1
   

The Democrat Convention---2004

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 07:25 am
timberlandko wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
You trying to say that even you knew it was BS?


Nahhh, not at all. What I figure is that any "Dissention within the ranks" reports concerning Kerry's detractors will be siezed on by some as vindicating Kerry. That article I posted is several months old, BTW ... not "New News" at all. I do find it plausible, but I doubt it is "The Whole Story". I will say that while odd things happen, particularly in war, I find much of the "Kerry Versions" of Kerry's in-country wartime experiences to be somewhat implausible.


I'd kinda figured you might be inclined to view Kerry's versions as implausible and that of his detractors as more plausible.

Thing is, you have a bit of a habit of tossing out unsubstantiated "articles" (this one comes from a news source that asks for paypal donations) and relying on the implication that it may be true.

That something may be true is underwhelming. That which describes all describes nothing.

So I guess my question is a simple one: do you stand by that story you posted as more than just another may-be-true implication?

You've gone so far as to say you think it plausible, and other versions of the events implausible. Thing is, there are some refutable items in your position, but I don't want to waste time refuting what would predictably just because a "well it was a maybe" retreat from the position if you don't actually hold it.

So do you stand by that story? Or is it just another "see if it sticks" one?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 07:27 am
I dunno as the doorknob is set so high ... I don't deny an ideologic bent - which would be a silly denial on its face - and I don't mind a bit being engaged on the basis my own partisanship. As well you, if anyone else, have good reason to be aware, I frequently provoke such engagement, sometimes wittingly, sometimes otherwise :wink:

Of course, its a matter of perspective, but I feel there's a difference between partisanship and mere partisan poppycock.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 07:30 am
So do I, and like I said I have no qualm with identifying inordinate partisanship per se. But you seem to have deflected an allegation of partisanship by claiming you don't level such a dismissive charge and implying that not doing so was a high ground of sorts.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 07:33 am
I think you infer something not there, CdK ... I neither stand by nor back away from that article, I merely say I find it plausible, primarily from a personal-experiential-reference-point-of-view, to a greater degree than I find some other articles. I suspect, and have indicated, the overall truth of the matter is somewhat more complex than any of the accounts and assessments attendant thereupon portray.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 07:43 am
timberlandko wrote:
I think you infer something not there, CdK ... I neither stand by nor back away from that article


I'm not sure why asking whether you do constitues inferring that you do..

Quote:
I merely say I find it plausible


So do I. But with the below as the operating definition:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language wrote:
plau·si·ble

2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.


Anywho, I've exhausted my A2K time for now, have a good 'un.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 07:44 am
I believe the exchange to which you refer concerning my "deflection was the following:

Quote:
nimh wrote:
... Makes one think about a) your view of man and b) the utter, bitter partisanity that must drive you ...

I don't think there's much cause to wonder what I, or some others think about Kerry the Man, Kerry the Commander, or Kerry the Candidate. As for partisanship, well maybe that's a matter of perspective ... with each side puzzled by the other side's stance, with some given to the intellectual laziness of blanketly attributing oppositional viewpoint to shallow, illfounded bitterness. Personally, that's not a practice to which I subscribe.


I would submit the practice to which I there disavowed subscription was specifically " ... the intellectual laziness of blanketly attributing oppositional viewpoint to shallow, illfounded bitterness ... "
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 07:47 am
And meanwhile, the story with questions re the veracity or non veracity of the "Veterans for Truth" is slowly gaining legs. The gunner on Kerry's boat is being solicited by the talk radio circuit, but he states nobody from the alphabet networks has called him and even O'Reilly won't touch him (yet) as O'Reilly is hoping to get Kerry for an interview and is trying not to alienate him. (This is a Michael Savage conclusion and not collaborated by any other source that I know of.)

Savage did have the gunner on for a good deal of time yesterday and the gunner came across as credible and telling it like it is. He sharply contractits the story Rassman was telling; for instance he says there were four guys that went into the water that day and all four were fished out of the water (the others by other boats of course).

The whole thing is curious. I understand McCain is still smarting from a rugged primary campaign, sympathises with Kerry. But McCain (or no other war hero I've ever seen) uses their military experience as anything more than an item on their resume. No other has put it out there as the flagship of their campaign and the primary credentials for the office they seek like Kerry has done.

This, in my opinion, makes close scrutiny of Kerry's military record fair game.

Does anybody know what this document is that Kerry refuses to sign that would release the rest of his military records?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 08:00 am
Interesting, CdK, that you should pick as operative the secondary, as opposed to either the primary or tertiary definitions of the word "plausible". From the lexicon you cited, The American Heritage Dictionary, the primary definition:

Quote:
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.


Further, I would point to the following, from the same source:

Quote:
... SYNONYMS: plausible, believable, colorable, credible These adjectives mean appearing to merit belief or acceptance: a plausible pretext; a believable excuse; a colorable explanation; a credible assertion.


Did not you yourself engage in a bit of less-than-objective selectivity there?

"Not that there's anything wrong with that", as the Seinfeldtians say :wink:

You have a good 'un yourself ... and thanks not just for this bit of fencing fun, but for all you do for A2K. None of us would be here without you.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 08:08 am
Foxfyre wrote:
... Does anybody know what this document is that Kerry refuses to sign that would release the rest of his military records?


Yes. That would be the Standard Form 180
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 08:55 pm
A normal tour of duty in Vietnam was at least one year for all personnel. ''Many took exception to the Purple Hearts awarded to Kerry. His 'wounds' were suspect, so insignificant as to not be worthy of the award of such a medal. That Kerry would seek the Purple Heart for such 'wounds' is a mockery of the intent of the Purple Heart and an abridgement of the valor of those to whom the Purple Heart had been awarded with justification.''

Many sailors, like Tom Wright (who would later object to operating with Kerry in Vietnam) and Steven Gardner (the gunner's mate who sat behind and above Kerry for most of his Vietnam stay and came to regard him as incompetent and dishonest), stayed for longer periods either because of the special needs of the Navy or because they had volunteered to do so. With very few exceptions in the history of Swift Boats in Vietnam, everyone served a one-year tour unless he was seriously wounded. One exception was John Kerry, who requested to leave Vietnam after four months, citing an obscure regulation that permitted release of personnel with three Purple Hearts. John Kerry is also the only known Swiftee who received the Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound.

None of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for serious injuries. They were concededly minor scratches at best, resulting in no lost duty time. Each Purple Heart decoration is very controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two of the cases, with incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the minor injuries were caused by Kerry's own hand and were not the result of hostile fire of any kind. They are a subject of ridicule within our unit. ''I did get cut a few times, but I forgot to recommend myself for a Purple Heart. Sorry about that,'' wrote John Howland, a boat commander with call sign ''Gremlin.''

Moreover, many Swiftees have now come forth to question Kerry's deception. ''I was there the entire time Kerry was and witnessed two of his war 'wounds.' I was also present during the action [in which] he received his Bronze Star. I know what a fraud he is. How can I help?'' wrote Van Odell, a gunner from Kerry's unit in An Thoi Commander John Kipp, USN (retired), of Coastal Division 13 also volunteered, ''If there is anything I can do to unmask this charlatan, please let me know. He brings disgrace to all who served.''

Swiftees have remarked that, if Kerry faked even one of these awards, he owes the Navy 243 additional days in Vietnam before he runs for anything. In a unit where terribly wounded personnel like Shelton White (now an undersea film producer who records specials for National Geographic) chose to return to duty after three wounds on the same day, Kerry's actions were disgraceful. Indeed, many share the feelings of Admiral Roy Hoffmann, to whom all Swiftees reported: Kerry simply ''bugged out'' when the heat was on.

For military personnel no medal or award (with the exception of the Congressional Medal of Honor) holds the significance of the Purple Heart. John O'Neill remembers witnessing, as a five-year-old child, the presentation of the Purple Heart to his widowed aunt, standing with her five children, at a memorial service for his uncle, a fighter pilot lost in Korea. Many remember the Purple Heart pinned on the pillows of the badly wounded in military hospitals throughout the world during America's wars in defense of freedom. For this reason, there were those in Coastal Division 11 who turned down Purple Hearts because, when the medals were offered, these honorable men felt they did not really deserve them. Veteran Gary Townsend wrote, ''I was on PCF 3 [from] 1969 to 1970 . . . I also turned down a Purple Heart award (which required seven stitches) offered to me while in Nam because I thought a little cut was insignificant as to what others had suffered to get theirs.''

To cheat by getting a Purple Heart from a self-inflicted wound would be regarded as befitting the lowest levels of military conduct. To use such a faked award to leave a combat sector early would be lower yet. Finally, to make or use faked awards as the basis for running for president of the United States, while faulting one's political opponents for not having similar military decorations, would represent unbelievable hypocrisy and the truly bottom rung of human conduct. Anyone engaging in such conduct would be unfit for even the lowest rank in the Navy, to say nothing of the commander in chief.


Excerpt from the Book
''Unfit for Command''
by John E. O'Neill
and Jerome L. Corsi
------------
I don't doubt Kerry saved Rassman. Good show.
But, the rest of these mens' witnessed accounts should be read and considered.

Is Kerry planning to sue for slander?

Are there reports of his injuries? Stitches? Medical care? Normally, I wouldn't question a vet--I haven't seen what they have-- But, since he's using it as his number 1 campaign issue, it is appropriate to know the facts surrounding his four months' duty.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 09:40 pm
Sofia - Kerry is obviously very proud of his war record to be running so heavily on it. That being the case, one just has to wonder why, why, WHY is he so reluctant to sign the Standard Form 180.

He wouldn't have made such a big deal of those four months if he had something to hide or something that he didn't want revealed or something that isn't quite the way he remembers it, now would he?

Just wondering.

PS Maybe it would also help clear up the "he said/they said" controversy raging right now.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 01:34 pm
Well let's get out the signs and into formation:
Hey hey
Ho Ho
Kerry sign
the one-eight-oh
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 11:49 am
Foxfyre wrote:
And meanwhile, the story with questions re the veracity or non veracity of the "Veterans for Truth" is slowly gaining legs. [..] Savage did have the gunner on for a good deal of time yesterday and the gunner came across as credible and telling it like it is.

This slipped by me just now at the first read ... its only on second thought that I realised the wonder of it all.

Foxfyre saw/heard an interview with the one gunner on Kerry's boat who now opposes him, and judges him to be "credible".

Which would be unremarkable, if it hadnt been for the fact that Fox was handed page after page of interviews and reports with/on a whole sequence of the nine other men who've been on Kerry's boats, and who do now speak well of him -- and apparently found not a single one of them deserving of the same credence.

Some half a dozen or so interview routines with most of these nine other men were quoted here on a2k, and the Google links to reports with many more were linked in. But Foxfyre, a healthy sceptic, did not consider any of them persuasive. Instead, she surmised there must have been some "kind of coercion" at work in, well - all of them.

But when she hears the one man who opposes Kerry being interviewed, well, she neednt have any doubts - he "came across as credible and telling it like it is".

<sighs> Ah, the wonder of it all ... no offence, dear American friends, but sometimes I get so sick with your tribal politics ...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 12:32 pm
I also commented that it would be very difficult to turn down a sitting U.S. Senator you had once served with in Vietnam. If these guys were approrached independently, before all the bruhaha, and asked to give a recommendation to Senator Kerry, I would think they would not likely say no. (Recall Timber's take on the comraderie inherent in any small military group). Once on record as supportive, they would look pretty lame not standing behind what they said. The fact that the vast majority of them are pretty invisible since the convention suggests they may not be real comfortable with all this.

I can't see how I must automatically judge a person as not coming across as credible just because you have nine others who tell a different story. I can remember witness after witness after witness in the Watergate hearings, all commending President Nixon and disputing anything untoward. . .until one lone voice - John Dean - shook everything up. Even though he disputed virtually everything else that had been said previously, he came across as credible. (He is damned by his colleagues to this day, and he may have been lying through his teeth, but he was believable.)

So was Kerry's gunner.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 12:37 pm
You only hear what you wish to hear, Fox. Try keeping an open mind on the subject and approaching it as if you had no previous knowledge....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 12:53 pm
As they say in the Navy, "NOW HEAR THIS"

Quote:
"Any Questions?" cover letter for TV station managers
Friday, August 06 2004 @ 07:00 PM PDT
Dear Station Manager:

The purpose of this letter is to present some of the factual support for the advertisement "Any Questions?" produced and used by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ("Swiftvets"), an organization properly registered under Internal Revenue Code § 527, and which has filed all required reports. Swiftvets is an organization led by Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), Commander of all Swift boats in Vietnam during the period of John Kerry's four-month abbreviated tour in Swift boats between late November 1968 and mid-March 1969. A list of the 254 members may be found on www.swiftvets.com. A large majority of those who served with John Kerry in Swift boats in Vietnam and whose location is known have joined the organization. Thus, for example, sixteen of the twenty-three surviving officers who served in Coastal Division 11 with Kerry (the place where Kerry spent most of his time) have joined the organization, together with most of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and 254 sailors from Coastal Squadron One, ranging from Vice-Admirals to Seamen.

The purpose of Swiftvets is to present the truth about John Kerry's post-Vietnam charges of war crimes and John Kerry's own Vietnam record. Swiftvets is uniquely positioned to do so since it includes most of the locatable sailors and officers who served with John Kerry in Vietnam.

John Kerry has made his Vietnam record the central focus of his presidential candidacy, depicting purported Vietnam events in nearly $100 million in advertising. Copies of ads such as "Lifetime" and "No Man Left Behind" may be found on Kerry's website. Kerry's authorized campaign biography, Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, by Douglas Brinkley (New York: HarperCollins, 2004) ("Tour"), centers on his short Vietnam tour and contains Kerry's account of these events. Additional accounts by Kerry of his Vietnam experience may be found on his website.

The Advertisement

A true and correct transcript of the advertisement entitled "Any Questions?" is attached as Exhibit 1. Affidavits are attached (as Exhibits 2 through 14) from each participant in the advertisement, except from John Edwards, the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, whose often-repeated invitation to learn about John Kerry by speaking to the men who served with him begins the advertisement. The filmed comment of Senator Edwards has been made so many times as to be general knowledge.

As described in the attached affidavits, Al French (Exhibit 2), Bob Elder (Exhibit 3), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10), and Bob Hildreth (Exhibit 14) were all officers in charge of Swift boats in Vietnam in Coastal Division 11 with John Kerry. Coastal Division 11 was a small naval unit with about one hundred sailors and fifteen or sixteen boats which operated in groups of two to six boats. Each of these boat officers operated directly with John Kerry on numerous occasions. Van Odell (Exhibit 6) is a retired Navy enlisted man who also served in Coastal Division 11 on the Chenoweth boat, a few yards from John Kerry during Kerry's March 13, 1969 Bronze Star action.

Captain George Elliott, USN (retired), (Exhibit 4) was John Kerry's direct commander in Coastal Division 11, while Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired), (Exhibit 9) was Kerry's administrative commander. Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), (Exhibit 8) commanded all Swift boats (including Kerry's) in Vietnam. Each of these commanders interacted on numerous occasions with Kerry and, for example, are discussed for many pages in Kerry's own authorized book, Tour.

Dr. Louis Letson (Exhibit 5) was the doctor in Cam Rahn Bay who treated Kerry's first Purple Heart "wound," while Commander Grant Hibbard (Exhibit 11) was John Kerry's commander at Coastal Division 14 where Kerry claimed to have suffered the wound. Finally, Joe Ponder (Exhibit 13) and Shelton White (Exhibit 12) are veterans of Coastal Division 11 who were badly wounded near the Song Bo De River where Kerry served most of his short tour.

The Kerry campaign has utilized a revolving group of eight veterans from Coastal Division 11 (none of whom served with Kerry as much as two months). In stark contrast to this small stable of supporters, the veterans on "Any Questions?" have intimate knowledge of John Kerry or (in the case of Ponder and White) of the falsehood and injury of his false war crimes charges. Although many more of the over 250 signers of the Swiftvets' letter served directly with John Kerry, it would be hard to locate people with more detailed and first-hand knowledge of John Kerry's short Vietnam stay than those in the advertisement. They are well-suited to respond with first-hand knowledge to Edward's invitation. Their sworn affidavits are attached (in order of appearance in the advertisement) as Exhibits 2 through 14.

Kerry's obtaining of three Purple Hearts permitted him to leave Vietnam some 243 days short of the normal one-year tour. See Exhibit 20, Thrice Wounded Reassignment. Whether or not he fraudulently obtained these awards (the Purple Heart being among the most sacred of all awards) is critical to his true Vietnam story.

A. March 13, 1969: "No Man Left Behind" Incident

Attached as Exhibit 15 is Kerry's account of "no man left behind" where, in Tour of Duty, Kerry repeats his now-familiar story of returning, wounded by an underwater mine, to recover a Special Forces soldier, Jim Rassman, in a hail of fire pulling Rassman from the water with his bleeding arm. Tour, at 313-17. The story of Kerry's return to save Rassman, under fire and wounded from the mine, has been told in many millions of dollars of Kerry advertising. See Kerry website; see also, e.g., Kerry's full-page advertisement in The New York Times, which is attached as Exhibit 16.

Kerry's after-action report for that day is featured on his website. See Exhibit 17. KJW identifies the report as Kerry's. Likewise, Kerry reported his shrapnel wounds to the Navy in an injury report:

"LTJG Kerry suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94."

Exhibit 18. Exhibit 17 likewise identifies Kerry's "injuries" as contusion right forearm (minor) (i.e., a small bruise) and a shrapnel wound left buttocks.

The regulations for the Purple Heart are attached as Exhibit 19 and, of course, exclude accidental injury and self-inflicted wounds (except non-negligent wounds in the heat of battle). Although Kerry's "minor" bruise could never entitle him to a Purple Heart, Kerry's reported shrapnel wound to his "buttocks" (although minor according to the treating physician) from an enemy mine would have entitled him to such an award (had he not been lying about its origin). Receiving the third Purple Heart, within three days Kerry had requested reassignment from Vietnam on the basis of three Purple Hearts -- some 243 days early. See Exhibit 20.

(i) The Purple Heart Lie

Kerry's third Purple Heart was his ticket home. It also was much of the basis of his Bronze Star, repeating "his bleeding arm" and shrapnel wound from the mine story. The problem is that his operating report was a total lie since Kerry's shrapnel wound "in the buttocks" came not from a mine at all as he falsely reported, but at his own hand. Larry Thurlow, an officer on shore with Kerry that day, recounts that Kerry's shrapnel wound came not from any mine, but from a self-inflicted wound when Kerry (with no enemy to be seen) threw a concussion grenade into a rice pile and stayed too close. See Exhibit 10, ¶ 3. This "brown rice" incident with rice/shrapnel lodged in Kerry from his own grenade is also recounted by James Rassman, a Kerry supporter and "the no man left behind" on page 105 of John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best, by Michael Kranish, Brian C. Mooney, and Nina J. Easton (New York: Public Affairs, 2004) (the "Kranish book"). See Exhibit 21.

Most surprisingly, John Kerry himself (while falsely reporting to the Navy and public that he suffered a shrapnel wound from a mine explosion so as to get a third Purple Heart and go home) reflected in his own journal that his buttocks' wound came, not from any mine but, rather, from a grenade tossed into a rice cache by himself or friendly troops (in the absence of any enemy fire). "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice bin explosions." Exhibit 15, Tour, at 313; see also Exhibit 15, Tour, at 317. "Kerry . . . also had the bits of shrapnel and rice extracted from his backside." See also the sworn statement of participants that there was no hostile fire (Exhibits 6, 7, and 10). It also should be noted that the rice extracted from Kerry's backside could hardly be the result of an underwater mine, as Kerry claimed in his operating report.

The conclusion is inescapable: that Kerry lied by reporting to the Navy that he had been wounded by shrapnel in his backside from an enemy mine when in reality he negligently wounded himself and then lied about the wound in order to secure a third Purple Heart and a quick trip home.

(ii) The Bronze Star Lie

As recounted in the attached affidavits of three on-scene participants (and verified by many others present) Kerry's operating report, Bronze Star story, and subsequent "no man left behind" story are a total hoax on the Navy and the nation. As recounted in the affidavits of Van Odell (Exhibit 6), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), and Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10) (and verified by every other officer present and many others), a mine went off under PCF 3 -- some yards from Kerry's boat. The force of the explosion disabled PCF 3 and knocked several sailors, dazed, into the water. All boats, except one, closed to rescue the sailors and defend the disabled boat. That boat -- Kerry's boat -- fled the scene. After a short period, it was evident to all on the scene that there was no additional hostile fire. Thurlow began the daring rescue of disabled PCF 3, while Chenoweth began to pluck dazed survivors of PCF 3 from the water. Midway through the process, after it was apparent that there was no hostile fire, Kerry finally returned, picking up Rassman who was only a few yards from Chenoweth's boat which was also going to pick Rassman up. Each of the affiants (and many other Swiftees on the scene that day) are certain that Kerry has wholly lied about the incident. Consider this: How could the disabled PCF abandon the scene of the mine? Why did Kerry have to "return" to the scene?

Kerry's account of this action, which was used to secure the Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart, is an extraordinary example of fraud. Kerry describes "boats rcd heavy A/W and S/A from both banks. Fire continued for about 5000 meters." Exhibit 17. In other words, the boats went through a double gauntlet at about 50 yards distance that was 3.2 miles long (comparable to Seminary Ridge at Gettysburg on two sides), and yet none of the other boats within feet of Kerry's boat heard a shot or suffered an injury after the PCF 3 mine explosion, except for John Kerry's buttocks rice wound of earlier origin.

Clearly, Van Odell is right when he says, "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star . . . I know. I was there. I saw what happened." As Jack Chenoweth swore, "his account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day." Most poignantly, Larry Thurlow, whose brave actions saved the PCF 3 boat that day after Kerry fled, has the right to say, "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

B. December 2, 1968 Purple Heart

On February 28, 1969, John Kerry received his first Purple Heart for an incident three months earlier, on or about December 2, 1968. Kerry's account of the incident is contained in Tour of Duty, pages 147 and 148 (Exhibit 23). Kerry claims to have been with two crewmen, Zaldonis and Runyon. See Exhibit 23. Neither Kerry, Zaldonis, nor Runyon claim to have seen any hostile fire. See Exhibit 24 (Kranish book, pp. 72-73). A Purple Heart cannot be given for a self-inflicted wound under the attached regulations.

Unmentioned in Kerry's Tour Of Duty version are the actual surrounding facts. Kerry, Lieutenant William Schachte, USN, and an enlisted man were on the whaler. Seeing movement from an unknown source, the sailors opened fire on the movement. There was no hostile fire. When Kerry's rifle jammed, he picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade at a nearby object. This sprayed the boat with shrapnel from Kerry's own grenade, a tiny piece of which embedded in Kerry's arm.

Kerry managed to keep the tiny fragment embedded until he saw Dr. Louis Letson. Dr. Letson's affidavit is attached as Exhibit 5. When Letson inquired why Kerry was there, Kerry said that he had been wounded by hostile fire. The accompanying crewmen indicated that Kerry was the new "JFK" and that he had actually wounded himself with an M-79. Letson removed the tiny fragment with tweezers and placed a band aid over the tiny scratch. The tiny fragment removed by Letson appeared to be an M-79 fragment, as described by the personnel accompanying Kerry.

The next morning Kerry showed up at Division Commander Grant Hibbard's office. Hibbard had already spoken to Schachte and conducted an investigation. Hibbard's affidavit is attached as Exhibit 11. Hibbard's investigation revealed that Kerry's "rose thorn" scratch had been self-inflicted in the absence of hostile fire. Hibbard, therefore, booted Kerry out of his office and denied the Purple Heart.

Some three months later, cf. Exhibit 22, after all personnel actually familiar with the events of December 2, 1969 had left Vietnam, Kerry somehow managed to obtain a Purple Heart for the December 2, 1968 event from an officer with no connection to Coastal Division 14 or knowledge of the December 2, 1968 event or of Commander Hibbard's prior turn down of the Purple Heart request. All normal documentation supporting a Purple Heart is missing. There is absolutely no casualty report (i.e., spot report) or hostile fire report or after-action report in the Navy's files to support this "Purple Heart" because there was no casualty, hostile fire, or action on which to report. The sole document relied upon by Kerry is a record showing the band aid and tweezers treatment by Dr. Letson recorded by deceased corpsman, Jess Carreon.

There are no witnesses who claim to have seen hostile fire -- necessary for a Purple Heart (even a rose thorn Purple Heart) -- that day. At least three witnesses, Dr. Letson (who spoke to the participants and removed the M-79 fragment), Lt. Bill Schachte (on the boat), and Cmdr. Grant Hibbard (whose investigation revealed Kerry's application for a Purple Heart to be fraudulent), are able to testify directly or based upon contemporaneous investigation that Kerry's first Purple Heart was a fraud. Thus, Lewis Letson's statement that "I know John Kerry is lying about a first Purple Heart" is conclusively established by the evidence. Like the third Purple Heart, Kerry's first Purple Heart was essential to his quick trip home.

C. Christmas In Cambodia

If there is a consistent[1] repeated story by John Kerry about his Vietnam experience, it is his story about how he and his boat spent Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 illegally present in Cambodia and, listening to President Nixon's contrary assurances, developed "a deep mistrust of U.S. government pronouncements." See Exhibit 24, Kranish book, p. 84. The point of his story was that his government and his commanders were lying about Kerry's presence in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. During a critical debate on the floor of the United States Senate on March 27, 1986, Senator John Kerry said:

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

I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me . . . .

Exhibit 25, Congressional Record - Senate of March 27, 1986, page 3594.

By way of further example, Kerry wrote an article for the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

See Exhibit 26.

The Christmas in Cambodia story of John Kerry was repeated as recently as July 7, 2004 by Michael Kranish, a principal biographer of Kerry from The Boston Globe. On the Hannity & Colmes television show, Kranish indicated that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia was a critical turning point in Kerry's life.

The story is a total preposterous fabrication by Kerry. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie. If necessary, similar affidavits are available from the entire chain of command. In reality, Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service in Vietnam.

D. War Crimes

Returning to the United States, Kerry made speeches charging that U.S. forces in Vietnam were "like the army of Genghis Khan," that "crimes were committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of all levels of command," and that our officers in Coastal Division were like Lieutenant Calley. Kerry met on least two occasions with the North Vietnamese in Paris and is, in fact, honored as a hero in the war museum in Ho Chi Minh City. See pictures on WinterSoldier.com and SwiftVets.com. Joe Ponder is a widely quoted disabled vet from Coastal Division 11 who saw no war crimes but knows that Kerry dishonored our unit. Exhibit 13. Shelton White, a badly wounded Coastal Division 11 veteran, likewise saw no war crimes and remembers Kerry's betrayal. Exhibit 12.

Conclusion

As set forth at length, there is not only a reasonable factual basis for the statements in the ad; they are virtually conclusively established by the documentation.

Thank you for your kind consideration. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours,

Original signed by John E. O'Neill
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 01:14 pm
And Cyclo, I am curious about these amazing pyschic powers you have that allow you to see what I can see or whether or not I have an open mind. I will respectfully request you to provide some support for your opinion, please. Otherwise I will have to go with my conviction that some resort to personal insult because they have nothing of substance to offer.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 01:22 pm
err, timber - do you have to do all that bolding? it makes it very difficult to read stuff - so i end up scrolling through things i might otherwise read (unless i have time to hit quote - and unbold everything)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 01:23 pm
Quote:
I will respectfully request you to provide some support for your opinion, please.


I'd be more than happy to do so, despite the fact that similiar requests that I have made for an explanation of your opinion have been ignored in the recent past.

I believe that there is a significant amount of evidence presented by our illustrious Nimh in this thread that would cast serious doubt on the Swift Boat Vet's for truth claims.

Yet you dismiss that, not with critical examination of what is said, but with a cavalier flip of your hand - you have DECIDED that the one person in this case who supports your case (anti-Kerry) is true, not because his story is any more or less credible than the other nine people, but because he is saying what you want to believe.

People often sound more 'credible and telling it like it is' when they are telling you what you want to hear.

It is not only I coming to these conclusions:

Nimh Wrote:
Quote:
Some half a dozen or so interview routines with most of these nine other men were quoted here on a2k, and the Google links to reports with many more were linked in. But Foxfyre, a healthy sceptic, did not consider any of them persuasive. Instead, she surmised there must have been some "kind of coercion" at work in, well - all of them.


We've had many productive and intersting debates in the past, Fox, and I would like to continue doing so, but I fear you have completely left the realm of objectivity lately.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 01:35 pm
Sorry, ehBeth ... is that better for ya? I actually thought bolding quote-boxed text would be easier for folks to read ... it is on my screens, but I'm sure that's a function of resolution and browser font display selections.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 12:12:06