User talk:JamesMLane/Schachte section

First sandbox draft

I agree with khaosworks (in his comments on the main Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth page) about detail creep, and we should resist tossing in a detail just because it's true. We have to assess the significance of each point. One notable change in my sandbox draft from other versions is the inclusion of more detail about the nature of these skimmer missions, because I think it's relevant to know the circumstances in which Kerry's injury occurred.

Some other points about this version:

• I don't see the relevance of Schachte's claim to have invented the technique.
• His statement that there were always two officers, however, is relevant, because it undercuts the testimony of the pro-Kerry crewmembers.
• I don't think the Boston Globe article deserves its own paragraph, because it can be covered adequately in one sentence.
• The main focus should be on Schachte, but Gardner is also someone who has said there was no hostile fire in a Kerry medal incident, and on national television Thurlow has cited Gardner in relation to the first Purple Heart. Therefore, it's worth noting that Gardner's first-hand account of no enemy fire in a medal incident doesn't apply to this incident. Those of us who've been working on this subject a while have the details better in hand, but many readers coming to it fresh will be a bit overwhelmed by accounts of four different incidents and could use some help in distinguishing one from another.

The main omission in this draft: We ought to do a better job of drawing the connection between the underlying factual disputes and the broader points. As I understand it, SBVT is raising two criticisms: that Kerry didn't deserve this PH, and that he lied.

1. On the first point, even if we assume the complete accuracy of Schachte's account, Kerry's shot "was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment." The issue is therefore whether it qualified as "in the heat of battle". I don't know whether either SBVT or the Navy has addressed the application of that criterion to this incident.
2. On the second point, we should do a better job of explaining SBVT's support for its charge that Kerry lied. I haven't read enough of the SBVT materials to know the details. There might be an addition along the lines of "SBVT charges that Kerry lied, on the grounds that his statement that _____ is contradicted by Schachte's statement."

There's been a lot of stuff on the main talk page and I hope I haven't missed anything momentous. JamesMLane 09:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really don't see the relevance of going into that much detail on what the mission was about. A mission was a mission - the circumstances change nothing of what comes after, unless you want to go into an analysis of which boat was having which call sign, which is not really cogent in this version. Again, essentials. Schachte sez:

1. I went on missions up to and including that night with Kerry when he got injured.
2. We saw movement. We thought it was the enemy. We opened fire. Nobody returned fire.
3. Kerry got injured by a fragment from an M-79 he fired himself.

As to your points on omissions:

1. That's why the criteria for the PH is there. I have not read anything about SBVT applying the regulations to the circumstances of the incident. That's why the section needs to be organized properly, so that readers can read the criteria after SBVT's allegations that the PH is undeserved because it was minor and "self-inflicted". Then they can decide for themselves.
2. I haven't seen any supporting evidence outside of Schachte's account, either.

-khaosworks 13:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Is this for discussion, or for a draft to edit? note that anon ip resists coming here. Wolfman 16:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, it's a draft to edit, but obviously no point would be served by "editing" it by deleting the text entirely and substituting what's now in the article. As for the anon, I can't force him to collaborate. He seems to have a bit of Rexianism: "Here's my version, this is the baseline, it WILL be implemented unless people point to specific defects, and none of you have any business drafting your own versions." I hope my first impression to that effect proves to be wrong, but we'll see.

Khaosworks, one purpose for some of the detail is to distinguish this mission from the Swift boat missions. All the time I was hassling about this incident on the John Kerry page, I didn't focus on the fact that Kerry wasn't in a Swift boat when he sustained this injury. I'm assuming that other readers may miss the point also. In addition, the idea of a smaller boat, drifting silently down the river at night, creates a different background for the question of whether there were enemies on shore than if it's a big noisy Swift boat (which, I think, would often go sailing around while blasting rock music at high decibels). JamesMLane 18:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That makes a bit more sense. I wonder, though, if we can still cut it down a bit more because it still seems like a side issue. -khaosworks 21:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there a suggested draft somewhere on this page, or do I need to click through to it somewhere. Am I just being thick? (rock music, indeed. watched Apocalypse Now last night -- gives you a whole new twisted perspective on these boats). Wolfman 22:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, I see the draft now. Not bad. I have couple minor suggestions, but can't get to it till tomorrow. It looks like anon ip has gone away in a huff.

However, it did turn out to be a somewhat useful, if tedious, debate. New facts added: the Schachte 2003 'firefight' interview, and the Zaladonis quote about possible date confusion. Didn't see too much else new info he brought up, except for a lot of pro-SBVT spin. Wolfman 23:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Point of interest, both Tour and Zaladonis talk about a bunch of sampans that took off for the shore. In the Schatche account, there were no sampans just some motion on the beach. Now, I'm wondering if Zaladonis was a source for Tour, or if this is independent. If Kerry & Zaladonis have independently given similar accounts, it strongly suggests that Schachte is confused. Has anybody here got Tour to see if credits Z as a source?

Also, if anyone has Tour, is the Batman/Robin stuff mentioned? In the interview, Schachte says he came forward because of what he heard in Tour in March 2004. But the Globe article cites S, and goes into Batman. If the Batman reference didn't come from Tour, then it must have come from S in 2003. That's quite inconsistent with his answer in the interview.

NY Times "And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself." I thought S was supposed to be some reluctant witness who had no contact with these guys. I'm beginning to doubt that spin very much.

One last thing, I just read the Globe account for the 1st time. It uses the word firefight, but not in quotes.

Are we talking about the same Globe account? This link: [1] produces an article from August 28, 2004 with this passage:

Questions raised by Hibbard about Kerry's first Purple Heart were first reported in "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," written by reporters for the Globe earlier this year. Schachte declined to be interviewed for the book. But in an April 2003 Globe interview, Schachte described the action as a "firefight" and said of Kerry: "He got hit." Schachte described it as "not a very serious wound at all."

That gives me the impression that Schachte used the word "firefight" in 2003, but that perhaps the Globe didn't publish anything incorporating that statement until this year. JamesMLane 09:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, perfect. The original June 16, 2003 article based on that interview uses those words, but does represent them as quotes. Case closed; he changed his account. Thanks. Wolfman 15:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)