, he actually misquotes HIMSELF. As the transcript of the debate is posted at his own website, how hard would it have been to check for basic accuracy?

As another and more egregious example, O'Neill posits, in Chapter 5 of UFC, that George Elliott wrote a Silver Star citation that did not reflect what happened that day. He is not honest enough to use the actual citation written by Elliott, but instead uses a later, edited version and then quotes things - like "numerically superior force" - that Elliott NEVER WROTE. The original citation written by Elliott PRECISELY reflects what happened that day - things he claims he was never told - as do the after action report and Zumwalt's monthly summary.

In this connection, O'Neill claims that Elliott had no idea there were troops on the boats that day (even though he was division commander) and that they conducted the first sweep - although Elliott's citation, the after action report, and the monthly summary SPECIFICALLY state that there were troops on the boats and that the troops conducted the first sweep. He also claims that "[t]here is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched" - but Elliott 's citation and the after action report SPECIFICALLY state that Kerry shot a fleeing VC, and the after action report says that the man was wounded.

In addition, O'Neill claims that Hoffmann and Elliott had been told Kerry had "almost single-handedly" taken out a bunker of VC - except NOTHING OF THE SORT appears in the original citation, the after action report, the monthly summary, or the news release for the incident. In fact, the after action report specifically says that "other units saturated [the] area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore" while Kerry chased the VC. And of course Elliott made it quite clear in William Rood's Bronze Star citation that he didn't think anyone did anything "almost single-handedly" that day.

Again, O'Neill writes with regard to the first action, that "most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action." (No kidding, he actually writes like that.) C'mon John, it is public information that there were only three American "non-PCF troops" on that sweep - the US Army advisors - and all three were awarded medals for the action, including two Bronze Stars.

And consider this. O'Neill sneers that Kerry deserved no more than a commendation medal for his actions that day. That means that not a single one of the half dozen or so Navy officers and crew who earned Bronze Stars - for doing no more than Kerry did - deserved their medals either. No wonder William Rood wrote in disgust, "[T]his is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. ... While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

By the way, despite O'Neill's repeated claims to Ted Koppel and others, the American eyewitnesses to the second sweep - including the only member of SBVT who was actually there - have consistently stated that there was substantial enemy fire from multiple VC at the scene. Just look inside those books you were waving at the camera, John. Or better yet, ask SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, who believes that Kerry earned his medal that day, and whose eyewitness account contradicts just about everything you've said on the matter.

In fact, there is not a sinlge person who was there that day who disputes what happened, or Kerry's medal. Again, as William Rood writes, "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."

And contrary to O'Neill's claim that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review," the record shows it was awarded after six days, and in 1996 Elliott and Lonsdale themselves insisted that all proper review procedures were followed (as did the Navy inspector general, in 2004).

Not such great research, Johnny boy.

Though maybe we should blame some of this on Jerry Corsi. When Corsi's bigotry was revealed in some of his freeper postings, O'Neill promptly claimed that Corsi was not really the coauthor, but that he acted "simply as an editor." Now that's interesting, because aside from the fact that the narrative voice sometimes bounces between first person and third person in the same sentence, and that Corsi continues to brag about coauthoring the book, good parts of Chapters 6 through 9 (at least) are virtually lifted from his screeds at anti-Kerry sites.

Just a little short in the truth department, are we John?

While we're at it, let's ask Mr. Corsi why he REMOVED the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with Gen. Giap, which hangs near Kerry's picture in the War Remnants Museum, from his webpage "documenting" the existence of the Kerry picture.

Of course it is well known how many other claims in this book have been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming eyewitness testimony, Navy investigators, Navy documents, and in fact some of the accusers' own documents. (Tom Wright didn't patrol with Kerry after he "complained" about him? Not true, according to the command history. George Bates is "haunted" by the slaughter of village livestock in Vietnam? His own crewman claims that responsibility. And O'Neill might want to get someone a little more competent to analyze those designator numbers on the March 13 spot report.)

For more point by point rebuttals of the lies contained in this book, go to Eric Rasmussen's most excellent online review, "Truth and Unfit for Command." (I am not able to link at this page, but a Google will pull up the site quite easily.)

O'Neill has repeatedly lied about his own service in Vietnam. In addition, his venomous personal style has resulted at least once in threatened court sanctions for ethical misconduct - shortly before he was passed over for a judgeship. Coming from the man who seconded Richard Nixon's nomination at the '72 convention, why is none of this surprising?

It's rather amazing how many five star "reviewers" have so much of the same bad information to impart about John Kerry but so little to say about the substance of this book.

Rather than recycle chatroom effluvia, I will actually review the book:

Poorly researched, poorly written. Nasty, vindictive, and dishonest from start to finish.

For example, in describing his 1971 debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, John O'Neill not only misrepresents what Kerry and Cavett said, and the audience's response, he actually misquotes HIMSELF. As the transcript of the debate is posted at his own website, how hard would it have been to have checked for basic accuracy?

As another and more egregious example, O'Neill posits, in Chapter 5 of UFC, that George Elliott wrote a Silver Star citation that did not reflect what happened that day. He is not honest enough to use the actual citation written by Elliott, but instead uses a later, edited version and then quotes things - like "numerically superior force" - that Elliott NEVER WROTE. The original citation written by Elliott PRECISELY reflects what happened that day - things he claims he was never told - as do the after action report and Zumwalt's monthly summary.

In this connection, O'Neill claims that Elliott had no idea there were troops on the boats that day (even though he was division commander) and that they conducted the first sweep - although Elliott's citation, the after action report, and the monthly summary SPECIFICALLY state that there were troops on the boats and that the troops conducted the first sweep. He also claims that "[t]here is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched" - but Elliott 's citation and the after action report SPECIFICALLY state that Kerry shot a fleeing VC, and the after action report says that the man was wounded.

In addition, O'Neill claims that Hoffmann and Elliott had been told Kerry had "almost single-handedly" taken out a bunker of VC - except NOTHING OF THE SORT appears in the original citation, the after action report, the monthly summary, or the news release for the incident. In fact, the after action report specifically says that "other units saturated [the] area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore" while Kerry chased the VC. And of course Elliott made it quite clear in William Rood's Bronze Star citation that he didn't think anyone did anything "almost single-handedly" that day.

Again, O'Neill writes with regard to the first action, that "most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action." (No kidding, he actually writes like that.) C'mon John, it is public information that there were only three American "non-PCF troops" on that sweep - the US Army advisors - and all three were awarded medals for the action, including two Bronze Stars.

And consider this. O'Neill sneers that Kerry deserved no more than a commendation medal for his actions that day. That means that not a single one of the half dozen or so Navy officers and crew who earned Bronze Stars - for doing no more than Kerry did - deserved their medals either. No wonder William Rood wrote in disgust, "[T]his is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. ... While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

By the way, despite O'Neill's repeated claims to Ted Koppel and others, the American eyewitnesses to the second sweep - including the only member of SBVT who was actually there - have consistently stated that there was substantial enemy fire from multiple VC at the scene. Just look inside those books you were waving at the camera, John. Or better yet, ask SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, who believes that Kerry earned his medal that day, and whose eyewitness account contradicts just about everything you've said on the matter.

In fact, there is not a sinlge person who was there that day who disputes what happened, or Kerry's medal. Again, as William Rood writes, "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."

And contrary to O'Neill's claim that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review," the record shows it was awarded after six days, and in 1996 Elliott and Lonsdale themselves insisted that all proper review procedures were followed (as did the Navy inspector general, in 2004).

Not such great research, Johnny boy.

Though maybe we should blame some of this on Jerry Corsi. When Corsi's bigotry was revealed in some of his freeper postings, O'Neill promptly claimed that Corsi was not really the coauthor, but that he acted "simply as an editor." Now that's interesting, because aside from the fact that the narrative voice sometimes bounces between first person and third person in the same sentence, and that Corsi continues to brag about coauthoring the book, good parts of Chapters 6 through 9 (at least) are virtually lifted from his screeds at anti-Kerry sites.

Just a little short in the truth department, are we John?

While we're at it, let's ask Mr. Corsi why he REMOVED the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with Gen. Giap, which hangs near Kerry's picture in the War Remnants Museum, from his webpage "documenting" the existence of the Kerry picture.

Of course it is well known how many other claims in this book have been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming eyewitness testimony, Navy investigators, Navy documents, and in fact some of the accusers' own documents. (Tom Wright didn't patrol with Kerry after he "complained" about him? Not true, according to the command history. George Bates is "haunted" by the slaughter of village livestock in Vietnam? His own crewman claims that responsibility. And O'Neill might want to get someone a little more competent to analyze those designator numbers on the March 13 spot report.)

For more point by point rebuttals of the lies contained in this book, go to Eric Rasmussen's most excellent online review, "Truth and Unfit for Command." (I am not able to link at this page, but a Google will pull up the site quite easily.)

O'Neill has repeatedly lied about his own service in Vietnam. In addition, his venomous personal style has resulted at least once in threatened court sanctions for ethical misconduct - shortly before he was passed over for a judgeship. Coming from the man who seconded Richard Nixon's nomination at the '72 convention, why is none of this surprising?