2
   

Unfit for Command

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 12:22 am
swolf wrote:
PDiddie wrote:
A Freeper photographed making his monthly supermarket visit:

http://www.bartcop.com/miller-hard-times.jpg


Looks sort of like somebody who might take pride in being a "transgendered woman", when you think about it. I wasn't aware any of those were freepers...


Nope...he's one of yours.

I believe his name is Dennis Miller. :wink:
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 02:28 am
JustWonders wrote:
LOL, talk about being irrational! No laws have been broken and furthermore, ...bitch piss moan Hanoi John blah blah bandaid Purple Heart whine cry blah


Not sure whether your recent posts reflect a severe deficiency in your reading comprehension ability or your blind refusal to face the facts.

Maybe you just can't click on a link.

In any event, we'll rub a little more in your face to see if you can get it (or to see if it's just plain old denial):

Quote:
A volunteer adviser has quit President Bush's re-election campaign after appearing in a veterans group's television commercial blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.

A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign has accused the group of illegally working with the Bush campaign.

As a so-called 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is barred from coordinating efforts with an election campaign.


CNN

So one of the guys in the new Swift Boat ad was working for Bush-GFYourself '04 until recently.

Just how recently, you ask? Is last Thursday recent enough for you?

Laws have been broken, all right. What's the FEC going to do about it, you think?

Here's some words that reveal the true character of your precious little President, straight out of his own mouth:

Quote:
"I'm saying to myself, 'What do I want to do?' I think I don't want to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam. What I do decide to want to do is learn to fly."


-- Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 1989

Quote:
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."


-- Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 1990

Quote:
"I don't want to play like I was somebody out there marching when I wasn't. It was either Canada or the service. ... Somebody said the Guard was looking for pilots. All I know is, there weren't that many people trying to be pilots."


-- Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 29, 1998

You know, I don't think George W Bush is any different than Bill Clinton Shocked Very Happy when it comes to Viet Nam (except one had a Poppy who pulled strings to let him play pretend soldier, a role-play he seems to like).

I think the two candidates should schedule an EXTRA, ENTIRE DEBATE with only one topic: their respective conduct and whereabouts during the Viet Nam period.

Just to, you know, set the record straight. Cool
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 05:38 am
Quote:
So you might want to doublecheck that assertion again, X.


It wasn't an assertion, it's right on Kerry's web site in his posted naval records.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 07:48 am
Brand X wrote:
nimh wrote:
Brand X wrote:
I wonder if Rood knows Kerry's silver star award was signed and possibly 'written' in the 80's by then secretary of the navy John Lehmen.

That's strange ... because Foxfyre in another of these threads posted the text of the actual citation for that Silver Star, and it was signed by

"E.R. ZUMWALT, Jr.,
Vice Admiral, U. S. Navy,
Commander U. S. Naval Forces, Vietnam"

So you might want to doublecheck that assertion again, X.

It wasn't an assertion, it's right on Kerry's web site in his posted naval records.

Yes I heard you say that - I know you got it from a Washington Times article; and in response I just showed you the actual citation that was written at the time, and signed by Vice-Admiral Zumwalt.

Its here, too, and this should be it again, as PDF file (cant check it myself cause my computer wont install Acrobat for some reason), from FindLaw. It should also be on John Kerry's website, on page 7-8 of this file.
0 Replies
 
paultnfz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 07:55 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Quote:
"Only 2 of John Kerry's 23 fellow Swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 support his candidacy today.......

I'm sure this would be devastating news to anyone running for president of the Swift Boat Commanders Tontine and Benevolent Society.

In other news, nine out of ten fighter pilots who successfully defended Texas against the Viet Cong support George W. Bush.


Hmmm, so Bush did not go to Vietnam, granted. He also did not commit that atrocities that Kerry admitted to also.

Edit (Moderator): Link and banner removed
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 07:59 am
nimh wrote:
Brand X wrote:
nimh wrote:
Brand X wrote:
I wonder if Rood knows Kerry's silver star award was signed and possibly 'written' in the 80's by then secretary of the navy John Lehmen.

That's strange ... because Foxfyre in another of these threads posted the text of the actual citation for that Silver Star, and it was signed by

"E.R. ZUMWALT, Jr.,
Vice Admiral, U. S. Navy,
Commander U. S. Naval Forces, Vietnam"

So you might want to doublecheck that assertion again, X.

It wasn't an assertion, it's right on Kerry's web site in his posted naval records.

Yes I heard you say that - I know you got it from a Washington Times article; and in response I just showed you the actual citation that was written at the time, and signed by Vice-Admiral Zumwalt.

Its here, too, and this should be it again, as PDF file (cant check it myself cause my computer wont install Acrobat for some reason), from FindLaw. It should also be on John Kerry's website, on page 7-8 of this file.


Strange, looking through your Kerry site link I saw a bronze star award signed by John Lehman too in addition to the Zumwalt signed awards.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 08:39 am
Quote:
Strange, looking through your Kerry site link I saw a bronze star award signed by John Lehman too in addition to the Zumwalt signed awards.

OK, so after some additional browsing I found what the cause of the confusion might be.

The Zumwalt citation, linked above, is the original citation, written and signed at the time.

Then a second citation appeared, also at the time, signed by Admiral John Hyland, Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet. It is a shorter version of the same.

Apart from Hyland's version having considerably less detail, the language also differs somewhat. Thus, Zumwalt praises "KERRY's devotion to duty, courage under fire, outstanding leadership, and exemplary professionalism [which] directly contributed to the success of this operation", while Hyland noted that "The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (jg) KERRY in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission" -- though both concluded that his actions "were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." Hm - that must surely say something bad about Kerry.

Then there is a third citation on the same Silver Star, signed by Lehman, which is the one you referenced and is also on the Kerry website, in the same file as Hyland's.

It's identical to Hyland's, except for in the last line where it returns to some of the more expansive praise in Zumwalt's original citation, concluding that "By his brave action, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

So, bottom line.

1. There is a citation written and signed at the time on Kerry's Silver Star. It was not only written ten years later as you insinuated.

2. There were in fact two, Zumwalt's and Hyland's. Dunno why. Zumwalt's, the first, has considerably more detail and also slightly more praise still, but they dont contradict each other and are both extremely positive about Kerry's actions.

3. A third version of the citation was issued later by Lehman in the eighties. Why? As some blogger speculated, an explanation is that Kerry either genuinely lost the medal at some point - or did throw it over the fence back at that anti-war rally, after all (which means he lied about not having done so, later). In either case he could well have decided to request the military to reissue it to him, which is "certainly something the military would do". It's a likely explanation since there are also two versions of Kerry's bronze star (as you noticed just now) - again, one by Zumwalt and one by Lehman, so it looks like he requested reissues for both of them.

4. This third citation by Lehman is identical to Hyland's, apart from one last line. Its a gratuitous line that doesnt change anything about the story of what happened and why Kerry got the medal, just more positive characterisations on his character. Why? We don't know. Does it make any difference? It makes this citation marginally more positive still than Hyland's, but still isn't as laviscious in its praise as Zumwalt's, which was the original version of events.

5. All three are publicly available on John Kerry's website, in two different PDF's, so noone is hiding anything here.

All three texts are provided in a Free Republic thread, but you have to scroll way down to find them. So for convenience's sake, here they are on a separate webpage I just made (having gotten frustrated with the confusion).

Phew.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 08:54 am
Apparently he goes in every decade and makes sure those awards are in tip top condition eventhough he once threw them over the fence, for god sake he needed them in tact for his political carreer.... as later he realized.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:08 am
PDiddie wrote:

Quote:
A volunteer adviser has quit President Bush's re-election campaign after appearing in a veterans group's television commercial blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.

A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign has accused the group of illegally working with the Bush campaign.

As a so-called 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is barred from coordinating efforts with an election campaign.


He was a VOLUNTEER ... LOL! Big deal.

Quote:
I think the two candidates should schedule an EXTRA, ENTIRE DEBATE with only one topic: their respective conduct and whereabouts during the Viet Nam period.


As Hanoi John likes to say: BRING IT ON! Given the chance, I'd ask him why he sought medical attention for the so-called wound which was, in his own words, just a scratch. Dr. Letson slapped a bandaid on it the next day, so ask yourself why Kerry couldn't have done that himself. IT WAS A SCRATCH, FOLKS! I'd also like to know why Kerry's account of the night of Dec. 2, 1968 differs so greatly from that of his crew.

Given the chance, I'd ask him why it is that he only received his "honorable discharge" from the Navy many years after he LEFT the Navy.

Given the chance, I'd ask him why he only served three years of his commitment and only one-third of his 12-month tour of duty. I'd like to ask him how he avoided being prosecuted for being in violation of the UCMJ since he was giving aid and comfort to the enemy while still a member of the Armed Forces.

I would ask him why he thinks the majority of Vietnam vets are accusing him of lying about the very record he's bragging about. Heinz-Kerry has repeatedly claimed that his combat experience makes him better prepared to lead. Since it appears he is either lying or exaggerating, I have to wonder if he'd continue the lies and exaggerations once in office.

Quote:
You know, I don't think George W Bush is any different than Bill Clinton Shocked Very Happy when it comes to Viet Nam (except one had a Poppy who pulled strings to let him play pretend soldier, a role-play he seems to like).


Slick avoided serving by fraudulent means. Enough said. It's in the record that President Bush was an outstanding young pilot and officer and a credit to his unit. He was rated in the top 10% of fighter pilots in his squadron.

I haven't seen anything to support that ScaryKerry has released ALL of his service records so I'm not getting out the salt & pepper just yet. He still has some questions to answer and those that want to see the Switftboat ads as a smear will be getting their faces rubbed in it once Kerry decides to answer these questions (if he can.) For me, personally, it's more that these ACTUAL courageous Vets are finally receiving a bit of vindication after years of bearing the cross of Hanoi John's traitorous testimony.

Just my humble opinion and I won't comment on your blind refusal to face the facts.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:18 am
Brand X wrote:
Apparently he goes in every decade and makes sure those awards are in tip top condition

No, now you're just making stuff up again.

The first two citations are both contemporary. They were both written and signed at the time.

Kerry apparently asked a reissue once, in the eighties.

Meanwhile, you're ducking having to retreat on your earlier insinuations.

You were going on about how "Kerry's silver star award was [..] possibly 'written' in the 80's". Not true - it was written at the time.

The text in the reissue of the 80s does not differ on what happened or why Kerry got it. Its praise for Kerry's character goes marginally beyond Hyland's contemporary citation -- but is still more sober than Zumwalt's.

None of the three citations is anything but extremely laudable on Kerry's heroism. So why the whole question should cast any doubt on Rood's story, as you insinuated it would, remains also a mystery.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:20 am
Quote:
I would ask him why he thinks the majority of Vietnam vets are accusing him of lying about the very record he's bragging about. Heinz-Kerry has repeatedly claimed that his combat experience makes him better prepared to lead. Since it appears he is either lying or exaggerating, I have to wonder if he'd continue the lies and exaggerations once in office.


Um.

When someone tells everyone your dirty secrets, you tend not to like him. There were a lot of atrocities that went on in Vietnam that noone likes to talk about, or admit doing... we'd rather pretend they didn't happen.

Kerry talked about them and against the war right after he got back. There are a lot of people who have been pissed about this for a long time.

THAT is why he is taking fire from some vets now.

Quote:
Just my humble opinion and I won't comment on your blind refusal to face the facts.


I guess you haven't seen that there is a lot of evidence that he is telling the truth? Or is it a blind refusal to see?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:23 am
JustWonders wrote:
As Hanoi John likes to say: BRING IT ON! Given the chance, I'd ask him why he sought medical attention for the so-called wound which was, in his own words, just a scratch. Dr. Letson slapped a bandaid on it the next day, so ask yourself why Kerry couldn't have done that himself.

It appears Dr. Letson is making stuff up. He wasn't the one who treated Kerry, according to the records.

USAToday wrote:
Louis Letson, a doctor who says he treated Kerry. He says Kerry didn't deserve his first Purple Heart because he "inadvertently wounded himself" and "there was no hostile fire." Medical records, however, note that Kerry was treated for shrapnel by J.C. Carreon, not Letson. Bill Zaladonis, who was on Kerry's boat at the time, says the men believed they were shooting at Viet Cong.

FactCheck.org, a non-partisan group that monitors political ads, says Letson's story is "based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that."


The NYT wrote:
In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:30 am
paultnfz wrote:
Hmmm, so Bush did not go to Vietnam, granted. He also did not commit that atrocities that Kerry admitted to also.

To see such a blatant bit of trolling with a "no flame zone" weblink attached reminds me of one of the unalterable truths of American politics: conservatives cannot appreciate irony.

EDIT: removed link from quote box
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:31 am
Quote:
Swift boat accounts incomplete and flawed
Both sides have withheld information, a Post inquiry shows


By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post
Updated: 11:09 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2004

WASHINGTON - When John F. Kerry rescued James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River in the jungles of Vietnam in March 1969, neither man could possibly have imagined that the episode would become a much-disputed focus of an American presidential campaign 35 years later.

For Kerry, then a green and gangly Navy lieutenant junior grade and now the Democratic challenger to a wartime Republican president, that tale of heroism under fire has become integral to his campaign. [..]

For the Massachusetts senator's critics, who include three of the five Swift boat skippers who were present that day, the incident demonstrates why Kerry does not deserve to be commander in chief. They accuse him of cowardice, hogging the limelight and lying. Far from displaying coolness under fire, they say, Kerry was never fired upon and fled the scene at the moment of maximum danger. [..]

An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. [..]

On the core issue of whether Kerry was wounded under enemy fire that day, thereby qualifying for a third Purple Heart, the Navy records clearly favor Kerry. Several documents, including the after-action report and the Bronze Star citation for a Swift boat skipper who has accused Kerry of lying, refer to "all units" coming under "automatic and small-weapons fire."

The eyewitness accounts, on the other hand, are conflicting. Kerry's former crew members support his version, as does Rassmann, the Special Forces officer rescued from the river. But many of the other skippers and enlisted men who were on the river that day dispute Kerry's account and have signed up with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group that has aired television advertisements accusing Kerry of lying about his wartime service. [..]

Many Swift boat veterans opposed to Kerry acknowledge that their disgust with him was fueled by his involvement in the antiwar movement. When they returned from Vietnam, they say, they were dogged by accusations of atrocities. [..] When [Kerry] ran for president, partly on the strength of his war record, their resentment exploded. [..]

Boats thrown into fight

[..] The role of the Swift boats changed dramatically toward the end of 1968, when Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., commander of U.S. naval forces in South Vietnam, decided to use them to block Vietcong supply routes through the Mekong Delta. Hundreds of young men such as Kerry, with little combat experience, suddenly found themselves face to face with the enemy.

Taking a 50-foot aluminum boat up a river or canal was replete with danger, ranging from ambushes to booby traps to mines. Kerry and his comrades would experience all these risks on March 13, 1969. The purpose of the mission was twofold: to insert pro-government forces upriver in a group of Vietcong-controlled villages; and more generally to show the flag, keeping the waterways free for commerce.

In some ways, it was a day like any other. The previous day, Kerry had taken part in a Swift boat expedition that had come under fire and several windows of Kerry's boat were blown out. A friend, Lt. j.g. William B. Rood, almost lost an eye in the ambush. [Now an editor with the Chicago Tribune, Rood yesterday broke three decades of public silence to support Kerry's version of how he won the Silver Star on Feb. 28. Rood has no first-hand knowledge of the Bronze Star incident.]

In other respects, March 13 would mark the culmination of Kerry's Vietnam War career. With three Purple Hearts, he became eligible for reassignment. Within three weeks, he was out of Vietnam and headed home after a truncated four-month combat tour.

As commander of PCF-94, Kerry was responsible for ferrying a group of Chinese Vietnamese mercenaries, known as Nung, eight miles up the Bay Hap River, and then five miles up the winding Dong Cung Canal to suspected Vietcong villages. His passengers included Rassmann, the Special Forces officer [..]

The expedition began to go wrong soon after they inserted the Nung troops into a deserted village off the Dong Cung Canal. As the mercenaries searched from house to house, Rassmann recalled, one reached for a cloth bag at the base of a coconut tree and was blown to pieces. It was a booby trap. Kerry, who arrived on the scene soon after, helped wrap the body in a poncho and drag it back to the boat, diving into a ditch when he thought he was under fire.

"I never want to see anything like it again," Kerry wrote later. "What was left was human, and yet it wasn't -- a person had been there only a few moments earlier and . . . now it was a horrible mass of torn flesh and broken bones."

In "Tour of Duty," these thoughts are attributed to a "diary" kept by Kerry. But the endnotes to Brinkley's book say that Kerry "did not keep diaries in these weeks in February and March 1969 when the fighting was most intense." In the acknowledgments to his book, Brinkley suggests that he took at least some of the passages from an unfinished book proposal Kerry prepared some time after November 1971, more than two years after he had returned home from Vietnam.

In his book, Brinkley writes that a skipper who remains friendly to Kerry, Skip Barker, took part in the March 13 raid. But there is no documentary evidence of Barker's participation. Barker could not be reached for comment.

Brinkley, who is director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans, did not reply to messages left with his office, publisher and cell phone. The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry's journals and other writings to The Washington Post, saying the senator remains bound by an exclusivity agreement with Brinkley. A Kerry spokesman, Michael Meehan, said he did not know when Kerry wrote down his reminiscences.

As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week, Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran.

Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. "He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end," Rassmann said with a laugh. "It was more embarrassing than painful." At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat. An unsigned "personnel casualty report," however, erroneously implies that Kerry suffered "shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks" later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received "contusions to his right forearm."

Anti-Kerry veterans have accused Kerry of conflating the two injuries to strengthen his case for a Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Kerry's Bronze Star citation, however, refers only to his arm injury.

At 2.45 p.m., according to Navy records, Kerry was joined by four other Swift boats for the Bay Hap trip. Kerry led the way on the right-hand side of the river, in PCF-94, followed 15 yards behind by one of his best friends in Vietnam, Don Droz, in PCF-43. A procession of three boats on the left side of the river was led by Richard Pees on PCF-3, followed by Jack Chenoweth on PCF-23 and Thurlow on PCF-51.

Ahead of them was a fishing weir, a series of wooden posts across the river. That morning, the Swiftees had noticed Vietnamese children in sampans attaching nets to the posts and had thought little of it. To get through the weir, their boats had to pass to the left or to the right of the fishing nets.

Just as the Kerry and Pees boats reached the weir, there was a devastating explosion, lifting Pees's boat, PCF-3, three feet out of the water.

Witness accounts diverge

"My God, I've never seen anything like it," Chenoweth wrote in what he says is a diary recorded soon after the events. "There was a fantastic flash, a boom, then the 3 boat disappeared in a fountain of water and debris. I was only 30 yards behind." Assuming that they had run into a Vietcong ambush, Chenoweth wrote, "we unleashed everything into the banks."

A later intelligence report established that the mine was probably detonated by a Vietcong sympathizer in a foxhole who hit a plunger as the Swift boats passed through the fishing weir.

Aboard the 3 boat, Pees remembered in an interview being "thrown up in the air" into the windscreen of his pilothouse and landing "kind of dazed," his legs numb, lap covered with blood. When it was over, Pees and three members of his crew would be medevaced to a Coast Guard cutter offshore with serious head and back injuries.

"When the mine went off, we were still going full speed," recalled Michael Medeiros, one of Kerry's crew members. Kerry's boat raced off down the river, away from the ambush zone.

It is at this point that the eyewitness accounts begin to diverge sharply. Everybody agrees that a mine exploded under the 3 boat. There is no argument that Rassmann fell into the river and that Kerry fished him out. Nor is there any dispute that Kerry was hurt in the arm, although the anti-Kerry camp claims he exaggerated the nature of his injury. Much else is hotly contested.

When the first explosion occurred, Rassmann was seated next to the pilothouse on the starboard, or right, side of Kerry's boat, munching a chocolate chip cookie that he recalls having "ripped off from someone's Care package." He saw the 3 boat lift out of the water. Almost simultaneously, Kerry's forward gunner, Tommy Belodeau, began screaming for a replacement for his machine gun, which had jammed. Rassmann grabbed an M-16 and worked his way sideways along the deck, which was only seven inches wide in places.

At this point, Kerry crew members say their boat was hit by a second explosion. Although Kerry's injury report speaks of a mine that "detonated close aboard PCF-94," helmsman Del Sandusky believes it was more likely a rocket or rocket-propelled grenade, as a mine would have inflicted more damage. Whatever it was, the explosion rammed Kerry into the wall of his pilothouse, injuring his right forearm.

The second explosion "blew me right off the boat," Rassmann recalled. Frightened that he might be struck by the propellers of one of the boats, he dived to the bottom of the river, where he dumped his weapons and rucksack. When he surfaced, he said, bullets were "snapping overhead," as well as hitting the water around him.

At first, nobody noticed what had happened to Rassmann. But then Medeiros, who was standing at the stern, saw him bobbing up and down in the water and shouted, "Man overboard." Around this time, crew members said, Kerry decided to go back to help the crippled 3 boat. It is unclear how far down the river Kerry's boat was when he turned around. It could have been anywhere from a few hundred yards to a mile.

O'Neill claims that Kerry "fled the scene" despite the absence of hostile fire. Kerry, in a purported journal entry cited in Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," maintains that he wanted to get his troops ashore "on the outskirts of the ambush."

The Kerry/Rassmann version of what happened next has been retold many times, in TV advertisements and campaign appearances: Rassmann struggling to climb up a scramble net, Kerry leaning over the bow of the boat and pulling him up with his injured arm. As Kerry later recalled, in notes cited by Brinkley, "Somehow we got him on board and I didn't get the bullet in the head that I expected, and we managed to move down near the 3 boat that was still crawling a snail-like zig-zag through the river."

Rassmann remembers several boats coming back up the river toward him. But Chenoweth believes that the rescue must have taken place fairly close to the other boats, which had been drifting slowly downriver. In his diary, he said, he wrote that "we spotted a man overboard, started to pick him up, but 94 [Kerry's boat] got there first."

While Kerry was rescuing Rassmann, the other Swift boats had gone to the assistance of Pees and the 3 boat. Thurlow, in particular, distinguished himself by leaping onto the 3 boat and administering first aid, according to his Bronze Star citation. At one point, he, too, was knocked overboard when the boat hit a sandbar, but he was rescued by crewmates.

The Kerry and anti-Kerry camps differ sharply on whether the flotilla came under enemy fire after the explosion that crippled the 3 boat. Everybody aboard Kerry's boat, including Rassmann, says there was fire from both riverbanks, and the official after-action report speaks of all boats receiving "heavy a/w [automatic weapons] and s/a [small arms] from both banks." The Bronze Star citations for Kerry and Thurlow also speak of prolonged enemy fire.

A report on "battle damage" to Thurlow's boat mentions "three 30 cal bullet holes about super structure." According to Thurlow, at least one of the bullet holes was the result of action the previous day, when he ran into another Vietcong ambush.

Thurlow, Chenoweth, Pees and several of their crew members who belong to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say neither they nor Kerry came under fire. "If there was fire, I would have made some notation in my journal," Chenoweth said. "But it didn't happen that way. There wasn't any fire." Although he read his diary entry to a reporter over the phone, he declined to supply a copy.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Rassmann said, "are not just questioning Kerry's account, they are questioning my account. I take that very personally. No one can tell me that we were not under fire. I saw it, I heard the splashes, and I was scared to death. For them to come back 35 years after the fact to tarnish not only Kerry's record, but my veracity, is unconscionable."

Up until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river," said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry's.

Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks. Langhofer, who now works at a Kansas gunpowder plant , said he was approached several months ago by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but declined their requests to speak out against Kerry.

Who initialed Navy report?

Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else. In "Unfit for Command," O'Neill describes the after-action report as "Kerry's report." He contends that language in Thurlow's Bronze Star citation referring to "enemy bullets flying about him" must also have come from "Kerry's after-action report."

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

Other Swift boat veterans, including Thurlow and Chenoweth, have said they believe that Kerry wrote the March 13 report. "I didn't like to write reports," said Thurlow, who was the senior officer in the five-boat flotilla. "John would write the thing up in longhand, and it would then be typed up and sent up the line."

Even if Kerry did write the March 13 after-action report, it seems unlikely that he would have been the source of the information about "enemy bullets" flying around Thurlow. The official witness to those events, according to Thurlow's medal recommendation form, was his own leading petty officer, Robert Lambert, who himself won a Bronze Star for "courage under fire" in going to Thurlow's rescue after he fell into the river. Lambert, who lives in California, declined comment.

In a telephone interview, the head of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded all Swift boats in Vietnam, said he believed that Kerry wrote the March 13 after-action report on the basis of numerical identifiers at the top of the form. He later acknowledged that the numbers referred to the Swift boat unit, and not to Kerry personally. "It's not cast-iron," he said.

Some of the mystery surrounding exactly what happened on the Bay Hap River in March 1969 could be resolved by the full release of all relevant records and personal diaries. Much information is available from the Web sites of the Kerry campaign and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the Navy archives. But both the Kerry and anti-Kerry camps continue to deny or ignore requests for other relevant documents, including Kerry's personal reminiscences (shared only with biographer Brinkley), the boat log of PCF-94 compiled by Medeiros (shared only with Brinkley) and the Chenoweth diary.

Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages. [..]

Some felt betrayed

[..] The anti-Kerry veterans began mobilizing earlier this year, following publication of the Brinkley biography and the nationwide publicity given to Kerry's emotional reunion with Rassmann. Many of the veterans were contacted personally by Hoffmann, a gung-ho naval officer compared unflatteringly in "Tour of Duty" with the out-of-control lieutenant colonel in the movie "Apocalypse Now" who talked about how he loved "the smell of napalm in the morning." [..]

One of the men Hoffmann contacted was O'Neill, a longtime Kerry critic who debated Kerry on television in 1971. O'Neill put Hoffmann in touch with some wealthy Republican Party contributors. One of O'Neill's contacts was Texas millionaire Bob Perry, who has contributed $200,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Perry has also contributed to the Bush campaign. [..]

With the exception of a sailor named Stephen Gardner, who served with Kerry in late 1968 on PCF-44, Kerry's own crew members have remained loyal to him. "If it wasn't for some of his decisions, we would probably be some of the names in that wall," said Gene Thorson, the engineman on PCF-94, referring to the Vietnam War Memorial. "I respect him very much."

Others who served on boats that operated alongside Kerry on that fateful day in March 1969 say they cannot stand the man who is now challenging George W. Bush for the presidency.

"I think that Kerry's behavior was abominable," said Pees, the commander of the boat that hit the mine. "His actions after the war were particularly disgusting. He distorted the truth when he talked about atrocities. We went out of our way to protect civilians. To suggest otherwise is a grotesque lie. As far as I am concerned, he did not speak the truth about how we conducted operations in Vietnam."

"A lot of people just can't forgive and forget," countered Kerry crew member Medeiros. "He was a great commander. I would have no trouble following him anywhere."
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:31 am
nimh wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Apparently he goes in every decade and makes sure those awards are in tip top condition

No, now you're just making stuff up again.

The first two citations are both contemporary. They were both written and signed at the time.

Kerry apparently asked a reissue once, in the eighties.

Meanwhile, you're ducking having to retreat on your earlier insinuations.

You were going on about how "Kerry's silver star award was [..] possibly 'written' in the 80's". Not true - it was written at the time.

The text in the reissue of the 80s does not differ on what happened or why Kerry got it. Its praise for Kerry's character goes marginally beyond Hyland's contemporary citation -- but is still more sober than Zumwalt's.

None of the three citations is anything but extremely laudable on Kerry's heroism. So why the whole question should cast any doubt on Rood's story, as you insinuated it would, remains also a mystery.


I'm not ducking, you laid it out there in a fair comparison which I do not dispute.

My smartarse response was in reference to; if the original awards are available and legible....why get a redo in the 80's? And as for the other copies of the same citation(s) signed at the time they occured...well that's government for ya, go figger. That's all.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 09:43 am
Brand X wrote:
My smartarse response was in reference to [..] why get a redo in the 80's?

Well there is something that can be used to badger Kerry about further I guess, if you're in for that kindof stuff ... Requesting a reissue suggests having lost your copy of the original. How did Kerry lose his? It brings up the whole thing about did or didn't he throw away his own medals at that rally - he says he didnt throw his own, he threw those of another vet who asked him to ... so then why did he need a reissue later? Not that I think its important ... just stuff to distract from the issues.

Brand X wrote:
And as for the other copies of the same citation(s) signed at the time they occured...well that's government for ya, go figger. That's all.

Yeah, thats what I would say. All the records support the account of Kerry's heroism that day, so who cares.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 10:40 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I would ask him why he thinks the majority of Vietnam vets are accusing him of lying about the very record he's bragging about. Heinz-Kerry has repeatedly claimed that his combat experience makes him better prepared to lead. Since it appears he is either lying or exaggerating, I have to wonder if he'd continue the lies and exaggerations once in office.


Um.

When someone tells everyone your dirty secrets, you tend not to like him. There were a lot of atrocities that went on in Vietnam that noone likes to talk about, or admit doing... we'd rather pretend they didn't happen.

Kerry talked about them and against the war right after he got back. There are a lot of people who have been pissed about this for a long time.

THAT is why he is taking fire from some vets now.

Quote:
Just my humble opinion and I won't comment on your blind refusal to face the facts.


I guess you haven't seen that there is a lot of evidence that he is telling the truth? Or is it a blind refusal to see?

Cycloptichorn


Dr. Letson was the only medical doctor at that base from September, 1968 to September, 1969. This can be verified by the commanding officer. The DNC lawyers are once again lying and they know full well that Jesus C. Carreon was one of the medics at that naval base.

Open your eyes and you'll see that it's Hanoi John's dirty little secrets that are being brought to light, along with his lies. He should either shut up or put up.

Whenever his lies can't be explained, we're told it's just "another distraction" to avoid the real issues. There's just as much evidence to support that he's lying and I guess you haven't seen that or perhaps it's your blind refusal again.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 12:23 pm
angie wrote:
Somewhere above Swolf wrote: "W. is a centrist;"

In your dreams.

Unjustified pre-emptive invasions are not centrist.
Scoffing arrogantly at diplomacy is not centrist.
Repeated tax cuts for the extremely wealthy are not centrist.
Allowing radical Christian fundamentalists to dictate / influence social policy is not centrist.
Under-funding educational programs is not centrist.

Creating and feeding bitter divisions among the American people is not centrist.




Swolf wrote:

Let's take those one at a time.

1. Poisoning the US senate office building with anthrax is basically an act of war; the invasion of Iraq was fully justified.

no proof that Saddam pertetrated this. Bush would like us to swallow the notion that Saddam was linked to 911, etc, and for a while, many of us did, after all he's the president and he told us the connection was real. Now, however, we know better.

2. Scoffing at clowns like Jake Shellac who take money from Saddam Hussein while the people who that money was meant to help starve, or at Hans Schlixx whose flunkies were taking money from Saddam Hussein, is fully justified.

respecting the concept of the UN enough to wait another month for PROOF is valid and potentially productive diplomacy, unless of course you have no intention of adhering to their findings. BTW, we in the US also worked with Saddam back when it suited our purpose.

3. At present, only the wealthy and people considerably above median income are paying any taxes. If you intend to bolster the economy by lowering tax rates which is known to work since Kennedy and Reagan, then you can only give the money back to its rightful owners.

trickle down only works if the people at the top RE-INVEST their tax breaks, not if they stash them away in overseas accounts. Give that money to middle income people and they spend it, generating more demand, etc.


4. I'd be willing to settle for plebescite voting on all social issues, including right2life(TM), affirmative action, 55-mph speed limits, etc. etc. Would you settle for that?

absolutely not. If we had had a plebiscite on racial civil rights including segregation of schools and neighborhoods, can you guess what might have happened ? Majorities can always vote in what they want; minorities cannot, which is why we have the courts.

5. W. has presided over huge increases in spending for government schools despite the proven harm which they do; that is one of the more major things which real conservatives are pissed off over. A real conservative would have abolished the dept of education the day he took office. For my own taste, I've seen too many situations in which goverment schools are failing despite spending $8k -$11K/child while Christian schools next door to them do perfectly good jobs educating kids for a third to half that. I'd just as soon get the government out of education altogether.

proven harm of public schools ? Christian schools are ok with you, so how about some Muslim schools, they ok too ? Public schools serve an incredibly important function, and while inner city schools need to work better, that's something worth working on, as opposed to abolishing them.

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


You and I have real basic differences regarding government, and I have no problem with that. We are fortunate to live in a country where we can express and share those differences freely. Clearly we will never "convince" each other of anything, especially when you choose to use old and inneffective terms like "liberal whacko".


As I said above, it is my opinion that George W Bush is an extremist . I bought his "moderate persona" garbage four years ago. I will not do so again, and I suspect neither will many others.

And as I also said above, it is my opinion that George W. Bush is a deliberate divider, in terms of class issues, social issues, and foreign policy issues. Our country and the world need someone who can bring us together.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 12:27 pm
Justwonders Wrote:
Quote:
Open your eyes and you'll see that it's Hanoi John's dirty little secrets that are being brought to light, along with his lies. He should either shut up or put up.


I think your partisanship is showing. Anyone can find reasons to not like someone if they don't want to like them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2004 02:33 pm
Unfit for Command
bravo, angie!

friday night we had a couple of friends over, and as could be expected, the big topic was politics. these friends, who are more patently liberal than i am, were taking great delight in making fun of bush's "beady eyes" and trent lott's "snap on hair", without mentioning the these guy's stand on issues.

while trent's fussy "official and authorized republican hair style" is kind of amusing, especially so when we consider the "breck girl" comments from the cons about john edwards, "snap on hair" is just as meaningless as "liberal whacko". none of this neener-neener stuff is helpful or even relevant. for either side.

imho, the reason that the liberals get trounced about 90% of the time in televised debates is that they focus on passion and this stuff rather than having the factual ammo that is certainly out there to blow the conservatives out of the water.

most of the conservatives seem to sit there and deliver party buzz-speak like, "strong leadership", "in a post 9/11 world" and the ever popular show stopper, "values" without really saying anything. and they keep getting away with it because they aren't getting busted by an opposition that hits them with facts. or even a sensible question like " values? what does that even mean? exactly what do you mean by values?".

good bet that the response will be something along the lines of "love of family", "faith" or "patriotism". the republicans/consevatives/born agains don't have sole ownership of these qualities. but they have convinced a lot of people that they do. an awful lot of liberals get married, raise good kids, fight and die in america's defense, do a lot of the hard work around here and even attend church regularly. and i have known a lot of conservatives who do none of those things.

whether you are a liberal, a conservative or even a (gasp!) pragmatic progressive like my humble self, we will all be in the same boat if we allow ourselves to be caught up in the meaningless minutae that distracts our attention from the issues.

the titanic's going down and a lot of people are running around giggling and rearranging the deck chairs. glub-glub!

i don't think it's ever been easier to take the wind out of the sails of the hard right. the bush administration may be quite adept at convincing people that black is white through repeated ideological mantras, but most of their assertions simply do not hold up under scrutiny:

1) cons -"john kerry has not said what he would do about iraq, terrorism or the economy"

in fact he has, in some detail. i have seen and heard the words come out of his mouth. by jove, the man has even put out a book of his plans. the conservatives simply cannot acknowledge it because they would have to respond with the facts of their record and then prove that their way has bettered america. and they can't. because it hasn't.

2) cons - "john kerry voted to cut the defense budget ! and then he wanted to gut intelligence spending, even after 9/11!"

in fact, yes kerry voted to cut defense spending. in the '80s on such things as "the star wars initiative". why? because it ain't soup yet. 20 years later they still can't make it work.

kerry did in fact vote to cut defense spending following the collapse of the ussr. he voted, along with republicans, to cut spending as outlined by then president g.h.w. bush in his 1992 state of the union address. it was refered to as a "peace dividend". god forbid we should have peace around here...

kerry's proposal to cut the intelligence budget was about 300 million a year for five years. or about 1.5-1.6 billion. this equalled about 3/4 of 1%. oddly enough, a republican sponsored bill that cut nearly the same amount was passed to "reclaim over budgets and waste".

3) cons - "america was founded on judeo-christian values"

is that so? proof please. show me where it sets that out in the declaration or the constitution.

but the opposite can be proven. there's a notable remark by george washington, a founding father and the first president;

"the government of the united states of america is not in any sense founded on the christian religion". conservatives may try to convince that "what he said is taken out of context" or not what he meant". i guess that at the end of the day, washington was a flip-flopper then.

facts and fixes are what are helpful. the rest is just white noise.


Rolling Eyes
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Unfit for Command
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 12:25:19