2
   

Debunking SBVFT

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 07:33 am
nimh wrote:

No no no that was just my awkward cutting/pasting. I posted the parts from the article that were relevant to charge/countercharge, they're separated by "[..]". In the last bit its Lambert talking again. Sorry about that, I'll edit my post.


Oh, i see now. Disregard my earlier posts.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 07:38 am
Where'd you get your info, Brand X? Some of it is just new to me, don't know one way or another, but the "NO small arms or enemy action damage" part does contradict what I do know:

Quote:
A report on "battle damage" to Thurlow's boat mentions "three 30 cal bullet holes about super structure."


(First post in this thread.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 07:41 am
Brand X wrote:
The Navy reports state there were only three bullet holes on Thurlow's boat; which were attributed to the ambush they encountered the night before.

... which HE attributed to an ambush he said they'd been in the day before. Thurlow.

So we have Thurlow claiming they hadnt been under fire that day; but then it turns out that not just Kerry's crewmates (and now one of Thurlow's) say they were; but the records, too, confirm, amongst other things, that Thurlow's own boat was hit. So then Thurlow, standing by his account, came up with the theory that those holes must have been from the day before.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:00 am
Brand X wrote:

Lambert also points out that a mine exploded under ONE boat. PCF-3, yet Kerry has claimed there were 3 mines detonated that no one else has reported. Kerry further stated in his report that his buttocks injury was due to a mine explosion, though his boat was the farthest at 75 yards from the explosion and no other crewmembers on any other boats than PCF-3 suffered injuries from the explosion. This is covered on the after incident report where Kerry, or someone, mistakenly declared Kerry had been injured by a mine and Kerry never corrected the record, but he accepted an award for something he did know never occurred.


Love to know where you heard these 'claims' of Kerry's as I have never heard them before.

Quote:

Come on folks. There was over 1,800 square feet of exposed aluminum above the water line, standing still in the water for the better part of 15-20 minutes. Does anyone actually believe that anyone could shoot at something the size of a medium house for even a few minutes with a machine gun and not hit anything?


Come on folks, indeed. Does any of this matter? If there was no fire, but the people in the river believed that there was, doesn't that still mean that their actions are brave? There's no fraud here on the part of Kerry unless there is also fraud on the part of Thurlow and Lambert, and no one is suggesting that.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:15 am
"Free speech" keeps coming up. I like nimh's response:

nimh wrote:
Straw man.

Noone's saying the SVFT should be banned.

We just sayin' they be lyin'.

Even Dean is merely saying that the presidential campaign should stick to the law and keep/get its fingers out of this venture.

Not the same as saying that the SVFT themselves should be forbidden "the right to say something during an election".

They just be lyin'.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:18 am
Quote:
Love to know where you heard these 'claims' of Kerry's as I have never heard them before.


PDF after action reports.


On the last page of the after action reports the damage to PCF 94, which includes; cabin windows blown out, but no indication of when or how that happened: steerage control aft helm inop, screws curled and chipped, main engines experienced RPM drop, which are all completely consistent with having run aground under hard acceleration: Onan generator inop, AC wiring shorted out, radio and remote units inop, radar gear box frozen, stbd bilge pump broken, which are all standard maintenance items. There is NO mention of repair needed or an inspection for bullet damage which would have been standard for an enemy fire incident. There is NO request of a below water line inspection which would be standard for being in proximity to an exploding mine or enemy fire.

As for Kerry's medical condition after the incident, there are more suspicious entries on page 8 of the after action report. Kerry's medical report lists "Kerry suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94." We now know that the butt wounds were received earlier in the day when he was playing GI Joe with a hand grenade and there is no reference to any bleeding injury to his arms. He was treated by the Coast Guard medical officer and returned to duty. All of the other medical injury reports included in this document pertain to the crewmembers of PCF-3, which suffered the mine hit.

With the severity of the injuries of the PCF-3 crew and the minor nature of Kerry's injuries, why would a skipper leave his boat to have another officer use it to tow a damaged boat back to base? Why would Kerry take advantage of a medevac flight out for medical care for an injury that had been received several hours earlier but he made no request for medical attention until there was a possibility he was under enemy fire?

The report also states that PCF-94 "attempted to assist PCF-3 and picked up MSF advisor who went overboard." Since Rassmann went overboard on the North side of the river 75 yards across from where PCF-3 was mined, how could Kerry have both picked up Rassmann and attempted to assist PCF-3 on the other side of the river with 2 other boats right near it?

The after action report claims there were 2 other mine explosions, but no one on any of the other boats recalled more than the one mine. The report claims 5,000 meters of fire along the river which would have required hundreds of VC troops to have occupied over 6 miles of waterfront yet there was NO reported small arms damage to any of the 5 boats.

As a boat Captain, if nothing else I would be ashamed to have abandoned my boat and crew for such a minor injury under the circumstances.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:25 am
Kerry's medical report, not "Kerry claims", which is what you said above.

That's just right away, the rest I'm trying to puzzle through.

Did you do the summary yourself after reading the reports, or did you get guidance from someplace? And if the latter, where?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:29 am
sozobe wrote:
Kerry's medical report, not "Kerry claims", which is what you said above.

That's just right away, the rest I'm trying to puzzle through.

Did you do the summary yourself after reading the reports, or did you get guidance from someplace? And if the latter, where?


Just reading a lot, will have to find those 'claims' again.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:41 am
Ok, here's my take so far though I haven't finished reading the report you linked to. First, PC94 was not Kerry's boat. There's nothing in the spot report that says so but Thurlow is the one who got the medal for aiding the 3 boat -- which was mined. Lambert got the medal for pulling Thurlow out of the water. This matches what is in the report. Second, I didn't see where it is evident that Kerry wrote this report. I recall hearing Gardner, the one who actually served on Kerry's boat, say that their boat was the 44 boat. Still reading...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:42 am
Also, there is nothing in this report that says Kerry was medevac'd. In fact, it says his injuries were minor.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:49 am
The debate, such as it is, has been shifting from "Kerry lied about his medals" to "Kerry lied about atrocities in Vietnam." Here's my favorite post on that one.

Piffka wrote:
Fedral wrote:
Dear Mr. Kerry[/u]
By:Jay Bryant
March 3, 2004

Because it was not my lot to serve in Vietnam, I have no qualifications (but) ...


... (to Kerry) After spending only [sic] four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you say you witnessed: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires ... and generally ravaged the countryside of South Viet Nam."


FEDRAL --
There is a very interesting reporting of the Winter Soldier Investigations in the Encyclopedia Brittanica's Annals of American History, volume 19. A good history lesson to read if you didn't live during that time or can't remember exactly how it went.

I don't think you can possibly stand behind the exact words to the quote you are posting. It is incorrect and misleading. Please fix this or explain why you are willing to spread lies. I just did a quick check on the 'net to be sure that I wasn't mis-remembering the real quote. Yours is a deliberate mis-reading and mis-quoting of historical material which is pitifully easy to be verified for people who want the truth.

Please check and correct this quotation in your post. I think you'll find the wording here, in the Richmond University's Vietnam History course;

or here in the Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University.

_______

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971 to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally....

_______

John Kerry, was part of a veterans group which was trying to make sense of the Viet Nam war experience. He had debriefed, if you will, other vets. The original material that was so badly misquoted in Fedral's post was an introductory statement. At no time did John Kerry state he had personally witnessed or participated in war crimes.

Beyond that BIG LIE though, I am astounded that anti-Kerryites have said that these soldiers "should have told the authorities" when, in fact, that is just what they were doing during the Winter Soldier investigations. I first heard that anti-Viet Nam vet "slant" on a talk-radio show a few weeks ago and immediately saw it's bogus logic.

The new Catch-22 slant goes like this:

The Viet Nam vets were liars when they reported these attrocities.
Why didn't they report these attrocities? They should have.
But they were liars when the reported this.
They were supposed to report it. They could be held for crimes if they didn't report these lying attrocities.
But when they reported it, they were liars.
ad nauseum


It would be funny if it weren't so despicably hypocritical. Who came up with that neat bit of twisted logic, I wonder... Karl Rove?

_______
Btw, following the Winter Soldier Investigations, over 75 soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes. This group's efforts to document such testimony followed the well-known 1968 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. By the 1971 VVAW hearings, the trial of Lt. William L. Calley by the Army was planned. (He was convicted in March 1971.)

Quote:
from the Richmond, Virginia class -- Richard R. Moser's The New Winter Soldiers: GI and Veteran Dissent during the Vietnam Era (1996) is the latest treatment of this subject. This title relates to Thomas Paine's criticism of American soldiers of 1776 who were "sunshine patriots" -- leaving service in the revolutionary war at summer's end. He hailed, however, those who were "winter soldiers" -- fighting year-round.

Moser's view is that there were "new winter soldiers" in the winter of 1971, those who testified at the VVAW's "Winter Soldier Investigation."

Former GIs who had served in Vietnam as citizen-soldiers (nonprofessionals, draftees largely) spoke out as citizen activists for peace and justice. Moser does not use their testimonies to examine "what went wrong" in the military in Vietnam; rather he seeks to understand the extent to which their testimonies "created something good from what was one of the worst experiences of their lives" (p. 1).



If only the saber-rattling non-combatants had been there, I believe we'd have a LOT LESS nonsense in this country. Surviving combat can make people much less likely to put up with organized lies.


Signed,

Piffka
wife of a Viet Nam vet
daughter of a WWII vet & career officer
d.-in-law of a WWII vet & reserve officer
sister of an AF reservist
mother of an ROTC cadet
Viet Nam War protester
and Woman in Black
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:51 am
Ah, correcting myself, I see Kerry's boat was PC-94 from elsewhere on his site -- sorry.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 08:53 am
Still no evidence that he abandoned it and was medevac'd though.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:23 am
Another question here...

Michael Graham noted that a man from Mars watching the demmy convention would have assumed that the gigolo was born, spent the customary sixteen years or so in school, and then went to VietNam where he remained until the summer of 2004, and has just now returned in the nick of time to run for president. That was pretty much all anybody heard.

The question is this: GIVEN the surreal can of worms which the gigolo's Vietnam experience has turned out to be and which he knew was a can of worms, why would anybody want to vote for somebody stupid enough to have made the worm can the end-all and be-all of conversation during that convention??

Again, in Kerry's position, I'd have said absolutely nothing about VietNam. I'd have talked about things I actually was good at, like marrying rich women...

I mean, demmunists are always accusing republicans of being stupid, and this is stupidity on a cosmic scale.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:35 am
Did you watch the Dem convention, swolf?

Because your premise is flawed.

That's also addressed here already. (Barack Obama as keynote speaker -- yep, he's all about Vietnam, first thing you think of when you see him...)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:40 am
Yep. I saw Kerry salute and say he was "reporting for duty." I saw the film of Kerry in Vietnam.

Obama isn't running for president. (Unfortunately)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:41 am
You were watching the Fox news coverage, then, if that's all you saw.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:46 am
FreeDuck wrote:
You were watching the Fox news coverage, then, if that's all you saw.


Laughing

I can't even respond to you anymore. It's like you fail to grasp anything that is said.

Did I say that's all I saw? No.

Sozobe wants to pretend that Vietnam is playing no role in the Democratic campaign by bringing up Obama as an example. He played a small role in a big event. I am pointing out instances where Vietnam played a LARGE role in a big event.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:49 am
McGentrix, you have a thing about being misquoted or misrepresented. Can you please show me where I "pretended that Vietnam is playing no role in the Democratic convention"??

swolf said:

Quote:
Michael Graham noted that a man from Mars watching the demmy convention would have assumed that the gigolo was born, spent the customary sixteen years or so in school, and then went to VietNam where he remained until the summer of 2004, and has just now returned in the nick of time to run for president. That was pretty much all anybody heard.


"THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH ALL ANYBODY HEARD."

I'd say that providing the keynote speaker as one example of how "that was pretty much all anybody heard" is a flawed premise is reasonable.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:53 am
sozobe wrote:
Did you watch the Dem convention, swolf?

Because your premise is flawed.

That's also addressed here already. (Barack Obama as keynote speaker -- yep, he's all about Vietnam, first thing you think of when you see him...)


When you said this, what was your implication?
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Debunking SBVFT
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 02:42:12